(Everyone) Are we required to live the law of consecration today?

[Vort]

LDS and non-LDS: Is the law of consecration something we're supposed to live today?

P.S. I have no ulterior motive or lesson to teach. I have my own view, of course, and I'll probably vote and may even comment. But (DapperDan, take note!) if you're going to accuse me of posting leading questions in order to debase everyone and/or reign in pharisaical hypocrisy over all those who answer "wrongly", please save your virtual breath.

[Just_A_Guy]

I say that those who are endowed are supposed to live the Law of Consecration, but not (currently) the United Order; and we are currently living a "lower" form of tithing.

How's that?

[Vort]

I say that those who are endowed are supposed to live the Law of Consecration, but not (currently) the United Order; and we are currently living a "lower" form of tithing.

How's that?

Actually, I think I agree with you. All baptized members are under covenant to live the law of tithing. But those who go to the temple freely covenant to live the law of consecration fully. That law has not been implemented in the united order, so of course we don't live the united order. But the law of consecration, yes, we absolutely are under covenant to live it, if we have received our temple endowment.

I would add that living the "lower" law of tithing in no way precludes us from living the law of consecration to our own fullest extent. The law of consecration is lived in individual action, attitude, and worship. The united order is not required to live the law of consecration, any more than plural marriage is required to live the law of chastity.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Vort

[Just_A_Guy]

Well, and I should clarify: the form of tithing most of us live (especially converts) is *not* tithing as it is explained in the D&C (though, for those who were born in the Church, it is the functional equivalent). That's why I used the phrase "lower form of tithing"--not because it's lower than the United Order (though it arguably is), but because our current practice doesn't quite measure up to the scriptural version.

[Vort]

Well, and I should clarify: the form of tithing most of us live (especially converts) is *not* tithing as it is explained in the D&C (though, for those who were born in the Church, it is the functional equivalent). That's why I used the phrase "lower form of tithing"--not because it's lower than the United Order (though it arguably is), but because our current practice doesn't quite measure up to the scriptural version.

My response would be: If you have received your temple endowment and if you take it seriously (and literally), you have already given as much as or more than the D&C specifies for "the beginning of the tithing of [God's] people".

[Justice]

I think Vort found the poll feature. :)

[Moksha]

So if we were all living this higher order, then could we

have universal health care?

[Vort]

So if we were all living this higher order, then could we have universal health care?

Can't tell if this is supposed to be a serious question, so I don't know how or whether to give an opinion.

[Traveler]

Actually, I think I agree with you. All baptized members are under covenant to live the law of tithing. But those who go to the temple freely covenant to live the law of consecration fully. That law has not been implemented in the united order, so of course we don't live the united order. But the law of consecration, yes, we absolutely are under covenant to live it, if we have received our temple endowment.

I would add that living the "lower" law of tithing in no way precludes us from living the law of consecration to our own fullest extent. The law of consecration is lived in individual action, attitude, and worship. The united order is not required to live the law of consecration, any more than plural marriage is required to live the law of chastity.

There is an error in understanding. The United Order was not the Law of Consecration. It was an attempt to teach the Law of Consecration but the two were not and are not one in the same.

There is also a very important point in the covenant of the Law of Consecration which has to do with building the “Kingdom of G-d”. Giving everything to G-d is not the covenant in the Law of Consecration. And as with all covenants there is much more to the spiritual aspects than to the temporal. Once we understand that which is spiritual in a covenant the temporal will follow as the night the day.

The Traveler

[Vort]

There is an error in understanding. The United Order was not the Law of Consecration. It was an attempt to teach the Law of Consecration but the two were not and are not one in the same.

This is more or less what I have been saying. Where do you see an error?

There is also a very important point in the covenant of the Law of Consecration which has to do with building the “Kingdom of G-d”. Giving everything to G-d is not the covenant in the Law of Consecration.

Are you saying that covenanting to live the law of consecration does not involve exactly that -- consecrating all of your time, talents, and property for the rest of your life to the building up of God's kingdom? If so, I differ with you and think that the covenant taken explicitly identifies exactly those elements.

[tubaloth]

But those who go to the temple freely covenant to live the law of consecration fully.

I actually I don't see it that way either (and didn't see it in your poll). We actually covenant to accept the Law of Consecration. Compared to the other covenants, that we covenant to obey. We accept it as a Law, not that we are bound by it.

