The Law Of Consecration: A Conflict For Lds Public Servants?

[kolipoki09]

For those familiar with the Law of Consecration (of which I am one), do you see any apparent conflict between being a public servant (i.e. holding elected office in a secular government) and consecrating one's time and talents toward building the Kingdom of God and establishing Zion?

I've been somewhat intrigued by the self-proclaimed political pundit Tricia Erickson's largely unoriginal research in her polemic about how LDS civil servants are apparently incapable of committing themselves to the service of their country (and their fellow beings), while serving God at the same time.

Does a belief in theosis conflict with one's ability to hold an elected office?

Erickson has made a point of trying to appear on various talk shows, promoting her book and making various (

) claims to the effect that in Mormonism it is "up to the husbands to resurrect their wives." Erickson of course, is referring to the fact that faithful husbands will call up their wives in the resurrection. But she infers that husbands have the choice to resurrect their wives or not, as though they're some sort of final judge on the faithfulness of their spouse.

Does anyone here believe that they would honestly have the ability, let alone the desire, to deny resurrection to their spouse?

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that if anyone were to claim the denial of the resurrection to a faithful spouse, they probably wouldn't be in a position to call their spouse into the Celestial Kingdom in the first place.

Your comments would be appreciated.

Edited October 28, 2011 by kolipoki09

[ldsfaqs]

LDS have been working jobs of all kinds from public to private, and clearly the facts tell otherwise. That LDS are just like anyone else, perfectly able to do their jobs without their religious views having much effect save in "values" and "character", which is the same kind of an effect anyone else has on their job.

It's just more anti-mormon bearing false witness.

[KevinG]

Working for a Governor meant long hours and a long commute to downtown Atlanta. That prevented me from getting to my Scout calling on time every week, but my Assistant Scout Master covered admirably for me.

There is no difference between a government and secular job. You need to balance your responsibilities. I suspect Brother Romney's Bishop will take it easy on him for callings while he is in office.

From what I've heard of Erickson I'm not impressed with her grasp of all things LDS or political.

[KevinG]

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that if anyone were to claim the denial of the resurrection to a faithful spouse, they probably wouldn't be in a position to call their spouse into the Celestial Kingdom in the first place.

You are on a sturdy limb there. Amen brother!

[Zakuska]

Not to rain on Ms. Erickson's parade but perhaps she should have read this discourse by Brigham Young.

Do you expect that every person will be destroyed from the face of the earth, but the Latter-day Saints? If you do, you will be mistaken. Many of our Elders labor under these erroneous expectations when reading over the sayings of the Apostles and Prophets in regard to the coming of the Son of Man. In one verse the Prophet will be describing the second coming previous to the commencement of the Millennium, and perhaps in the same verse he will describe a scene that will take place after the Millennium, and when the earth will be cleansed from all wickedness, after Satan has been let loose a little season, and had another tour upon it, and after it is renovated and becomes sanctified, and is like a sea of glass, as John describes it. Will this be in the Millennium? No. But the order of society will be as it is when Christ comes to reign a thousand years; there will be every sort of sect and party, and every individual following what he supposes to be the best in religion, and in everything else, similar to what it is now.

Will there be WICKEDNESS then as now? No. How will you make this appear? When Jesus comes to rule and reign King of Nations as he now does King of Saints, the veil of the covering will be taken from all nations, that all flesh may see his glory together, but that will not make them all Saints. Seeing the Lord does not make a man a Saint, seeing an Angel does not make a man a Saint by any means. A man may see the finger of the Lord, and not thereby become a Saint; the vail of the covering may be taken from before the nations, and all flesh see His glory together, and at the same time declare they will not serve Him. They may, perhaps, feel something as a woman in Missouri did, who had been driven four times, and when she was about to be driven again she said, "I will be damned if I will stand it any longer; if God wants me to go through such a routine of things, He may take me where He pleases, and do with me as He pleases; I won't stand it any longer."

