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

[mnn727]

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?

Exactly

[Vort]

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.

How is this any different from obeying the president of the Church?

Hopefully, I get to the point where I obey the parameters of my covenants for more reasons than just because I said I would.

Sure, but it's a start. Any kind of obedience is better than disobedience.

Following a bishop who is headed in the way of apostasy is NOT fulfilling my convent obligations.

Are you in a position to pass judgment on your bishop?

In fact, holding back and waiting for God to instruct would be.

Which part of your covenant instructs you not to obey your bishop until God himself speaks to you?

[Misshalfway]

How is this any different from obeying the president of the Church?

It's not.

Are you in a position to pass judgment on your bishop?

I am not passing "judgment". I am determining how I will obey and under what conditions I will do so. If my bishop wanted me to do something that didn't feel right to me, I have no obligation to do what he says.

Which part of your covenant instructs you not to obey your bishop until God himself speaks to you?

My covenants to this gospel OBLIGATE ME to seek the spirit in all things. I do not follow man. I follow the spirit. When the spirit accompanies the words or actions of man, that is the conditions upon which I follow them.

[Connie]

Just some reading material for anyone interested:

This one references blind obedience:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Faith Obedience

A few on consecration:

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Consecrate Thy Performance

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Personal Consecration

LDS.org - Ensign Article - Come to Zion

LDS.org - Ensign Article - “Settle This in Your Heartsâ€

Edited November 13, 2009 by Connie

[Just_A_Guy]

How is this any different from obeying the president of the Church?

To put it bluntly: I've never yet seen a president of the Church misappropriate church funds, or get convicted of doing bad things to six-year-olds, or personally see him violate a confidence shared in the privacy of his office.

Much as I respect bishops, I've seen (rare) instances of their doing all three. So no; I'm not going to jeopardize my ability to feed my kids because one individual bishop--acting completely beyond the scope of church precedent or the public statements of the general authorities--asks that I do so. Not without some additional revelation.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Misshalfway]

To put it bluntly: I've never yet seen a president of the Church misappropriate church funds, or get convicted of doing bad things to six-year-olds, or personally see him violate a confidence shared in the privacy of his office.

.

I wish I could say the same thing about bishops.

[Misshalfway]

Vort, let's just say I don't obey the counsel of the bishop when I should. The spirit teaches me in that circumstance too. My conscience is pricked or my path is stopped in some other way. Then I know I need to repent and change my course.

What if the SP/bish does something or says something wrong? Isn't it our right to be protected by God's influence?

[ruthiechan]

Why would anyone have a problem with someone wanting their own personal revelation about something that a Bishop, or even a General Authority, asks us to do? We are encouraged to study things out and to gain our own personal revelations.

Giving over one's property or home would be difficult. Needing additional revelation and some time to come to grips with what is being asked is not a bad and does not mean that you do not support church authorities.

[Vort]

How is this any different from obeying the president of the Church?

It's not.

So then, if President Monson personally instructed you to sign over your house and possessions to the Church, you would refuse to do so until you received adequate and convincing spiritual confirmation of the directive?

Are you in a position to pass judgment on your bishop?

I am not passing "judgment".

You wrote: "Following a bishop who is headed in the way of apostasy is NOT fulfilling my convent obligations." Determining that the bishop in question "is headed in the way of apostasy" requires passing judgment on him.

I am determining how I will obey and under what conditions I will do so. If my bishop wanted me to do something that didn't feel right to me, I have no obligation to do what he says.

I assume that if President Monson wants you to do something that doesn't feel right to you, you likewise have no obligation to do what he says. Correct?

Do you believe this also applied to the early Saints of this dispensation who were instructed to live plural marriage?

My covenants to this gospel OBLIGATE ME to seek the spirit in all things. I do not follow man. I follow the spirit. When the spirit accompanies the words or actions of man, that is the conditions upon which I follow them.

What does it mean for a man to be authorized of God? Does that not then mean that he speaks with the authority of the Spirit?