[MarginOfError]

Forgive me for reposting (this is also in the other thread) but it fits in both places.

Under the Law of Consecration (of which the United Order was a manifestation), all members of the Church were asked to yield their property to the stewardship of the bishop. That is, upon your baptism, the Church would start preparing you to sign over your property. It was quickly learned that the general membership wasn't prepared to do this without some kind of spiritual maturation and preparation.

The law of tithing was given to prepare people to live the higher law. Tithing is to consecration, what the Aaronic Priesthood is to the Melchizedek Priesthood.

The Law of Consecration is the last covenant we make in the endowment. It is the last covenant that prepares us to enter into the presence of the Lord. There is no statement that I am aware of that states that those who take upon themselves the temple covenants are exempt from living the law of consecration.

The Church teaches that the Lord's storehouse "includes the time, talents, skills, compassion, consecrated materials, and financial resources of faithful Church members. The bishop is the Lord's agent in using these resources to assist the poor and needy (see D&C 42:34). As he uses these resources to care for the needy in the Lord's way, both givers and receivers are blessed (see D&C 104:16; Acts 20:35)." (CHI, 18). The bishop is absolutely within his stewardship to ask you to give your property to the Church for the building of God's kingdom.

Something else that must be considered when talking about consecration, however, is that the Church has never absorbed property without a purpose. When a person consecrated property in the 1800's it was very common for that person to retain possession of the property (livestock, land, etc) and to tend to it unless or until the bishop needed to provide it to someone else. The Church has never taught that property should simply be yielded to the Church at the expense or to the detriment of the person doing the yielding or his/her family. Most commonly, the family would consecrate all their possessions and the bishop would only accept that which exceeded their wants and needs in order to give that excess to a family or individual who was in need.

The Law of Consecration is very much required by the Lord of those who have made a covenant to live it. When our bishop asks us for property, the discussion we have with him should either be along these lines or be a simple yes.

[rameumptom]

The Law of Consecration is a Celestial Law. All members are expected to live a Celestial Law, although it is only a requirement to live a terrestrial lifestyle in most respects to attend the temple and be considered active.

Tithing is a terrestrial law. Brigham Young felt that we should probably excommunicate those who do not pay tithes, even though we do not. I personally have a problem with those who do not, because they are not living a terrestrial law, and they are not paying for their portion of upkeep in the kingdom. Imagine how many more temples we could build if all members tithed. Right now, 1/2 of our members attend at least once a month, and of those probably only 1/3 fully tithe. So we have 1/6th of the membership bearing the financial burden of the Church.

We are not required to live the United Order right now, which is a temporal form of consecration.

[Danite]

Yes it's a correct principle. Folks who are endowed are under covenant to live the law.

[Faded]

The Law of Consecration is what we are supposed to be living today. Yes we tithe and pay fast offerings, this is true. But especially any endowed member has consecrated (made holy) everything they have. Money, time, talents, everything. They are God's and if we are truly living this principal, then we will not fail when called upon by the Lord. Abraham was asked by God to offer his son Isaac and off went Abraham to obey. That is the true spirit of the Law of Consecration. Abraham lived the law of tithing according to the Biblical record, yet the true test was when the Lord asked for something that was far more precious to Abraham than mere money or property. All of us should be ready and willing to give anything and everything to the Lord should the Lord command.

In my opinion, this is the question that is at the heart of the other thread. Ultimately, if we know for certain that the direction is coming from the Lord, then there should be nothing that we will withhold from the Lord. That doesn't just include everything we own. It includes everything we are or ever will become. Everything.

[Vort]

All of us should be ready and willing to give anything and everything to the Lord should the Lord command.

In my opinion, this is the question that is at the heart of the other thread. Ultimately, if we know for certain that the direction is coming from the Lord, then there should be nothing that we will withhold from the Lord. That doesn't just include everything we own. It includes everything we are or ever will become. Everything.

While I agree in principle with what you have written above, you are mistaken in the bolded part. In the other thread, I have assumed that any believing Saint, and especially any believing Saint who has received his/her endowment, is willing to part with anything that s/he knows the Lord has asked for. Rather, that thread is a question about how people see authority and whether they are willing to follow direction even when it comes from the guy down the street who until last month didn't even get his home teaching done on time.

