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

[Connie]

The article i referenced (see post #30) had this to say about "blind obedience."

"One of the sneaky ploys of the adversary is to have us believe that unquestioning obedience to the principles and commandments of God is blind obedience. His goal is to have us believe that we should be following our own worldly ways and selfish ambitions. This he does by persuading us that “blindly” following the prophets and obeying the commandments is not thinking for ourselves. He teaches that it is not intelligent to do something just because we are told to do so by a living prophet or by prophets who speak to us from the scriptures.

Our unquestioning obedience to the Lord’s commandments is not blind obedience. President Boyd K. Packer in the April conference of 1983 taught us about this: “Latter-day Saints are not obedient because they are compelled to be obedient. They are obedient because they know certain spiritual truths and have decided, as an expression of their own individual agency, to obey the commandments of God. … We are not obedient because we are blind, we are obedient because we can see” (“Agency and Control,” Ensign, May 1983, 66).

We might call this “faith obedience.” With faith, Abraham was obedient in preparing Isaac for sacrifice; with faith, Nephi was obedient in obtaining the brass plates; with faith, a little child obediently jumps from a height into the strong arms of his father. “Faith obedience” is a matter of trust. The question is simple: Do we trust our Heavenly Father? Do we trust our prophets?"

[Vort]

1. Why do you think that obeying a Priesthood leader is "running on autopilot"?

I don't.

Then perhaps I misunderstood your intent. What did you mean when you responded to my question "Is it unwise to follow the direction of our Priesthood leaders?" by saying, "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."?

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

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

Again, perhaps I have misunderstood. What did you mean when you wrote, "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"? (In this response, please note that you specifically disclaimed passing any judgment on the bishop, even though you stated that he was "headed in the way of apostasy". I still haven't figured that one out, but I take it on blind faith that you were being sincere in stating that you would not be trying to pass judgment on the bishop even while proclaiming him as following the path to apostasy.)

3. You claimed that obeying instruction from your bishop was no different from obeying the instruction from President Monson...Then why do you balk at doing the same with your bishop? Are you now claiming that they are in fact not the same?

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.

So, in other words, you were mistaken. In your view, obeying instruction from your bishop IS different from obeying instruction from President Monson.

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

By all means. At this juncture, your point seems to be that you were mistaken in claiming you saw no difference between obeying the instruction of your ward president and obeying the instruction of your church president.

4. 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?

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.

This is all true, Miss½, but it avoids the question. Would you, or would you not, consider yourself obligated to follow President Monson's directions if they didn't "feel right" to you? I'm not talking about a divine manifestation that they are wrong. I'm talking about they don't "feel right" to you, as polygamy most certainly did not "feel right" to the vast majority of Saints early in this dispensation.

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."

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

What do you mean? I am quoting stuff you said and asking for clarification. Did I misquote you? If so, please tell me where, because I copied and pasted. Am I misconstruing your meaning? If so, please clarify. That's what I'm asking for. You have been talking about the evils of "blind faith" and about how you are OBLIGATED to seek the spirit. So my question seems perfectly natural: Given your abhorrence of "blind faith" and your obligation to seek the spirit, do you believe that NOT receiving a spiritual confirmation relieves you of the burden of obedience?

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?

No I am not saying that obedience is safer ... and I think you know that.

I assume you meant to write "disobedience", not "obedience". And obviously I assumed you didn't believe that, because that would be a rather absurd thing to think, and I don't believe you think in absurdities. (In fact, if you read even not-very-closely, you will see that immediately afterward, I added, "If not...") But it sure does sound almost exactly like what you 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 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.

And this is wonderful. So the question is: If your bishop asked you to sign over your house, would you do it? Assume God neither confirmed that you were supposed to do so, nor revealed to you that the bishop was running amok.

Of course, if you insist that the scenario is impossible, that God would certainly and without any possible doubt reveal to you one way or the other, then you can simply say that.

[Avrham]

I belief in doing what God say's and doing my best to be faithful to him and if President Monson wants my house God would reveal something to me first God has always done that in my life my relationships with Heavenly Father and my wife are paramount to my living the gospel , right at this moment my relationships are doing really well and has made things a bit easier to understand so if I got the call today yep he could have it I just have to inform my landlord first lol

[Misshalfway]

Vort, what is your purpose in nailing me with questions? Is it that I am just so cool you want to be my bestest bud ... or is it that you want to expose my weakness so you can beat your chest and congratulate yourself for being a master of the universe?