If you fail to obtain the Spirit in a thing, do you believe that means you are obligated not to obey in that thing? For example, if you didn't receive a testimony of tithing, are you therefore under covenant obligation NOT to pay tithing until you have received that witness? Because you surely realize that this is in direct conflict with the teaching found in Ether 12:6, that "ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith."

[Vort]

Vort, let's just say I don't obey the counsel of the bishop when I should. The spirit teaches me in that circumstance too. My conscience is pricked or my path is stopped in some other way. Then I know I need to repent and change my course.

So then, disobedience is always the safer course, because God can always correct us. Is this what you're saying?

What if the SP/bish does something or says something wrong? Isn't it our right to be protected by God's influence?

Jesus told his disciples to submit to the requirements of the scribes and Pharisees merely by virtue of their position of "sit[ting] in Moses' seat", despite their manifest hypocrisy. So yes, it is your right to be protected by God's influence, but that does not mean you are justified in disobeying legitimate leaders, even if [you think] they may be wrong.

Just how important do you think your house is, anyway?

[Vort]

Why would anyone have a problem with someone wanting their own personal revelation about something that a Bishop, or even a General Authority, asks us to do? We are encouraged to study things out and to gain our own personal revelations.

Has anyone suggested that such a thing is problematic?

Giving over one's property or home would be difficult. Needing additional revelation and some time to come to grips with what is being asked is not a bad

Is that true with other commandments? Am I justified in saying, "Lord, I need additional revelation regarding the law of chastity, and I have no intention of abrogating my free agency by living such a stupid law until and unless you provide me convincing revelation and some time to come to grips with this"?

I submit that sexuality is far more important than a house.

and does not mean that you do not support church authorities.

Do you likewise agree that refusing to abide by the laws of chastity, tithing, and the word of wisdom until you have received sufficiently convincing revelation also "does not mean that you do not support church authorities"?

[ViolinGirl]

If you expect God to bless you, I believe that paying your tithes is important. God won't bless someone who doesn't submit to his requirements.

[ruthiechan]

Has anyone suggested that such a thing is problematic?

Not directly but that's the message I am getting out of this.

Is that true with other commandments? Am I justified in saying, "Lord, I need additional revelation regarding the law of chastity, and I have no intention of abrogating my free agency by living such a stupid law until and unless you provide me convincing revelation and some time to come to grips with this"?

I submit that sexuality is far more important than a house.

It's all in how you ask the question. Joseph Smith did not say, "I'm going to follow this protestant faith until you tell me otherwise" he asked, "which church is correct that I may join them." Completely different attitudes.

Do you likewise agree that refusing to abide by the laws of chastity, tithing, and the word of wisdom until you have received sufficiently convincing revelation also "does not mean that you do not support church authorities"?

This is where the witness is received after the trial of your faith comes in. Following the direction to test your faith under those circumstances would not potentially harm you or your family, unlike signing away your house which could leave you homeless.

[Vort]

Not directly but that's the message I am getting out of this.

Then perhaps the problem is your interpretation.

Is that true with other commandments? Am I justified in saying, "Lord, I need additional revelation regarding the law of chastity, and I have no intention of abrogating my free agency by living such a stupid law until and unless you provide me convincing revelation and some time to come to grips with this"?

I submit that sexuality is far more important than a house.

It's all in how you ask the question. Joseph Smith did not say, "I'm going to follow this protestant faith until you tell me otherwise" he asked, "which church is correct that I may join them." Completely different attitudes.

So then, what is the appropriate attitude to take if your bishop asks you to sign your house over? "Not on your life! Unless I receive absolute confirmation from God FIRST!"?

Do you likewise agree that refusing to abide by the laws of chastity, tithing, and the word of wisdom until you have received sufficiently convincing revelation also "does not mean that you do not support church authorities"?

This is where the witness is received after the trial of your faith comes in. Following the direction to test your faith under those circumstances would not potentially harm you or your family, unlike signing away your house which could leave you homeless.

On the contrary, many people have exposed themselves and their families to potentially grave harm by paying tithing when they didn't have enough money to make rent or buy food. Yet the principle of obedience still applied to them. Why is signing over your house so fundamentally different?

