Law of Consecration Questions

[JackNimble]

I had a question concerning the Law of Consecration. When the member's property was signed over to the church and the member, in turn, received a stewardship of the land or property he was to care for, was the land considered the property of the church or the member? And, if that member were to leave the church, what rights, if any, did that member or former member have to that land. If he was ex'ed or decided to leave the church, was he removed from the property? I didn't know who or where to ask these questions so MADB gets the job.

[JackNimble]

I hope these questions are taken with a sincere desire to know and not an attempt to bait or trap into a contentious discussion.

[frankenstein]

as I understand and have read "deeds" from the era, the person with the stewardship had the right to sale the land. As to the monies received for the sale I do not know what the steward could do with the monies.

In terms of leaving a United Order, at least one Order "paid" you what you originally put in or rather in some form or another one received value for they put in when and if they left the Order.

[CV75]

I had a question concerning the Law of Consecration. When the member's property was signed over to the church and the member, in turn, received a stewardship of the land or property he was to care for, was the land considered the property of the church or the member? And, if that member were to leave the church, what rights, if any, did that member or former member have to that land. If he was ex'ed or decided to leave the church, was he removed from the property? I didn't know who or where to ask these questions so MADB gets the job.

http://institute.lds.org/manuals/doctrine-and-covenants-institute-student-manual/dc-in-051-51.asp

"President Clark further showed that a written title or deed was issued that satisfied the requirements of civil law and secured to an individual the rights of private ownership of property. The importance of such written agreements is evident when it is remembered that people had their agency to leave the united order. A written contract between the bishop and the individual secured the terms of the agreement when the person entered the order (see D&C 51:6 ). So even though a person acknowledged that all property ultimately belongs to God, for legal and practical purposes his deeded portion became his private property. It did not belong to the Church. This arrangement was true of the initial inheritance of land and buildings given to each person in the order. Any surplus earned from one

[JackNimble]

Thank you both for your answers. I was looking in the wrong place. I appreciate the help.

[Garden Girl]

In addition to Section 51, D&C section 83 addresses what happened to the women and children of the church under the Law of Consecration, particularly widows and orphans...

GG

[BCSpace]

Thank you both for your answers. I was looking in the wrong place. I appreciate the help.

The LoC link in my siggy is the Church's primer on the subject.

[frankenstein]

The LoC link in my siggy is the Church's primer on the subject.

something you have titled "Capitalism for the Lord" isn't very inviting to learn of the Law Of Consecration, which is separate and apart from any man made system.

[BCSpace]

The LoC link in my siggy is the Church's primer on the subject.

something you have titled "Capitalism from the Lord" isn't very inviting to learn of the Law Of Consecration, which is separate and apart from any man made system.

Yeah you'll just have to get past it I guess. If it keeps someone from reading it that's just the parable of the sower. Btw, one of the things you learn from reading this doctrinal work is that the LoC is completely incompatible with Socialism and works based on the Capitalist principles of (the aforementioned) private property and the free market (the agency to buy and sell as you like and set prices and keep profits). So the title to it is merely descriptive.

The upshot being that the LoC is generally not as you hear from uninformed SS teachers and students and need not be feared.

[frankenstein]

Yeah you'll just have to get past it I guess. If it keeps someone from reading it that's just the parable of the sower.

not when the seed is falsely labeled or the philosophy of men mingled with scripture

[BCSpace]

Yeah you'll just have to get past it I guess. If it keeps someone from reading it that's just the parable of the sower.

not when the seed is falsely labeled or the philosophy of men mingled with scripture

Then there is no problem. In addition to the facts presented when one reads the article, other evidence would be the correspondence I receive from time to time thanking me for the official doctrinal reference.

[frankenstein]

Then there is no problem. In addition to the facts presented when one reads the article, other evidence would be the correspondence I receive from time to time thanking me for the official doctrinal reference.

the Correct and Doctrinal title title; i appreciate that you have linked the material, that deos not mean i agree with your false label

Enrichment L

The Law of Consecration and Stewardship

------------------------------------------------------------------------

philosophy of man mingled title;

Capitalism from the Lord Law of Consecration.

you have falsely represented the Doctrine to suit your own personal philosophy. It is very interesting that capitalism is not mentioned in the material you think

[BCSpace]

the Correct and Doctrinal title title; i appreciate that you have linked the material, that deos not mean i agree with your false label

What false label and how is it false?