Btw....are you by any chance a descendent of Zeezrom? Prolly just a coincidence but you argue alot like him.

And this is wonderful. So the question is: If your bishop asked you to sign over your house, would you do it? Assume God neither confirmed that you were supposed to do so, nor revealed to you that the bishop was running amok.

How many times have I answered this question now???? Golly gee wiz! I've lost count.

[Vort]

Vort, what is your purpose in nailing me with questions?

It's called "conversation on a discussion list."

How many times have I answered this question now???? Golly gee wiz! I've lost count.

If you have answered N times, I was hoping for N+1.

Is it that I am just so cool you want to be my bestest bud ... or is it that you want to expose my weakness so you can beat your chest and congratulate yourself for being a master of the universe?

Btw....are you by any chance a descendent of Zeezrom? Prolly just a coincidence but you argue alot like him.

Huh. Didn't expect that from you.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Vort

[Guest]

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

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

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?

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?

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

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

Sorry, but that does not help at all.

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.

I can play the quote game too, but I won't. Coz I have to dig up 2 threads (3 now I think) to mega-quote you. I give up. You win.

[Vort]

I can play the quote game too, but I won't. Coz I have to dig up 2 threads (3 now I think) to mega-quote you. I give up. You win.

Which is another way of saying, "I am wrong and you are right, but I am too prideful and dishonest to say so."

Thanks, anatess.

[Vort]

I can play the quote game too, but I won't. Coz I have to dig up 2 threads (3 now I think) to mega-quote you. I give up. You win.

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

Saying a dishonest "you win" does not let you off the hook for false witnessing. Either demonstrate the truthfulness of your false witness or else retract it.

[Moksha]

President Boyd K. Packer in the April conference of 1983 taught us about this: … We are not obedient because we are blind, we are obedient because we can see” (“Agency and Control,” Ensign, May 1983, 66).

Seeing obedience rather that blind obedience? Sounds like you still need to obey.

Getting back to that hypothetical question regarding strapping on a bomb pack and obeying an order to go unto the multitude and bloweth thyself (and bystanders) to smithereens, isn't there a point a believer would still need to step back and think of what they are being asked for themselves?

If it didn't sit right, they could exercise seeing disobedience.

[rameumptom]

We have to make our own decisions, as it is our free will to do so. However, we should ensure we are guided by the Spirit in that decision. Too many members reject assignments from their leaders, not because they've prayed about it, but because it doesn't fit into their own selfish lifestyles. A few have attempted to say that if your bishop were to ask for everything from you, you should be skeptical. How often does that really happen? I'm skeptical about the point being made, personally.

That said, Elder Vaughn J. Featherstone, emeritus member of the 70 (and former member of the presidency of 70) told me the following story. In the days of building assessments, he had a bishop that did not like him whatsoever. If there was a dirt job to be found, the bishop would assign it to him. He took it quietly and humbly. Finally, when the building assessments were handed out, he was given a larger assessment than even the richest members of the ward (and he and his wife were in the lower middle class at the time). He went home and discussed it with his wife. In prayer, they determined that though they felt they were not being treated right, they should obey their bishop's request. They sold their television and several other items, in order to pay the assessment. And they didn't complain nor murmur.

Within a few weeks, he was called to the First Quorum of Seventy. The bishop was soon released, also. In his ordination, he was told that it was a test from God, and had he failed it, he would not have been called to be a General Authority.

Perhaps it is good to get our own testimony of a calling/assignment, however we should approach it from a point of faith, and not skepticism. Obedience is far more important than sacrifices. And faith is far more important than doubt.

[Misshalfway]

Perhaps it is good to get our own testimony of a calling/assignment, however we should approach it from a point of faith, and not skepticism. Obedience is far more important than sacrifices. And faith is far more important than doubt.

I appreciate these balanced remarks, Ram.

I fear that I am being catagorically labeled a skeptic on this thread because I think it just might be ok to go home and talk things over with your spouse and the Lord. Your friend went thru his process to get square with what he needed to do and the Lord accepted the offering. Working thru your feelings and reservations, talking things over with a spouse, and taking all of it to the Lord for help or varification or whatever IS ABSOLUTELY OK and part of what the Lord asks us to do. It's not a sign of skepticism at all. Obedience is far more than sacrifices and its more than just doing what you are told without questioning too.

