Zion and the Law of Consecration

[Anddenex]

When the church was first organized, not long after, the prophet Joseph Smith introduced the Saints to the law of consecration. If I am remembering correctly it was within 2 years of the establishment of the church.

Since that time, nearly 180 years have passed and the Lord has not seen fit to establish it again, yet within a short period of time, when the church was organized the Lord saw fit to instruct Joseph Smith to establish this higher law.

1st - Why would the Lord instruct the newly organized church to live a higher law?

2nd - If the Saints were ready then, after nearly 180 years why hasn't the Lord instructed his servants to establish it again?

3rd - Does this speak toward the faith of the pioneers verses the faith of members today?

I would love to hear anybody's thoughts regarding these questions. :)

[MarginOfError]

When the church was first organized, not long after, the prophet Joseph Smith introduced the Saints to the law of consecration. If I am remembering correctly it was within 2 years of the establishment of the church.

Since that time, nearly 180 years have passed and the Lord has not seen fit to establish it again, yet within a short period of time, when the church was organized the Lord saw fit to instruct Joseph Smith to establish this higher law.

1st - Why would the Lord instruct the newly organized church to live a higher law?

2nd - If the Saints were ready then, after nearly 180 years why hasn't the Lord instructed his servants to establish it again?

3rd - Does this speak toward the faith of the pioneers verses the faith of members today?

I would love to hear anybody's thoughts regarding these questions. :)

We do live the law of consecration today. We covenant to live it during the endowment. We don't live in a society like the United Order, but let's not confuse one implementation of the law of consecration for the actual law of consecration.

So, do answer your questions

1) Because the Lord is always expecting the most from us and will would prefer to let us try and fail (and learn something from it) than to not give us the opportunity to succeed.

2) This questions assumes that the United Order is the only manifestation of the law of consecration. That is a false assumption.

3) No. I do not believe that the early saints were any more nor any less faithful than today's saints.

[Dravin]

1) Because the Lord is always expecting the most from us and will would prefer to let us try and fail (and learn something from it) than to not give us the opportunity to succeed.

Indeed, if you think about it this nature of the Lord explains why not just those who will experience exaltation are sent to Earth. If the mindset was, "You're just gonna screw up, why try?", how many of us wouldn't be here? I echo your thoughts on the other questions as well.

Though to the third I would add, If living the United Order was some sort of test one could use to measure faithfulness there isn't a comparison point because we've not been given the opportunity to live the United Order. It'd be like comparing test scores when only one of you have taken the test. So even if such a comparison using the United Order was theoretically possible, we've not taken it yet to compare scores.

P.S. I'm aware Law of Consecration != United Order, but it's clearly what Anddenex has in mind.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Dravin

[applepansy]

Any endowed member has covenanted to live the Law of Consecration. If the Bishop were to call upon his ward to donate all the food in their house then as endowed members we are under covenant to do so. Is that likely to happen tomorrow? No. But I can see it happening in the future sometime.

[MarginOfError]

Any endowed member has covenanted to live the Law of Consecration. If the Bishop were to call upon his ward to donate all the food in their house then as endowed members we are under covenant to do so. Is that likely to happen tomorrow? No. But I can see it happening in the future sometime.

Sort of but not quite. While the law of consecration requires us to consecrate everything we own to the building of the kingdom of God, bishops are charged with the responsibility to use the resources of the membership according to the needs and wants of all the members in his stewardship. If the bishop asked me to give up all the food in my house, I'd tell him what I am able to give up without inhibiting the ability to care for my family.

Furthermore, the bishop is charged with not asking for more than he needs to fulfill a need. If he has a need to feed a family and asks me to empty out my shelves to do so, I'm well within my covenant to ask things like, does that family need as much as I'm giving, or are other members being asked to contribute as well?

The principle is that the resources of the members of the Church can be pooled to address the needs of those around them. But doing so does not abdicate personal ownership and does not justify a bishop taking in excess from a single family.

[skalenfehl]

If we cannot be equal in earthly things, we will never be equal in obtaining heavenly things. The early Saints proved that they weren't ready. Today, as a whole, we are proving that we aren't ready either. Furthermore, there can be no poor among us. There are no poor in Zion. All are equal.

[applepansy]

Sort of but not quite. While the law of consecration requires us to consecrate everything we own to the building of the kingdom of God, bishops are charged with the responsibility to use the resources of the membership according to the needs and wants of all the members in his stewardship. If the bishop asked me to give up all the food in my house, I'd tell him what I am able to give up without inhibiting the ability to care for my family.