[Misshalfway]

Vort, I just don't have the energy to go thru each line and answer you. It honestly feels like you are deliberately trying to miss the point. So.... I'll let you miss the point and I will wait for the day when Pres Monson calls to ask for my house and then I would pm you and tell you how kind he was in encouraging me to go home and pray with my H for spiritual confirmation of what he was asking. And then I would tell him, don't need to. THe spirit just spoke to my heart.

[Vort]

Vort, I just don't have the energy to go thru each line and answer you.

I'll try to make it easier.

It honestly feels like you are deliberately trying to miss the point.

Then you will be happy to know that you are mistaken. I am not deliberately missing any point. It appears that you are totally missing the point, though I choose to believe that you are not deliberately doing so. Frankly, you have been much sweeter and kinder in your conversation than some others, which I appreciate. I apologize for my own occasional snippiness toward you -- including in my initial response in this post.

I'll summarize a few of my questions that you have not yet answered to save you the energy of going back and answering them in the original posts, and hope you'll do me the favor of answering them now.

• Why do you think that obeying a Priesthood leader is "running on autopilot"?
• Which part of your covenant instructs you not to obey your bishop until God himself speaks to you?
• You claimed that obeying instruction from your bishop was no different from obeying the instruction from President Monson. You also claim in this most recent post that you would not bother to pray for verification about President Monson's instruction, because "THe spirit just spoke to my heart." Then why do you balk at doing the same with your bishop? Are you now claiming that they are in fact not the same?
• I assume that if President Monson wants you to do something that doesn't feel right to you, you believe that you likewise have no obligation to do what he says. Correct? Do you believe this also applied to the early Saints of this dispensation who were instructed to live plural marriage?
• You claim that "My covenants to this gospel OBLIGATE ME to seek the spirit in all things." If you fail to obtain the Spirit in a thing, do you therefore believe that means you are obligated not to obey in that thing? For example, if you didn't receive a testimony of tithing, are you therefore under covenant obligation NOT to pay tithing until you have received that witness? Because you surely realize that this is in direct conflict with the teaching found in Ether 12:6, that "ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith."
• You also wrote, "[L]et's just say I don't obey the counsel of the bishop when I should. The spirit teaches me in that circumstance too. My conscience is pricked or my path is stopped in some other way. Then I know I need to repent and change my course." So then, are you saying that disobedience is always the safer course, because God can always correct us? If not, what was your point?

Edited November 13, 2009 by Vort

[Moksha]

Vort, is it possible that blind faith could allow us to fulfill a command, yet be at odds or at least variance with the spirit?

Are you a Star Trek fan? If I remember right, Commander Data, even though he was an android and had a keen sense of obeying orders, still questioned those orders when they endangered the mission or the Prime Directive.

[Vort]

Vort, is it possible that blind faith could allow us to fulfill a command, yet be at odds or at least variance with the spirit?

I am not sure, Moksha, because I don't know what "blind faith" means. I have asked Miss½ and others for clarification on the issues of "blind faith" and "blind obedience", but so far no one was explained to me what they mean. Can you do so?

[Guest]

Vort, yes you are being really obtuse.

1/2way has a point and you are skating around it by bullet-point.

Since we're crossing threads now, I will write this here. Let me help 1/2way out some.

IF YOU are living righteously, YOU WILL KNOW if the Prophet of God is of God. You will have a testimony of it. You do not just follow him just because. You will follow him because of your testimony. This testimony is renewed every single time you get a new prophet. Hence, you raise your right hand and sustain him.

Same with the bishop. IF YOU are living righteously, YOU WILL KNOW if the bishop is of God because of your testimony. WHEN THE BISHOP falls off the track, YOU WILL KNOW as well. And this is the personal testimony that you consult when asked to hand over your house.

Now, if you were living unrighteously, then it doesn't matter if you hand over your house or not.

What really bugs me in your line-by-line rebuttals is your inability to recognize that every righteous member of this church is capable of personal revelation which is just as valid as a bishop's! You seem to have this notion that 1/2way would fail to recognize the truth of the words of the prophet/bishop and reject his counsel! If it is true, 1/2way will know it. If it is not true, likewise.