When the nations shall see the glory of God together, the spirit of their feelings may be couched in these words, "I will be damned if I will serve You." In those days, the Methodists and Presbyterians, headed by their priests, will not be allowed to form into a mob to drive, kill, and rob the Latter-day Saints; neither will the Latter-day Saints be allowed to rise up and say, "We will kill you Methodists, Presbyterians, &c.," neither will any of the different sects of Christendom be allowed to persecute each other.

What will they do? They will hear of the wisdom of Zion, and the kings and potentates of the nations will come up to Zion to inquire after the ways of the Lord, and to seek out the great knowledge, wisdom, and understanding manifested through the Saints of the Most High. They will inform the people of God that they belong to such and such a Church, and do not wish to change their religion.

They will be drawn to Zion by the great wisdom displayed there, and will attribute it to the cunning and craftiness of men. It will be asked, "What do you want to do, ye strangers from afar." "We want to live our own religion." "Will you bow the knee before God with us?" O yes, we would as soon do it as not;" and at that time every knee shall bow, and every tongue acknowledge that page 317 God who is the framer and maker of all things, the governor and controller of the universe. They will have to bow the knee and confess that He is God, and that Jesus Christ, who suffered for the sins of the world, is actually its Redeemer; that by the shedding of his blood he has redeemed men, women, children, beasts, birds, fish, the earth itself, and everything that John saw and heard praising in heaven.

They will ask, "If I bow the knee and confess that he is that Saviour, the Christ, to the glory of the Father, will you let me go home and be a Presbyterian?" "Yes." "And not persecute me?" "Never." "Won't you let me go home and belong to the Greek Church?" "Yes." "Will you allow me to be a Friend Quaker, or a Shaking Quaker?" "O yes, anything you wish to be, but remember that you must not persecute your neighbors, but must mind your own business, and let your neighbors alone, and let them worship the sun, moon, a white dog, or anything else they please, being mindful that every knee has got to bow and every tongue confess. When you have paid this tribute to the Most High, who created you and preserves you, you may then go and worship what you please, or do what you please, if you do not infringe upon your neighbors."

The brethren who spoke this morning had not time to explain these points, and I have only just touched upon the subject.

The Church of Jesus Christ will produce this government, and cause it to grow and spread, and it will be a shield round about the Church. And under the influence and power of the Kingdom of God, the Church of God will rest secure and dwell in safety, without taking the trouble of governing and controlling the whole earth. The Kingdom of God will do this, it will control the kingdoms of the world.

When the day comes in which the Kingdom of God will bear rule, the flag of the United States will proudly flutter unsullied on the flag staff of liberty and equal rights, without a spot to sully its fair surface; the glorious flag our fathers have bequeathed to us will then be unfurled to the breeze by those who have power to hoist it aloft and defend its sanctity.

Up to this time we have carried the world on our backs. Joseph did it in his day, besides carrying this whole people, and now all this is upon my back, with my family to provide for at the same time, and we will carry it all, and bear off the Kingdom of God. And you may pile on state after state, and kingdom after kingdom, and all hell on top, and we will roll on the Kingdom of our God, gather out the seed of Abraham, build the cities and temples of Zion, and establish the Kingdom of God to bear rule over all the earth, and let the oppressed of all nations go free.

I have never yet talked as rough in these mountains as I did in the United States when they killed Joseph. I there said boldly and aloud, "If ever a man should lay his hands on me and say, on account of my religion, 'Thou art my prisoner,' the Lord Almighty helping me, I would send that man to hell across lots." I feel so now. Let mobbers keep their hands off from me, or I will send them where they belong; I am always prepared for such an emergency.

I have occupied time enough; may God bless you. Amen.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_2/The_Kingdom_of_God

So much for the Mormon Church trying to take over the whole world?!

[BCSpace]

For those familiar with the Law of Consecration (of which I am one), do you see any apparent conflict between being a public servant (i.e. holding elected office in a secular government) and consecrating one's time and talents toward building the Kingdom of God and establishing Zion?

Not in the least. The LoC is a method to help the poor. It is not an economic system though in order to truly work, it requires a capitalist/free market economic system seeing as how it's fundamental principle is the free use of private property. So it seems that for the most part, the LoC has little to do with elected office unless the person in question is in opposition to that which makes the LoC work. As for being called to serve, elected office is usually a voluntary position so one could step down at any time.