[frankenstein]

re-read post 12 bcspace

[BCSpace]

re-read post 12 bcspace

I read it before my last post. But you didn't support your claim that I falsely represented the doctrine. That official doctrine I refer to in my link to the LDS website specifically denies socialism and the LoC only operates under and is regulated by all the conditions necessary for captalism and the free market. There is no command economy. There are no price controls. There is ownership and private property. There is the agency to do with one's goods as one sees fit. There is even profit taking and growth. So what if I group them all together under the appropriate terminology?

[David Bokovoy]

I had a question concerning the Law of Consecration. When the member's property was signed over to the church and the member, in turn, received a stewardship of the land or property he was to care for, was the land considered the property of the church or the member? And, if that member were to leave the church, what rights, if any, did that member or former member have to that land. If he was ex'ed or decided to leave the church, was he removed from the property? I didn't know who or where to ask these questions so MADB gets the job.

You may wish to read through the following thread which provides an answer to your question. The Law of Consecration requires surrendering everything one possesses unto God, hence there is no such thing as individual private ownership in the Lord's system.

Best,

[cinepro]

This is one of my favorite overviews of the Law of Consecration, including some early changes that were made in response to problems that were encountered. Notice that "property rights" were considered a concession granted in later revisions of the Law (and revelations), not a original part of the system as revealed:

Early Mormonism closely identified Zion with an economic system called the law of consecration and stewardship. Under that system, each member consecrated or deeded all of his or her possessions to the bishop of the church by an irrevocable deed, then received back a limited estate in certain "steward" property (D&C 42:30-36). Basic theological principles lay behind this law: possessions belonged to [p.62] the Lord; and spiritual commitment required the individual to give priority to the Kingdom of God over materialistic desires. But implementing these ideals in a legally enforceable arrangement proved more problematic; the law would not accommodate Zion.

Leonard J. Arrington, Feramorz Y. Fox, and Dean L. May (1976) have carefully traced the evolution of the law of consecration and the various attempts to implement it. Several of their observations bear on this legal analysis. They stress the critical significance Joseph Smith gave to the law of consecration and stewardship in the realization of Zion:

It was to provide the model upon which all human society would be organized when the Savior returned to the latter-day Zion in Missouri. It would build unity among a people fragmented by their individualistic search for economic well-being. It would impose order upon the chaos of a society suffering from an excess of liberty. An ideal community of the Saints would be prepared to administer Christ's millennial reign ....Order, unity, and community were the supreme values of the Prophet's ideal society. (Arrington, Fox, and May 1976, 2-3)

The first effort to implement this law had been made by a group of converts who settled near Kirtland, Ohio, in May 1831. When dissatisfied wealthy members thwarted the effort by successfully suing in the civil courts for the return of their consecrated property, Smith directed the group to try again in Jackson County, Missouri, where they arrived in July 1831.

But legal problems reappeared in Missouri. Bishop Edward Partridge sought to make the "steward" interest tentative rather than vested. Each steward would be entitled to a right of use only, subject to cancellation by the bishop. A conditional title policy would have allowed the bishop to make future reapportionments of "steward" property if the number of newly arriving converts necessitated a reduction in the size of the "inheritance" awarded earlier stewards. It would also discourage the unfaithful member who might join the Saints solely to obtain an inheritance and then immediately withdraw. The policy would also strengthen the bishop's ability to enforce work standards, social behavior, and personal morality. Arrington, Fox, and May suggest that the conditional-title policy ensured that "the wealth of the community would never be lost to apostates, 'trouble-makers', or idlers." Of course, it also deprecated traditional notions of property rights. Not surprisingly, the "lease-and-loan" agreement initially adopted failed to hold up when "some apostates successfully sued in the courts for the return of their consecrated properties" (Arrington, Fox, and May, 23, 25).

[p.63] As a result, "church authorities finally came to agree that a steward should hold legal rights to 'the Lord's property' placed in his charge," a modification Orson Pratt characterized "as an unavoidable concession to the property laws of 'Babylon'" (Arrington, Fox, and May, 26, 434 n. 41). The early revelation on consecration in the Book of Commandments was modified to conform with the laws of the land (Arrington, Fox, and May, 433-34 n. 39). The "laws of Babylon" thus constrained the implementation of the law of consecration.

