pogi Posted November 6, 2014 Posted November 6, 2014 Not sure history really demonstrates that. Perhaps complete chastity is a law that can only work for a Zion society and not in preparation for one. Actually, I partly agree with that statement. Complete (as in systemic) chastity cannot and does not work outside of a Zion society. Just like consecration (as far as the systemic monetary practice goes) cannot and does not work outside of one.Also, all temple endowed individuals are expected to observe the law of consecration as they are expected to observe the law of chastity in preparation for Zion. But not as a systemic practice, but individually until all the wheat are separated from the tares so to speak. It simply cannot work church wide. But I suppose if there was a way to separate the wheat from the tares, it could work in branches of Zion, as I do believe there are Zion people out there.
The Nehor Posted November 6, 2014 Posted November 6, 2014 But also harder in other ways. People are much more mobile today. And any church financial support - propping up - of the pilots could easily undermine the whole system. On the bright side, if Meet the Mormons is a Netflix success, we could come out with a series of United Order - themed "survival" reality shows. We'll start with United Order Missouri. Then move to United Order South Pacific, United Order Amazon, and scariest of all, United Order France.I refuse to believe that people who voluntarily choose to be on reality TV shows could function in a United Order society. I am not sure if they can function in any kind of society. 3
JLHPROF Posted November 6, 2014 Author Posted November 6, 2014 As for the actual communitarian experiments in Missouri and Utah, they were destined to fail. Good intentions can never overcome the laws of economics. Actually "Orderville" was a complete success until the members decided to adopt a class system. That is, they felt that skilled labor should receive more than unskilled labor. As soon as they tried to implement inequality the order was finished.For as long as all received sufficient for their needs regardless of the work they did the order worked perfectly. Well, that and until half the leaders were arrested for polygamy or went into hiding. Kind of hard to run an order with no members.United Order can work, but people make it almost impossible. Although the United Order was practiced in many Utah communities during the late 1870s, Orderville was unique in both the level of success it experienced under the communal living style, and in the duration of the experiment. In the course of a few years, Orderville grew into a thriving, self-sufficient community. The success and relative wealth of the community attracted more settlers and Orderville grew to about 700 people. Orderville not only provided for the needs of its population, but produced a significant surplus for sale to other communities, which was used to purchase additional land and equipment.The Order continued in Orderville for approximately 10 years. During the early 1880s, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints lost interest in the experiment, but Orderville attempted to continue it. In 1885, the enforcement of the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882 effectively ended the Order by jailing many of the Order's leaders and driving many of the others underground. 2
JLHPROF Posted November 6, 2014 Author Posted November 6, 2014 For each individual who lives the law of consecration, and many today have made a covenant with God to do that, giving everything I have to God is all about sharing, sharing what I have as if it isn't just "mine mine mine", sharing as God shares with those he shares with, charitably, for the common good, with the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the one or the few.It means when I see a brother or sister in need and I am able to give that to or share what I have with them, I do that, as long as it is for the common good. Consecration is not about "sharing what is mine". It never was. Consecration is about recognizing that "nothing is mine, everything is God's". In Consecration you do not share your possessions because you do not have possessions. Everything belongs to God and he (through his Bishop) is nice enough to give you a stewardship to operate for your needs. But it never belongs to you. It is not yours to share. Instead of "to each their own" it is "whatever is mine is yours" with neither one abusing those resources.We still need to be prudent as good stewards, but there is nothing wrong with sharing as long as we do things as God does and wants us to do. This is true. But it's not about sharing.
Coreyb Posted November 6, 2014 Posted November 6, 2014 Actually "Orderville" was a complete success until the members decided to adopt a class system. That is, they felt that skilled labor should receive more than unskilled labor. As soon as they tried to implement inequality the order was finished.For as long as all received sufficient for their needs regardless of the work they did the order worked perfectly. Well, that and until half the leaders were arrested for polygamy or went into hiding. Kind of hard to run an order with no members.United Order can work, but people make it almost impossible.Well said. Cinepro, I would suggest the book Building the City of God. They were destined to fail, but not because of any inherent weakness in the system per say. It was because of the stances the greater church took in regards to the U.S. Government and "Americanism" in general that caused its eventual collapse.