[Faded]

Rather, that thread is a question about how people see authority and whether they are willing to follow direction even when it comes from the guy down the street who until last month didn't even get his home teaching done on time.

Consider the sheer number of times that persons in this Restored Church at various levels of authority have abused their position to make a quick fortune and immediately left the Church.

I think that if anyone is on the receiving end of an extremely unusual request by their bishop or branch president has a duty to be skeptical -- a request such as "Sign over everything you own, do it now, and no we won't answer any questions." That's a whole lot of red flags going up in short order. If anyone here ever experiences such a thing, my advice would be pretty simple: Proceed with EXTREME caution. If you are able to verify the legitimacy of the request (whether by earnest prayer and fasting or doing a little research and double-checking things -- preferably both), then you know your duty. But by all means, look before you leap. Unfortunately, the world is filled with dishonesty.

[Vort]

I think that if anyone is on the receiving end of an extremely unusual request by their bishop or branch president has a duty to be skeptical

This is new doctrine to me. I know of no duty to be skeptical. Can you elaborate, perhaps with scriptural or other doctrinal references?

[Faded]

This is new doctrine to me. I know of no duty to be skeptical. Can you elaborate, perhaps with scriptural or other doctrinal references?

D&C 121:33-40

34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

It's certainly not a commandment to be skeptical, but it lays things out pretty clearly. Abuse of priesthood authority happens. When it happens the authority of the priesthood leader in question ends then and there.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not built upon unquestioning blind obedience to local leaders. Many have been led astray by unrighteous leaders who took upon themselves more authority than they truly had.

A more direct warning would be:

Matthew 7:15

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Just because the man has all the trappings of legitimacy (in this case, he is a bishop or stake president) does not mean that we must follow them no matter what. If a bishop or stake president is doing something that is that far out of the ordinary, then the Lord's direction is clear enough. Be very careful that you are not being led astray by a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Hemidakota]

I actually I don't see it that way either (and didn't see it in your poll). We actually covenant to accept the Law of Consecration. Compared to the other covenants, that we covenant to obey. We accept it as a Law, not that we are bound by it.

If the temple covenant is an inkling of the highest kingdom within the Celestial Kingdom then yes, we learned to practice it here in order to live it fully there. I would consider part of our daily living and bound to this covenant.

Now, if I am a brethren being tasked by the prophet of the Lord asked your family to sell your possessions, giving it to the church and wanted your family to move to another location designated, would you comply today?

[Misshalfway]

This is new doctrine to me. I know of no duty to be skeptical. Can you elaborate, perhaps with scriptural or other doctrinal references?

It's not skepticism that is required. It's wisdom. "Be wise. What can I say more?"

[Vort]

It's not skepticism that is required. It's wisdom. "Be wise. What can I say more?"

Is it unwise to follow the direction of our Priesthood leaders?

[Misshalfway]

Is it unwise to follow the direction of our Priesthood leaders?

It's unwise to do anything without using the good sense God gave you.

Consecration is another way to guide our agency and the intent of our hearts. I can't enjoy those refining effects if I am running on autopilot. No one is saved in ignorance. What am I gonna tell God if the bishop IS off his rocker? Point to him and say "the bishop thou gavest me....he made me eat."

[Vort]

It's unwise to do anything without using the good sense God gave you.

God gave me the opportunity to make a covenant of consecration and the good sense to go ahead with that covenant.

Consecration is another way to guide our agency and the intent of our hearts. I can't enjoy those refining effects if I am running on autopilot.

Why do you insist that obeying a Priesthood leader is "running on autopilot"?

No one is saved in ignorance. What am I gonna tell God if the bishop IS off his rocker? Point to him and say "the bishop thou gavest me....he made me eat."

Perhaps. Or maybe, "The bishop had the keys of leadership and the authority to request my stewarship. I recognized thine authority in him and honored it."

[Misshalfway]

I choose to support my bishop. I listen to his counsel and I make my own decisions about it. THAT is the ONLY gift I have to give. Hopefully, I get to the point where I obey the parameters of my covenants for more reasons than just because I said I would. Following a bishop who is headed in the way of apostasy is NOT fulfilling my convent obligations. In fact, holding back and waiting for God to instruct would be.