Furthermore, the bishop is charged with not asking for more than he needs to fulfill a need. If he has a need to feed a family and asks me to empty out my shelves to do so, I'm well within my covenant to ask things like, does that family need as much as I'm giving, or are other members being asked to contribute as well?

The principle is that the resources of the members of the Church can be pooled to address the needs of those around them. But doing so does not abdicate personal ownership and does not justify a bishop taking in excess from a single family.

The Bishop has the right and the stewardship to ask. What we do personally would reflect our obedience to our covenant. This was only an analogy but my husband have discussed it. If our Bishop asked this of our ward we don't know many within our ward who wouldn't do what the Bishop asked. We trust that there would be a reason and that the Lord would provide.

You are right that the Law of Consecration does not abdicate personal ownership. How I look at it is: Everything I have was given to me by the Lord. If his representative asks for it back I'll gladly give it all back and trust I'll be taken care of.

Edited August 15, 2012 by applepansy

[applepansy]

If we cannot be equal in earthly things, we will never be equal in obtaining heavenly things. The early Saints proved that they weren't ready. Today, as a whole, we are proving that we aren't ready either. Furthermore, there can be no poor among us. There are no poor in Zion. All are equal.

My analogy would solve the "no poor among us" in the area of food and that is why if the Bishop asked for all the food in my house I'd willing take it to him, every wit.

[Vort]

When the church was first organized, not long after, the prophet Joseph Smith introduced the Saints to the law of consecration. If I am remembering correctly it was within 2 years of the establishment of the church.

Since that time, nearly 180 years have passed and the Lord has not seen fit to establish it again, yet within a short period of time, when the church was organized the Lord saw fit to instruct Joseph Smith to establish this higher law.

1st - Why would the Lord instruct the newly organized church to live a higher law?

2nd - If the Saints were ready then, after nearly 180 years why hasn't the Lord instructed his servants to establish it again?

3rd - Does this speak toward the faith of the pioneers verses the faith of members today?

I would love to hear anybody's thoughts regarding these questions. :)

You are confusing the eternal law of consecration with the "united order", an economic system of commonality that was experimented with early on in the Restoration. The united order has not been lived as a Church principle since the early Utah period. The law of consecration has never been taken from us; indeed, exaltation would be impossible without it, just as much as without the law of chastity.

[Vort]

Sort of but not quite. While the law of consecration requires us to consecrate everything we own to the building of the kingdom of God, bishops are charged with the responsibility to use the resources of the membership according to the needs and wants of all the members in his stewardship. If the bishop asked me to give up all the food in my house, I'd tell him what I am able to give up without inhibiting the ability to care for my family.

Furthermore, the bishop is charged with not asking for more than he needs to fulfill a need. If he has a need to feed a family and asks me to empty out my shelves to do so, I'm well within my covenant to ask things like, does that family need as much as I'm giving, or are other members being asked to contribute as well?

The principle is that the resources of the members of the Church can be pooled to address the needs of those around them. But doing so does not abdicate personal ownership and does not justify a bishop taking in excess from a single family.

Note that your examples of the care a bishop ought to take do not speak to applepansy's point that the bishop, as the common judge in Israel, the keeper of the storehouse, the president of the Aaronic Priesthood, and the holder of the keys of stewardship, may indeed ask you for whatever he sees as needful. Your duty is not to examine the bishop's request and decide if it's reasonable, but to choose whether you obey or do not obey.

[Anddenex]

It is apparent, my weakness in writing has confused the majority of those who have replied.

I know the difference between the law of consecration, as covenanted, and the United Order. I wasn't confusing anything, I just needed to be more specific.

However, I do agree with MoE, and Dravin, as pertaining to your answer referring to the Lord having us try and fail, then not try at all, although this wasn't the intent of the question. Another aspect of my weakness in writing (boy, I am glad I am not one that will ever be commanded to write scripture).

The first questions intent had nothing to do with "try and fail", but was more in the lines of, with such a newly organized church, I find it interesting that within 2 years the Lord instructed Joseph Smith to establish the "United Order" (so as to be more clear this time). I have wondered why, so soon? Is it that the Lord saw the turmoil and persecution ahead and tried to give them an avenue by which all would be equally yoked? I hope this clarifies (I am sorry, my grammar, and ability to write isn't at good as Vorts, Applepansy, Just_a_Guy, MoE, and Dravins, and others).