Now, afford every righteous member of this church this courtesy and maybe we'll start to see eye-to-eye.

[Guest]

I am not sure, Moksha, because I don't know what "blind faith" means. I have asked Miss½ and others for clarification on the issues of "blind faith" and "blind obedience", but so far no one was explained to me what they mean. Can you do so?

I can in one word. Sheeples.

If you want a sentence, here it is: Blind faith is following without having a testimony of what it is you're following. My 6-year-old is going by blind faith right now. My 8-year-old, hopefully, has gone past that. I would hope everybody with a temple recommend has gone past that as well.

[Moksha]

I am not sure, Moksha, because I don't know what "blind faith" means. I have asked Miss½ and others for clarification on the issues of "blind faith" and "blind obedience", but so far no one was explained to me what they mean. Can you do so?

Blind in this sense would be synonymous with unquestioning. For instance, like in the movie Conan the Barbarian, the girl stepped off the high ledge and plunged to her death because James Earl Jones asked her to do so. She placed unquestioning faith and obedience in Jones' movie character.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Moksha

[Misshalfway]

I'll try to make it easier.

Then you will be happy to know that you are mistaken. I am not deliberately missing any point. It appears that you are totally missing the point, though I choose to believe that you are not deliberately doing so. Frankly, you have been much sweeter and kinder in your conversation than some others, which I appreciate. I apologize for my own occasional snippiness toward you -- including in my initial response in this post.

I'll summarize a few of my questions that you have not yet answered to save you the energy of going back and answering them in the original posts, and hope you'll do me the favor of answering them now.

• Why do you think that obeying a Priesthood leader is "running on autopilot"?
• Which part of your covenant instructs you not to obey your bishop until God himself speaks to you?
• You claimed that obeying instruction from your bishop was no different from obeying the instruction from President Monson. You also claim in this most recent post that you would not bother to pray for verification about President Monson's instruction, because "THe spirit just spoke to my heart." Then why do you balk at doing the same with your bishop? Are you now claiming that they are in fact not the same?
• I assume that if President Monson wants you to do something that doesn't feel right to you, you believe that you likewise have no obligation to do what he says. Correct? Do you believe this also applied to the early Saints of this dispensation who were instructed to live plural marriage?
• You claim that "My covenants to this gospel OBLIGATE ME to seek the spirit in all things." If you fail to obtain the Spirit in a thing, do you therefore believe that means you are obligated not to obey in that thing? For example, if you didn't receive a testimony of tithing, are you therefore under covenant obligation NOT to pay tithing until you have received that witness? Because you surely realize that this is in direct conflict with the teaching found in Ether 12:6, that "ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith."
• You also wrote, "[L]et's just say I don't obey the counsel of the bishop when I should. The spirit teaches me in that circumstance too. My conscience is pricked or my path is stopped in some other way. Then I know I need to repent and change my course." So then, are you saying that disobedience is always the safer course, because God can always correct us? If not, what was your point?

1. I don't.

2. That isn't what I said, nor the position I would take.

3. In my life long experience with listening to prophets and trying to heed their counsel, it has been my experience to enjoy the blessings of spiritual tutorials when their words are spoken. Following the prophets and following the spirit becomes a simultaeous and streamlined process. There have been very few, if I can even remember one, where I disagreed ... or agreed for that matter.... with the brethren without the presence of the spirit.

I have not had such an experience with bishops. In fact, quite the opposite. In fact, just recently I sat down with my bishop. His counsel felt off to me and even wrong. I explained the difference I felt between his words and the spirit in my heart. He left the meeting and went home and prayed. He came back with a different attitude and words that felt very clearly close to the communications I was getting from the spirit. I am glad I trusted the spirit. I am blessed too with a humble bishop.

I could keep listing experiences if that would help drive the point home.