Zion in the Courts:

A Legal History of the Church of Jesus

Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830â??1900

Edwin Brown Firmage and Richard Collin Mangrum

University of Illinois Press,Urbana and Chicago

p.63

[BCSpace]

It was to provide the model upon which all human society would be organized when the Savior returned to the latter-day Zion in Missouri.

That's why even though it's not an economic system per se, it actually drives what kind of economic system that should exist now and will exist then because it cannot work without private property, for example.

[cinepro]

And while I would support the reestablishment of the United Order in theory, the collapse of the system in the 19th century would make me wary as to its prospects for longevity in the 21st century. I would be similarly skeptical if the Church announced that they were forming a credit union.

For the United Order, I would suggest a more incremental approach. For example, suppose the Prophet told us that members of the Church should not drive cars that cost in excess of $30,000, or live in houses that provide more than 600sqft of living space per family member (with a cap of 2400sqft)?

Then the Church could make fast offerings a mandatory 5% of gross income, scaling up to 15% over the next 20 years.

At the same time, the Church could begin purchasing factories and other large-scale employment centers in rural areas, and "call" members to live in those communities and "serve" in the factory for several years. This could even be done in Asia or South America, where the cost of living is much lower. These "Zion" communities would allow members to live the Law of Consecration for a few years and adjust to a lower standard of living (just as many missionaries do on their missions).

[David Bokovoy]

And while I would support the reestablishment of the United Order in theory, the collapse of the system in the 19th century would make me wary as to its prospects for longevity in the 21st century. I would be similarly skeptical if the Church announced that they were forming a credit union.

For the United Order, I would suggest a more incremental approach. For example, suppose the Prophet told us that members of the Church should not drive cars that cost in excess of $30,000, or live in houses that provide more than 600sqft of living space per family member (with a cap of 2400sqft)?

Then the Church could make fast offerings a mandatory 5% of gross income, scaling up to 15% over the next 20 years.

At the same time, the Church could begin purchasing factories and other large-scale employment centers in rural areas, and "call" members to live in those communities and "serve" in the factory for several years. This could even be done in Asia or South America, where the cost of living is much lower. These "Zion" communities would allow members to live the Law of Consecration for a few years and adjust to a lower standard of living (just as many missionaries do on their missions).

Seriously, count me in!

[BCSpace]

And while I would support the reestablishment of the United Order in theory, the collapse of the system in the 19th century would make me wary as to its prospects for longevity in the 21st century. I would be similarly skeptical if the Church announced that they were forming a credit union.

Endowed members are already practicing it.

For the United Order, I would suggest a more incremental approach. For example, suppose the Prophet told us that members of the Church should not drive cars that cost in excess of $30,000, or live in houses that provide more than 600sqft of living space per family member (with a cap of 2400sqft)?

Too inefficient and would contribute to the failure of the system. This is not an agrarian society nor was it in JS' time though there certainly was more of it.

Then the Church could make fast offerings a mandatory 5% of gross income, scaling up to 15% over the next 20 years.

Also not how it works. Need and ability are determined. No set percentage.

At the same time, the Church could begin purchasing factories and other large-scale employment centers in rural areas, and "call" members to live in those communities and "serve" in the factory for several years. This could even be done in Asia or South America, where the cost of living is much lower. These "Zion" communities would allow members to live the Law of Consecration for a few years and adjust to a lower standard of living (just as many missionaries do on their missions).

Also contrary to the LoC. I suggest you read the doctrine on what "all things in common" and "equal" are considered to mean. And then there is also this from the doctrine I link to in my siggy:

[frankenstein]

So what if I group them all together under the appropriate terminology?

now you attempt to speak for the Lord "So what if I group them all together under the appropriate terminology?".

CFR where the word the economic system of "capitalism" is mention by name in the "Enrichment L The Law of Consecration and Stewardship". In the material linked, the only comparison and contrast is with socialism, communism and The United Order.