The second question is to bridge the first. If the pioneers were instructed within 2 years, why has 180 years passed and we haven't been instructed again.

The only logical, haven't had any spiritual manifestation as of yet, is inline with Skalenfehl,

The early Saints proved that they weren't ready. Today, as a whole, we are proving that we aren't ready either.

I hope this clarifies the questions, and would love to hear any other thoughts.

[MarginOfError]

Note that your examples of the care a bishop ought to take do not speak to applepansy's point that the bishop, as the common judge in Israel, the keeper of the storehouse, the president of the Aaronic Priesthood, and the holder of the keys of stewardship, may indeed ask you for whatever he sees as needful. Your duty is not to examine the bishop's request and decide if it's reasonable, but to choose whether you obey or do not obey.

Certainly, the bishop bears the keys and the authority to ask. But as with all things, we should seek confirmation from the Spirit in all the things we do.

Let's also remember that the covenant we make is not to turn over anything the bishop asks for. The covenant is to consecrate our time, talents, and belongings to the building of the Kingdom of God. Signing over everything I own to the Church and moving my family onto the street, in my opinion, does very little to build the Kingdom of God. And if my bishop were to ask me to do that, I would tell him that same thing.

The more realistic and common occurrence, in my experience, is a bishop who discretely informs members of the ward of a need and asks them to contribute. My previous bishop did this on several occasions, and the ward was able to raise the funds necessary to purchase two cars for families in need and raise half of the mission costs for two missionaries within 10 months. This is to say nothing of the hours upon hours spent by people in members' homes laying tile, fixing pipes, etc.

Even in the days of the United Order, it was never expected that the members would unconditionally turn over their property (I refer to contracts described in The History of the Church in another thread).

I think too often we get caught up in the litmus test of "could I turn over my house if the bishop asked" aspect of what we think the law of consecration is (something like the United Order) and the true principles underlining the law of consecration.

[Just_A_Guy]

Let's also remember that the covenant we make is not to turn over anything the bishop asks for. The covenant is to consecrate our time, talents, and belongings to the building of the Kingdom of God. Signing over everything I own to the Church and moving my family onto the street, in my opinion, does very little to build the Kingdom of God. And if my bishop were to ask me to do that, I would tell him that same thing.

I sympathize with what you're saying. On the other hand, what of Brigham Young and Heber Kimball leaving their wives and children destitute and on their sickbeds, in order to go (as some might call it) gallivanting off to England to do missionary work?

Seeking personal confirmation from the Spirit is certainly appropriate, but of course (and I'm not saying you're arguing otherwise) that entails something a lot deeper than the individual's opinion of what is or isn't in the pecuniary interest of their own families or the Kingdom at large; and a bishop's request--while not absolute--should not, IMHO, be lightly disregarded no matter how burdensome it may be.

[MarginOfError]

I sympathize with what you're saying. On the other hand, what of Brigham Young and Heber Kimball leaving their wives and children destitute and on their sickbeds, in order to go (as some might call it) gallivanting off to England to do missionary work?

Seeking personal confirmation from the Spirit is certainly appropriate, but of course (and I'm not saying you're arguing otherwise) that entails something a lot deeper than the individual's opinion of what is or isn't in the pecuniary interest of their own families or the Kingdom at large; and a bishop's request--while not absolute--should not, IMHO, be lightly disregarded no matter how burdensome it may be.

Nor should it be the final word, as some are wont to suggest.

Ultimately, my point is that the administration of the law of consecration hasn't ever in the Church been something done lightly or on a whim. It's been carefully considered and acted upon when both parties are comfortable with the arrangement that has been made. If one person feels comfortable jumping at the request, that's fine. But there's also nothing wrong with taking time to consider the request before acting.

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't think we disagree, from an "official" standpoint. Going back to the Young/Kimball example: I think that if they had elected to postpone their journey, then at least in today's Church, no rational person would have blamed them.

But I would also submit that "Just because the bishop said so doesn't mean I have to do it" isn't necessarily the end of the analysis. Young and Kimball's sacrifice--though perhaps not officially "required"--provided enormous blessings, both to Young and Kimball and to third parties who were influenced by Kimball's and Young's decision to go to England.

The fact that a bishop's request is not binding does not mean that it is not inspired. The fact that we are perhaps justified in not making a requested sacrifice, does not mean that making the sacrifice anyways will bring no additional blessing.