Does a belief in theosis conflict with one's ability to hold an elected office?

Erickson has made a point of trying to appear on various talk shows, promoting her book and making various (

) claims to the effect that in Mormonism it is "up to the husbands to resurrect their wives." Erickson of course, is referring to the fact that faithful husbands will call up their wives in the resurrection. But she infers that husbands have the choice to resurrect their wives or not, as though they're some sort of final judge on the faithfulness of their spouse.

As with any doctrine, Theosis might conflict with someone's personal notions thereby making someone ineligible to hold office in a voter's mind. As for the resurrection example, that has little do with Theosis other than the requirement for men and women who are to become Gods and Goddesses to be married.

Does anyone here believe that they would honestly have the ability, let alone the desire, to deny resurrection to their spouse?

I don't believe it. It does sound like something an early LDS Church leader might have said in a non doctrinal context. I'd call for CFR on that one. But all any LDS candidate need do is refer the question to the Church though they run the risk of that being unsatisfactory to the voter.

Upon further ponderation, beacuse the NT teaches that the saints will judge the world, it seems possible that one could affect the degree of glory of someone in the resurrection thereby also affecting the time of their resurrection. However, I think it would be wise to recuse one's self from making those judgements about one's spouse(s).

Edited October 28, 2011 by BCSpace

[Log]

I actually see a conflict more here: http://lds.org/scrip....15?lang=eng#14

Whoso readeth, let them understand.

Suffice it to say that any man who seeks power and authority should NOT be given power nor authority.

The man who seeks power to pull it down, that man should have authority: http://lds.org/scrip....36?lang=eng#35

There is such a candidate. It grieves me it isn't one of the Mormons.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Log

[thesometimesaint]

Does anyone here believe that they would honestly have the ability, let alone the desire, to deny resurrection to their spouse?

It is all by choice.

Yes the husband doesn't have to ask(That blessing will be given to another if he refuses). However the wife doesn't have to answer. She can answer to that other worthy mans' call.

[cdowis]

However the wife doesn't have to answer. She can answer to that other worthy mans' call.

Hmmm.... I guess I had better help out with the dishes more often.

[theplains]

There is some teaching about this law in the Gospel Doctrine - Teacher's Manual.

"The early Saints attempted to live the law for periods of time in Ohio, Missouri, and Utah. Some of the Saints lived the law

well, but the Church as a whole failed to live it (see also Our Heritage,page 26)".

According to the introductory notes of Doctrine and Covenants 119, "The Lord had previously given to the Church the law

of consecration and stewardship of property, which members (chiefly the leading elders) entered into by a covenant that

was to be everlasting. Because of failure on the part of many to abide by this covenant, the Lord withdrew it for a time and

gave instead the law of tithing to the whole Church".

It could be a possibility that the Lord has not reinstated the Law of Consecration because he knows that his people are

also not willing to obey. Or this tithing period is the interlude until the law is again reinstated prior to beginning the

construction of the New Jerusalem in Jackson county.

Regards,

Jim

[thesometimesaint]

theplains:

I don't see us re-instituting the LoC before Babylon the Great has finally fallen.

[CV75]

For those familiar with the Law of Consecration (of which I am one), do you see any apparent conflict between being a public servant (i.e. holding elected office in a secular government) and consecrating one's time and talents toward building the Kingdom of God and establishing Zion?

Only if attempted during the Millenium under an alternate government.

Does a belief in theosis conflict with one's ability to hold an elected office?

Only perhaps for a fanatic.

Does anyone here believe that they would honestly have the ability, let alone the desire, to deny resurrection to their spouse?

Not me, at least.

[rpn]

The argument is silly since resurrection is available to all, having nothing whatever to do with worthiness. A man could no more prevent his spouse from being resurrected by refusing to participate in the act, than he could prevent her from getting any other blessing that she has lived the covenants on which it is predicated. The calling forth has to do with order, and nothing else.