You have mingled your personal philosophy with Doctrine, and worse you attempt to pass off your personal philosophy as Doctrine. That one can find similarities with economic systems and The United Order is not proof that The United Order is that economic system to which is similar.

The United Order is unto itself.

[cinepro]

Seriously, count me in!

Frankly, there is nothing stopping modern LDS from living the Law of Consecration. We just don't do it because we are, for the most part, either poor or materialistic (or both).

Living the Law of Consecration doesn't mean a reduction in "self reliance" or somehow opting out of sound 21st century personal management principles. It doesn't have to involve liquidating your 401(k) or not saving for the future. It simply involves giving your surplus, your true surplus, to the Church so the less fortunate can be helped. Any LDS who wants to live this higher law needs only take stock of their needs compared to their wants, and once their needs are met, they give the rest to the Church as a fast offering.

For example, if I am shopping for a house for my family of 6, I may determine that I need a house with 4 bedrooms. A palatial 4 bedroom goes for $700k in my area, and a modest but absolutely respectable and livable 4 bedroom goes for $400k. For purposes of this example, suppose I have saved $700k for the purchase of a house. If I am committed to living my life under the principle of consecration, I evaluate my needs, subdue my intense yearning for a McMansion in the foothills and buy the $400k house, and give $300k to the Church.

Suppose my car has broken down, and I need to buy a new one. Again, I am fortunate enough to have saved $40k for a new car. I need a nice sport utility for the bumpy roads around my house, and would like a BMW X5. But I could get by with a decent used Ford Explorer for $20k. So I buy the Explorer and give $20k to the Church. That's the surplus; it was more than I needed.

On a slightly smaller scale, and one that applies to just about every LDS in a developed country, there are countless choices we make where we choose to spend just a little more than we need to on clothing, food, entertainment, gadgets, and everything else. The principles of Consecration would suggest that we should use these opportunities to recognize our surpluses and make contributions to the poor and needy among us. Even if it means passing up on a pair of $140 jeans or a $6,000 TV.

The most common argument against such ideas is that people always have jobs and situations where they need a $2,000 suit for court, or a $50k car lasts so much longer than a $25k car that it makes financial sense in the end. While some of these arguments might have some merit (there is certainly a point where buying "cheap" clothes or electronics is counterproductive), it's usually just a weak justification for our materialistic desires. The point of Consecration being that we need to overcome them.

I'll also take a second to point out that the scriptures seem to spend more time complaining about the cost of peoples' clothes compared to their modesty (and if the Book of Mormon took place in Mesoamerica, it's possible the first thing Jesus saw when he showed up was a crowd of bare-breasted women, yet he didn't mention it). But I digress.

Frankly, given the choice I'm not sure which 19th century doctrine/policy ("doctrincy") modern capitalist, "self sufficient" LDS would be more reluctant to practice: polygamy or Consecration. That would be an interesting question to ask a Church class: would you rather live in an economically communal society where only our "needs" are accounted for and there are no "rich", or a polygamous one? I wonder if the answers would be divided along gender lines...

[cinepro]

Endowed members are already practicing it.

No, endowed members are not practicing the United Order. There is certainly language in the Temple that has its origins in the 19th century doctrines of the Law of Consecration and the United Order, but endowed members are living the Law of Tithing (see: Temple Recommend Interview Question #9).

And the Law of Tithing is not the United Order.

[TAO]

You have mingled your personal philosophy with Doctrine, and worse you attempt to pass off your personal philosophy as Doctrine. That one can similarities with ecomonic systems and The United Order is not proof that The United Order is that ecomonic system to which is similar.

The United Order is unto itself.

Correct, the United Order is unlike any other economic system.

Really the concept is: Make what you need, donate the rest to the Lord.

Private Property, individual ownership exists under the law.

The surplus wealth goes to the church (you donate it).

So while there are elements representing all economic systems, it is kinda on it's own, unlike any other.

I would say it's got the positives of both capitalism and communism. It allows personal ownership, while allows the poor to be served with what can be done without.

But that's my opinion.

I think the difficulty in living the law is that one's whole community must live it - and we aren't grouped enough to do it. It will be more possible as Christ's church spreads.

Also, we should wait till the Lord tells us to participate in it. Be prepared, and hope, but do not tempt the Lord. So we wait till God's ok to start (given by the prophet).