It's hard in my mind to separate the one who feels the spirit in the moment from the one who needs to wrestle with it for a time if both end up in a righteous decision. Your friend wrestled. Enos wrestled. Wrestling is sometimes a very necessary part of the deal. God knows that and in loving patience gives us that space to make our choices and get our hearts right. I am not gonna beat myself up or accept a dimerit on my spiritual report card because I may need some time to consider things. Challenges that throw us out of our comfort zones and stretch us come to all of us. Just because my obedience doesn't look like some perfectionistic model of "shoulds" doesn't mean I wouldn't give everything if the Lord asked me. But at the same time, its ok to live in reality too as the scenerio in question is not representative what the churches current patterns are.

[rameumptom]

Miss Half,

I wasn't thinking of you when I posted. I was responding to Vort's and Moksha's statements, which seemed to be somewhat more skeptical than faithful.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I read an article by Marion G. Romney years ago titled something like "The United Order and Communism compared".

It clarified a lot about the Law of C.

First, yes, we donate all our possessions to the Bishop's storehouse, but they are then given back to us according to needs and abilities. And at this point, there is ownership again of the things given to us from the Bishop's storehouse. This differs from Communisms where the governing body owns everything, we are simply users of them.

Second, people with greater ability often end up with a greater endowment because they are capable of turning them into greater substance for the common good. For example, a family of 3 might get a huge farm because they are good at farming, and are able to produce more crops for the common good. Although not in the article, the concept reminded me of the parable of the talents, where those that had the ability to to turn 5 talents into 10 talents received the talents that went unused by others. In the case of the Law of C, this means wealth-producing assets were given to those who already were faithful over the ones they had, producing greater good overall. Again, not consistent with Communism where the government controls the means of production and output.

Also interesting was the notion that people who worked, did much with the property given to them, had a higher standard of living. Again, not consistent with Communism.

And finally, that consecration of surpluses at the end of the year were given on a voluntary basis -- consistent with the Lord's undying commitment to free agency.

The underlying principle that makes this work? The selflessness and charity of the individual. So, I don't see this working on a national scale among people who don't share the same values. It's something that I think will only work when the right mix of righteous people exist on the earth at the same time (or in heaven, wherever it's eventually found).

[Guest mormonmusic]

I read an article by Marion G. Romney years ago titled something like "The United Order and Communism compared".

It clarified a lot about the Law of C.

First, yes, we donate all our possessions to the Bishop's storehouse, but they are then given back to us according to needs and abilities. And at this point, there is ownership again of the things given to us from the Bishop's storehouse. This differs from Communisms where the governing body owns everything, we are simply users of them.

Second, people with greater ability often end up with a greater endowment because they are capable of turning them into greater substance for the common good. For example, a family of 3 might get a huge farm because they are good at farming, and are able to produce more crops for the common good. Although not in the article, the concept reminded me of the parable of the talents, where those that had the ability to to turn 5 talents into 10 talents received the talents that went unused by others. In the case of the Law of C, this means wealth-producing assets were given to those who already were faithful over the ones they had, producing greater good overall. Again, not consistent with Communism where the government controls the means of production and output.

Also interesting was the notion that people who worked, did much with the property given to them, had a higher standard of living. Again, not consistent with Communism.

And finally, that consecration of surpluses at the end of the year were given on a voluntary basis -- consistent with the Lord's undying commitment to free agency.

The underlying principle that makes this work? The selflessness and charity of the individual. So, I don't see this working on a national scale among people who don't share the same values. It's something that I think will only work when the right mix of righteous people exist on the earth at the same time (or in heaven, wherever it's eventually found).

One other thing -- the survey above leaves out one other incarnation of the Law of C today -- the fact that we live it in our families. As a father and provider, I consecrate all I have to my family and give to them what they need to survive, such as a room, food, clothing, shelter etcetera, and it's all voluntary. So this is another dimension that goes beyond the payment of tithing.

Edited November 17, 2009 by mormonmusic

[Vort]

I was responding to Vort's and Moksha's statements, which seemed to be somewhat more skeptical than faithful.

Please explain how my comments could be seen as in any way "skeptical".

Also, your example suggests that Elder Featherstone was given his calling as a GA as a sort of reward for passing the test placed before him by obeying his unrighteous bishop. Do you believe that the Lord uses Church and Priesthood positions to reward the faithful?