[C_T_R]

When the church was first organized, not long after, the prophet Joseph Smith introduced the Saints to the law of consecration. If I am remembering correctly it was within 2 years of the establishment of the church.

Since that time, nearly 180 years have passed and the Lord has not seen fit to establish it again, yet within a short period of time, when the church was organized the Lord saw fit to instruct Joseph Smith to establish this higher law.

1st - Why would the Lord instruct the newly organized church to live a higher law?

2nd - If the Saints were ready then, after nearly 180 years why hasn't the Lord instructed his servants to establish it again?

3rd - Does this speak toward the faith of the pioneers verses the faith of members today?

I would love to hear anybody's thoughts regarding these questions. :)

1) Honestly? Because they could handle it properly at that time.

2) Because the corruption of our society shows clearly that the Law of Consecration would not work. I'm trying not to get political here because I know everyone has their own views and I'm not interested in a debate. But due to 'conspiring men' in the last days, their greed makes it impossible. I strongly believe in the idea of the Law of Consecration and how beautiful it'll be when we can live like that for everyone.

3) No, not necessarily.. we live in different times when even the elect will be deceived. It wasn't that they had more faith.. they had very different trials than we do today. Their lives consisted of growing their own food, making their own homes and clothing and blankets and everything. And then their treks! No doubt it was a hard life.. NO doubt.

In our day we deal with so many different things and certainly it varies in different parts of the world but especially here, "Zion, the new Jerusalem," we are bombarded with distractions. The technology is amazing, the crap sold in conventional grocery stores is amazing, our air quality astounds me, and don't get me started on healthcare. It's a real, serious fight to be vigilant enough to stay chemically balanced alone with all the environmental factors and all the exciting stimulation that is not evil.. but can be extremely addicting.

I think of the line in the song Come. Come Ye Saints when it says, "but if our lives are spared again to see the Saints their rest obtain.." I look forward, whether on this side of the veil or not, to see not only the people who've been exposed to the Gospel but all of our brothers and sisters.. to see their relief.. in every capacity. Temporally ABSOLUTELY. But just from the beautiful souls I have the opportunity to be around, mentally as well.

[MarginOfError]

I don't think we disagree, from an "official" standpoint. Going back to the Young/Kimball example: I think that if they had elected to postpone their journey, then at least in today's Church, no rational person would have blamed them.

But I would also submit that "Just because the bishop said so doesn't mean I have to do it" isn't necessarily the end of the analysis. Young and Kimball's sacrifice--though perhaps not officially "required"--provided enormous blessings, both to Young and Kimball and to third parties who were influenced by Kimball's and Young's decision to go to England.

The fact that a bishop's request is not binding does not mean that it is not inspired. The fact that we are perhaps justified in not making a requested sacrifice, does not mean that making the sacrifice anyways will bring no additional blessing.

Agreed. You would think, however, that you would feel some spiritual confirmation that making the sacrifice will bring additional blessing. But are we supposed to dismiss the possibility that a person could feel a spiritual confirmation not to do as the bishop asks?

I guess what I'm rejecting here is that, merely by virtue of his calling, a bishop is "more inspired" than the member in question, and that the bishop's inspiration should trump the members (which is what I feel like people are saying when they say "if the bishop asks, we should just give.")

It's okay to be nervous or to experience some discomfort when giving. I don't think it's okay to give in the absence of some spiritual witness that you should give. For some people, because of whatever spiritual gifts they hold, they are able to determine that quickly. Other people have different spiritual gifts and hear and receive the spirit in different (and yes, sometimes slower) channels.

I'm insistent point primarily because while "a bishop's request isn't binding, that doesn't mean it isn't inspired," it's also true that a bishop's request might not be inspired. It's been my experience that bishops make a decision, they feel good about it, but often times feel inspired to modify their decision when presented with additional information.

[Just_A_Guy]

Agreed. You would think, however, that you would feel some spiritual confirmation that making the sacrifice will bring additional blessing. But are we supposed to dismiss the possibility that a person could feel a spiritual confirmation not to do as the bishop asks?

I guess what I'm rejecting here is that, merely by virtue of his calling, a bishop is "more inspired" than the member in question, and that the bishop's inspiration should trump the members (which is what I feel like people are saying when they say "if the bishop asks, we should just give.")