[Pahoran]

For those familiar with the Law of Consecration (of which I am one), do you see any apparent conflict between being a public servant (i.e. holding elected office in a secular government) and consecrating one's time and talents toward building the Kingdom of God and establishing Zion?

No.

When elected to, or otherwise entrusted with, public office, that office is not the "property" of the holder, to be used for whatever purpose he or she sees fit. It is -- just like any other job working for an employer -- a contract for services. The office holder, as an employee, is obligated to discharge his or her duties in accordance with the wishes and/or interests of the employer, not any other entity.

The money or other compensation earned in that employment does belong to the individual, and he/she is therefore at liberty to consecrate that to the Church. But the office itself does not.

I've been somewhat intrigued by the self-proclaimed political pundit Tricia Erickson's largely unoriginal research in her polemic about how LDS civil servants are apparently incapable of committing themselves to the service of their country (and their fellow beings), while serving God at the same time.

What can I say? She's clearly wrong. As has been demonstrated by the Mormons in public office in many parts of the world.

Does a belief in theosis conflict with one's ability to hold an elected office?

No.

Erickson has made a point of trying to appear on various talk shows, promoting her book and making various (

) claims to the effect that in Mormonism it is "up to the husbands to resurrect their wives." Erickson of course, is referring to the fact that faithful husbands will call up their wives in the resurrection. But she infers that husbands have the choice to resurrect their wives or not, as though they're some sort of final judge on the faithfulness of their spouse.

Does anyone here believe that they would honestly have the ability, let alone the desire, to deny resurrection to their spouse?

I do not believe that claim has ever been made in good faith by any informed person.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that if anyone were to claim the denial of the resurrection to a faithful spouse, they probably wouldn't be in a position to call their spouse into the Celestial Kingdom in the first place.

Your comments would be appreciated.

You're welcome.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Storm Rider]

For those familiar with the Law of Consecration (of which I am one), do you see any apparent conflict between being a public servant (i.e. holding elected office in a secular government) and consecrating one's time and talents toward building the Kingdom of God and establishing Zion?

I've been somewhat intrigued by the self-proclaimed political pundit Tricia Erickson's largely unoriginal research in her polemic about how LDS civil servants are apparently incapable of committing themselves to the service of their country (and their fellow beings), while serving God at the same time.

Does a belief in theosis conflict with one's ability to hold an elected office?

Erickson has made a point of trying to appear on various talk shows, promoting her book and making various (

) claims to the effect that in Mormonism it is "up to the husbands to resurrect their wives." Erickson of course, is referring to the fact that faithful husbands will call up their wives in the resurrection. But she infers that husbands have the choice to resurrect their wives or not, as though they're some sort of final judge on the faithfulness of their spouse.

Does anyone here believe that they would honestly have the ability, let alone the desire, to deny resurrection to their spouse?

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that if anyone were to claim the denial of the resurrection to a faithful spouse, they probably wouldn't be in a position to call their spouse into the Celestial Kingdom in the first place.

Your comments would be appreciated.

Erickson is a whack job and has no credibility in the minds of those who can think. Theosis, as the Orthodox call it, is completely in-line with how a LDS attempts to live their own lives. At it most basic level the challenge is to choose the right in all that we do. Understanding that this choice is built upon a belief in the God and his son, Jesus Christ, and in the active work of the Holy Spirit in our day, then one understands the workings and motivations of a LDS, an Orthodox, and a Catholic. This lifestyle is fully in keeping with what we expect of our politicians and government employees. It is a shame that so many of them, evidently, have no similar foundation upon which to guide their lives; or maybe it is they fail so miserably at making good choices.

[cinepro]

For those familiar with the Law of Consecration (of which I am one), do you see any apparent conflict between being a public servant (i.e. holding elected office in a secular government) and consecrating one's time and talents toward building the Kingdom of God and establishing Zion?

I've been somewhat intrigued by the self-proclaimed political pundit Tricia Erickson's largely unoriginal research in her polemic about how LDS civil servants are apparently incapable of committing themselves to the service of their country (and their fellow beings), while serving God at the same time.

As long as Mitt Romney takes the Law of Consecration as seriously as all the other LDS, I don't think there will be a problem.