[Dude989]

Currently we are not asked to live by the law of consecration. But i believe one day not far off, when times are going to be rough for everyone, everywhere. Yes we will be asked to live the law.

"Zion shall be of one heart and one mind, and there shall be no pour among them".

One day i know that we will need to live the law of consecration. I look forward to this day because it means that the coming of the lord is nigh. If you are afraid of sharing all that you have with your brothers and sisters try to detach yourself from these temporal possessions.

[Hemidakota]

Please explain how my comments could be seen as in any way "skeptical".

Also, your example suggests that Elder Featherstone was given his calling as a GA as a sort of reward for passing the test placed before him by obeying his unrighteous bishop. Do you believe that the Lord uses Church and Priesthood positions to reward the faithful?

Ummm…yes! As we also rewarded from our pre-mortal life decisions and choices. This isn't anything new here...

Building upon Elder Featherstone, here is an example of my life, after serving my last position in the church, what was the reward for the service is the final answer given to me that we as Priesthood holders, should seek from the Lord when we are following the admirations of the Prophet Peter [2nd Peter] stated by Joseph Smith. We are rewarded when we are obedient, serving others in righteousness, and building the kingdom of the Lord in this world.

[rameumptom]

Please explain how my comments could be seen as in any way "skeptical".

Also, your example suggests that Elder Featherstone was given his calling as a GA as a sort of reward for passing the test placed before him by obeying his unrighteous bishop. Do you believe that the Lord uses Church and Priesthood positions to reward the faithful?

I just always see you as the skeptical type.

I don't think Elder Featherstone was given the calling as a reward. Rather, I think the event was a test of his faith, as a prerequisite for being worthy and ready to hold the calling. It was his test of Abraham, if you will.

[Vort]

I just always see you as the skeptical type.

Yes, I understand that. But you must have had something specific in mind when you said you responded to my skepticism. I am surprised, because I thought I was being significantly less skeptical than most others on the thread, who generally indicated that they either did not believe we were required to live the law of consecration today or else they believe we were required to live only a limited form of the law of consecration.

So again, what was my "skepticism" to which you were replying?

[RipplecutBuddha]

We ought to always be willing to live the law of consecration. God has given us everything we have, could want, or think of, including the air we breathe. If He were to ask us to give it to someone else so they could use it, who would we be to tell him 'no'?

the fact that we struggle now with the law of tithing shows how patient he is with us in even giving that law. In other words he wants us to be willing to give up everything if necessary, yet he'll settle for 10%...and even then we can't quite keep that one all the time.

[Moksha]

Mormonmusic, glad you mentioned the difference between the United Order and Communism. Here is a big difference:

Under the United Order you would say Elder Vort.

Under Communism you would say Comrade Vort.

Hope that helps...

:)

[rameumptom]

Yes, I understand that. But you must have had something specific in mind when you said you responded to my skepticism. I am surprised, because I thought I was being significantly less skeptical than most others on the thread, who generally indicated that they either did not believe we were required to live the law of consecration today or else they believe we were required to live only a limited form of the law of consecration.

So again, what was my "skepticism" to which you were replying?

I'll admit. It's the new avatar. It just looks totally skeptical.

[Vort]

I'll admit. It's the new avatar. It just looks totally skeptical.

With that innocent expression? How can you say such a thing? [bats eyes]

[Vort]

That said, Elder Vaughn J. Featherstone, emeritus member of the 70 (and former member of the presidency of 70) told me the following story. In the days of building assessments, he had a bishop that did not like him whatsoever. If there was a dirt job to be found, the bishop would assign it to him. He took it quietly and humbly. Finally, when the building assessments were handed out, he was given a larger assessment than even the richest members of the ward (and he and his wife were in the lower middle class at the time). He went home and discussed it with his wife. In prayer, they determined that though they felt they were not being treated right, they should obey their bishop's request. They sold their television and several other items, in order to pay the assessment. And they didn't complain nor murmur.

Within a few weeks, he was called to the First Quorum of Seventy. The bishop was soon released, also. In his ordination, he was told that it was a test from God, and had he failed it, he would not have been called to be a General Authority.

Ram, you've brought up this example many times in the past, perhaps here and certainly in other venues we've shared. I have never understood it. It sounds for all the world like Elder Featherstone was called to be a General Authority is a reward for his righteous actions. Is this the moral you believe is being taught from this story?