Perhaps; but - "inspiration" aside - the bishop has the bonus of being a relatively impartial outsider. It's easy to get a "confirmation" to avoid missionary service, when you also have raging hormones directed at a young lady who's quite willing to marry you regardless of whether you serve a mission or not. It's easy to get a "confirmation" that your particular case of sin really doesn't need to be resolved through priesthood authority. It's easy to get a "confirmation" that my personal circumstances exempt me from the law of tithing, or the federal tax code, or the general requirements of fair dealing and honest behavior.

IMHO, a great advantage of bishops is that they are well positioned to see through the BS arguments we so often create that drive wedges between ourselves and the Spirit and create a mental state where false revelation can flourish.

I don't claim that bishops are perfect; but I think I'm more likely to get a phoney revelation that I should hold on to $100, than an unpaid, part-time, limited-term bishop is likely to get a phoney revelation that I should add $100 to some ward fund that doesn't really benefit the bishop at all.

. . . I don't think it's okay to give in the absence of some spiritual witness that you should give. For some people, because of whatever spiritual gifts they hold, they are able to determine that quickly. Other people have different spiritual gifts and hear and receive the spirit in different (and yes, sometimes slower) channels.

There's a difference between acting in the absence of personal revelation versus acting in contravention of personal revelation. I would never suggest the latter; but I think there are situations where the former is entirely appropriate.

[Heber13]

I lump it in with Polygamy as something Joseph was trying to restore from things being read about in the Bible.

Practice is always different than the principles he was trying to teach.

[Vort]

Agreed. You would think, however, that you would feel some spiritual confirmation that making the sacrifice will bring additional blessing. But are we supposed to dismiss the possibility that a person could feel a spiritual confirmation not to do as the bishop asks?

If the bishop asks you to go work on the stake welfare farm, do you wait for a spiritual confirmation that Jesus wants you to work out there to say "yes"?

If the bishop asks you to help pick up chairs, do you seek a spiritual confirmation that you should do so before you start picking them up?

If you have been through the temple and made those covenants, then in a very real and literal sense you no longer own anything. You are merely a steward over property that the Lord has seen fit to lend to you. You are accountable for that stewardship any time the Lord thinks is right.

And who is the Lord's emissary for accounting about such a stewardship?

The bishop.

I believe this whole "I-won't-do-as-the-bishop-asks-until-I-have-received-a-specific-divine-spiritual-confirmation" idea is a red herring. If we have made the covenant of consecration -- and we have -- then we are under covenant to account for our stewardship whenever required to do so by those who have the proper keys and authority. The bishop has those keys and authority.

[MarginOfError]

If the bishop asks you to go work on the stake welfare farm, do you wait for a spiritual confirmation that Jesus wants you to work out there to say "yes"?

If the bishop asks you to help pick up chairs, do you seek a spiritual confirmation that you should do so before you start picking them up?

If you have been through the temple and made those covenants, then in a very real and literal sense you no longer own anything. You are merely a steward over property that the Lord has seen fit to lend to you. You are accountable for that stewardship any time the Lord thinks is right.

And who is the Lord's emissary for accounting about such a stewardship?

The bishop.

I believe this whole "I-won't-do-as-the-bishop-asks-until-I-have-received-a-specific-divine-spiritual-confirmation" idea is a red herring. If we have made the covenant of consecration -- and we have -- then we are under covenant to account for our stewardship whenever required to do so by those who have the proper keys and authority. The bishop has those keys and authority.

So now we've gone from "The bishop asks you to give up all the food in your house" to "The bishop has asked you to pick up chairs?" Do you really think those two requests are equivalent?

Perhaps we should put it in terms of Expectancy Violations theory. If the bishop asks me to do something that is considered within the norm of behaviors, then often times I don't need to seek a specific confirmation. But when a request as made that goes outside those norms, yes, I would like to seek a specific confirmation to that request.

I would, however, caution against this inherent idea that the bishop asking us to fold chairs or serve on a farm is no different than the bishop asking for all of our worldly possessions. The stakes and the potential ramifications of acting on those requests are nowhere near equivalent, and trying to equate them in the manner presented seems like cheap Sophistry.

[Finrock]

Good afternoon MarginOfError! I hope you have been well. :)

Certainly, the bishop bears the keys and the authority to ask. But as with all things, we should seek confirmation from the Spirit in all the things we do.

Let's also remember that the covenant we make is not to turn over anything the bishop asks for. The covenant is to consecrate our time, talents, and belongings to the building of the Kingdom of God. Signing over everything I own to the Church and moving my family onto the street, in my opinion, does very little to build the Kingdom of God. And if my bishop were to ask me to do that, I would tell him that same thing.