5. If the prophet said something that felt wrong to me, it would then be my work to find out why. Is it me? What part of my heart isn't in the right place? I would, again, go to the Lord for help. And as near perfect as I want the prophets to be, they are still human and still subject to the frailties of what it means to be human. I support them, even in their weakness. Even the early saints needed to pray for strength to obey. Once they understood that the command came from God, they complied. But as I recall, many were alarmed and angry at the beginning. Something I feel is absolutely ok. God lets us process things and our emotions help us do that. Such is NOT a sign that devotion is weak.

Vort, I am not in this church only because of what the brethren say or because JS had a compelling story. I am not in this church because mormons are good people and their family values work well or even because this is the way I was raised. I am a mormon because the communications of the spirit period. Believe me. If not for the spirit, I would have been gone a long time ago. Thank God in Heaven for His tender mercies and his patience and his spiritual support systems.

6. This is where you are deliberately turning my words against me.

7. No I am not saying that obedience is safer ... and I think you know that. My point is that God talks to me about what's right and wrong.....among other things. I will and have given my heart and soul and all my time and stuff to this kingdom of God. But I also know this church and the people in it are not perfect. I trust as far as the spirit takes me. If someone asks something of me that is NOT the will of God, I trust the Lord to make me aware of it so that I can protect myself and my family. This is where I place my faith and the conditions upon which I can give my devotion in safety.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Misshalfway

[prisonchaplain]

Line upon line, precept upon precept...this string opened up a brand new doctrine to me. IMHO, it's not a different form of tithing. It's a bond of unity. If your church is all it claims to be, then what a tremendous fellowship you have. If it's anything less, or if there is any renegade bishop out their who might use position for personal gain...

[Vort]

Vort, yes you are being really obtuse.

Thanks for your charitable assessment. I'll keep it in mind in future dealings with you.

1/2way has a point and you are skating around it by bullet-point.

On the contrary, I have been as explicit as I know how to be in trying to clarify what she meant.

IF YOU are living righteously, YOU WILL KNOW if the Prophet of God is of God. You will have a testimony of it. You do not just follow him just because. You will follow him because of your testimony. This testimony is renewed every single time you get a new prophet. Hence, you raise your right hand and sustain him.

Same with the bishop. IF YOU are living righteously, YOU WILL KNOW if the bishop is of God because of your testimony. WHEN THE BISHOP falls off the track, YOU WILL KNOW as well. And this is the personal testimony that you consult when asked to hand over your house.

Okay...so then, as long as you had been given a testimony of your bishop's Godly calling, then you would sign over your house. Right?

What really bugs me in your line-by-line rebuttals is your inability to recognize that every righteous member of this church is capable of personal revelation which is just as valid as a bishop's!

Three thoughts on that:

• What did I write that indicates anything even remotely approaching what you claim?
• Even if we assume what you write is true -- why should that "really bug" you?
• If you are "really bugged" by something I say, that sounds like your problem, not mine. Why is it my responsibility to fix something that bugs you?

You seem to have this notion that 1/2way would fail to recognize the truth of the words of the prophet/bishop and reject his counsel!

I claim that you are making a false accusation, anatess. Please back up (or else retract) this false statement.

Now, afford every righteous member of this church this courtesy and maybe we'll start to see eye-to-eye.

Which courtesy, anatess? The courtesy of avoiding false accusations?

I can in one word. Sheeples.

Sorry, but that does not help at all.

If you want a sentence, here it is: Blind faith is following without having a testimony of what it is you're following.

Yet we are taught that we receive no witness until AFTER the trial of our faith. We do not tell people to gain a testimony of the Word of Wisdom, and then go ahead and live it. We do not tell people to gain a testimony of tithing, and then go ahead and start paying it. Testimony FOLLOWS obedience.

In other words, your definition of "blind faith" sounds to me like plain old faith. Your implicit definition of "informed faith" sounds to me like faithlessness.

[Vort]

Blind in this sense would be synonymous with unquestioning. For instance, like in the movie Conan the Barbarian, the girl stepped off the high ledge and plunged to her death because James Earl Jones asked her to do so. She placed unquestioning faith and obedience in Jones' movie character.

So we are not to have unquestioning (that is, "blind") faith in God?