The more realistic and common occurrence, in my experience, is a bishop who discretely informs members of the ward of a need and asks them to contribute. My previous bishop did this on several occasions, and the ward was able to raise the funds necessary to purchase two cars for families in need and raise half of the mission costs for two missionaries within 10 months. This is to say nothing of the hours upon hours spent by people in members' homes laying tile, fixing pipes, etc.

Even in the days of the United Order, it was never expected that the members would unconditionally turn over their property (I refer to contracts described in The History of the Church in another thread).

I think too often we get caught up in the litmus test of "could I turn over my house if the bishop asked" aspect of what we think the law of consecration is (something like the United Order) and the true principles underlining the law of consecration.

I think your experience with how the law of consecration has been implemented was probably the best way to do it in that situation, for that bishop, in that ward. I have no doubt that your bishops were acting under inspiration.

However, what you suggest is simply another implimentation of the same subject. You are suggesting that the method of implimentation that you have dictated is the correct method. Thus, it sets up a litmus test of its own: I will only obey the bishop if I agree that he is doing it the right way.

In my view, we ought not to setup limits on how God decides to implement the law of consecration and trust that the bishop is acting under inspiration for the specific needs of the Ward.

Regards,

Finrock

[Anddenex]

Because of personal experience and others experiences, with regard to honoring my covenants with leaders I now follow three guidelines:

1. Stewardship

2. Doctrine

3. Is it good?

One must recognize there is a time and a place to automatically listen to a spiritual leader, i.e., Bishops, Stake Presidents, etc... and there is a time to actually seek confirmation through prayer.

My father tells me of an experience when we lived in Alabama dealing with a Stake President and an Elder's Quorum President. The S.P. had a friend, a young man who was recently released from prison. The S.P. thinking that this young man needed a good example in his life, asked this EQP if he would allow this young man to live with him until he could get on his feet. The EQP sought confirmation, and received an answer form the Lord, "NO." The EQP told the S.P., the S.P. didn't like it, and as a result it came down to his temple covenant and the EQP was convinced to have the young man stay in his house.

The result, the young man committed adultery with the EQP's wife, and she ran off with this young man leaving the EQP with their children.

The EQP, should have listened to the revelation he received from the Lord, instead of listening to the good intentions of an S.P., under the bounds of covenant keeping.

[Vort]

So now we've gone from "The bishop asks you to give up all the food in your house" to "The bishop has asked you to pick up chairs?" Do you really think those two requests are equivalent?

In a sense, yes.

If the bishop asks us to pick up chairs, what is he asking for? He is asking for a contribution of time and effort, and perhaps the opportunity cost of whatever that time and effort would otherwise have gone to.

Do I think it's ever appropriate to refuse or beg off such a request? Of course. But the attitude going into the situation should be, "I will do what my bishop asks me if I can reasonably accommodate his request. If I cannot, I will explain the situation to him and be humbly willing to follow his counsel to the best of my ability", rather than, "Stupid bishop, asking me to do something I don't want to do! Who does he think he is?"

I think the hypothetical situation of a bishop asking for your food (or house, or bank account) is the same principle on a somewhat more expensive level. The question is: Do we jealously hoard that which we have covenanted to us to build up the kingdom? Or do we give when asked and as much as asked?

I have heard stories of recent generations past, when a less-than-perfect bishop would require an absurdly large building fund of some member. I do not know the best way to handle such a thing. I would not condemn anyone in such a situation for refusing the bishop; it's not my place to condemn. That I have never been the recipient of such an outlandish and seemingly unfair request does not mean it has never happened, and I don't presume to instruct others on how they should have responded. But it seems to me that the underlying principle cannot change. We have made a covenant, and we are bound by (and protected by) that covenant. We must keep it. Finding reasons to obey and sacrifice seems generally a much better idea than finding reasons to disobey and defy legitimate authority.

I would, however, caution against this inherent idea that the bishop asking us to fold chairs or serve on a farm is no different than the bishop asking for all of our worldly possessions. The stakes and the potential ramifications of acting on those requests are nowhere near equivalent, and trying to equate them in the manner presented seems like cheap Sophistry.

Sorry to have violated your sense of intellectual propriety. (But not very.)

-The Cheap Sophist

[Martain]

The Church has put forth an excellent treatise on the subject of the Law of Consecration which can be found here. I would refer you to read it since it differed from quite a few responses here.