Silhouette Posted November 6, 2014 Posted November 6, 2014 There is a sister in our ward that makes sure she has enough food storage and emergency supplies for her neighbors as well as she and her husband. She expects that if there was an apocalyptic situation, people would flock to her home in droves because they know she is Mormon and that she has food and water on hand. Her garage doesn't hold cars or tools or any items like that. It is filled with food, water, and emergency supplies for everyone who might come seeking in a situation where such things are being fought over or needed. 1
Ahab Posted November 6, 2014 Posted November 6, 2014 Consecration is not about "sharing what is mine". It never was. Consecration is about recognizance that "nothing is mine, everything is God's". In Consecration you do not share your possessions because you do not have possessions. Everything belongs to God and he (through his Bishop) is nice enough to give you a stewardship to operate for your needs. But it never belongs to you. It is not yours to share.This is true. But it's not about sharing.If you had understood what I meant you would see we agree. 1
ERayR Posted November 6, 2014 Posted November 6, 2014 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peculiarpeople/2014/11/consecrating-the-widows-mite/Kind of a fun blog post on the journey we are going to have to take from tithing back towards consecration in the building up of Zion.I really like their definition: So what do people think? What are some things we can do now to prepare for then? How do we move ourselves and our lives closer to consecration? Because this is depressing: Cease arguing about what is a full tithe. Simply give everything not needed for food, modest clothing, a modest home and an economical but serviceable car to the church. 1
ERayR Posted November 6, 2014 Posted November 6, 2014 Actually "Orderville" was a complete success until the members decided to adopt a class system. That is, they felt that skilled labor should receive more than unskilled labor. As soon as they tried to implement inequality the order was finished.For as long as all received sufficient for their needs regardless of the work they did the order worked perfectly. Well, that and until half the leaders were arrested for polygamy or went into hiding. Kind of hard to run an order with no members.United Order can work, but people make it almost impossible. The guy who fixes the toilets is just as valuable as the guy who fixes the computers or grows the food. 2
ERayR Posted November 6, 2014 Posted November 6, 2014 Not sure history really demonstrates that. Perhaps complete chastity is a law that can only work for a Zion society and not in preparation for one. What has chastity got to do with the United Order?
JLHPROF Posted November 6, 2014 Author Posted November 6, 2014 The guy who fixes the toilets is just as valuable as the guy who fixes the computers or grows the food. Not sure about the computers, but the guy that grows the food is probably slightly ahead of the guy that fixes the toilets. Although both are pretty darn necessary (and related). Seriously though, United Order only works when your only concern is managing your own stewardship to create surplus and not worrying about what your neighbor might be blessed with. The second we feel like we are worth more or deserve more than our neighbor (or vice versa I suppose) the United Order system develops faults. 1
jcake Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 I think the real reason that tithing is a lesser law, is that for some it requires little, and for some it requires much. Consecration asks that we give all but just what is needed to sustain ourselves. I know full tithe payers now who can still do everything, including nice vacations, fancy cars, expensive education opportunities, etc. And I know full tithe payers who haven't enough money to pay for basic dental care, haven't had a vacation in years, live sparse, frugal lifestyles so that they can tithe. What they give is more than would be required if we were living the law of consecration. In our imperfect world, a 10 percent edict is what works, but it is a far from a perfect system. 1
Calm Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) The guy who fixes the toilets is just as valuable as the guy who fixes the computers or grows the food.More valuable when they are plugged up."the guy that grows the food is probably slightly ahead of the guy that fixes the toilets."Most can easily skip a meal or two or three...skipping using the toilet? Edited November 7, 2014 by calmoriah 1
Avatar4321 Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 What has chastity got to do with the United Order?absolutely nothing. Chastity is a terrestrial principle. Consecration a celestial one.
ERayR Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 Not sure about the computers, but the guy that grows the food is probably slightly ahead of the guy that fixes the toilets. Although both are pretty darn necessary (and related). Seriously though, United Order only works when your only concern is managing your own stewardship to create surplus and not worrying about what your neighbor might be blessed with. The second we feel like we are worth more or deserve more than our neighbor (or vice versa I suppose) the United Order system develops faults. That is what the BoM message about wearing "fine apparel" is about. Even the guy that sits behind the big desk in the corner office needs a working toilet on a daily basis. 3
Coreyb Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 What has chastity got to do with the United Order?We covenant to be chaste and we covenant to consecrate. If we kept these laws we would be a Zion people. Since chastity is so hard for so many, why don't we just live half of the Law? This seems to be the reason many give for our current practice of consecration.
The Nehor Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 I think the real reason that tithing is a lesser law, is that for some it requires little, and for some it requires much. Consecration asks that we give all but just what is needed to sustain ourselves. I know full tithe payers now who can still do everything, including nice vacations, fancy cars, expensive education opportunities, etc. And I know full tithe payers who haven't enough money to pay for basic dental care, haven't had a vacation in years, live sparse, frugal lifestyles so that they can tithe. What they give is more than would be required if we were living the law of consecration. In our imperfect world, a 10 percent edict is what works, but it is a far from a perfect system. Ironically the rich often struggle more with paying it. 2
ERayR Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 We covenant to be chaste and we covenant to consecrate. If we kept these laws we would be a Zion people. Since chastity is so hard for so many, why don't we just live half of the Law? This seems to be the reason many give for our current practice of consecration. I understand your reasoning now. It is, to me, a strange comparison.
The Nehor Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 That is what the BoM message about wearing "fine apparel" is about. Even the guy that sits behind the big desk in the corner office needs a working toilet on a daily basis. I think in a truly consecrated society the "dirty jobs" will be divided pretty evenly and the CEO will clean his own toilet. Then again, I suspect a lot of office jobs will vanish in such a society in any case. 1
Coreyb Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) I understand your reasoning now. It is, to me, a strange comparison.Its not really that strange. Why do you suppose these laws are the only ones "fully initiated" latter day saints covenant to keep in order to be "endowed with power"? I would submit that in perfectly keeping these commandments a person would be perfectly keeping Christ's second commandment, to love your neighbor as yourself. I would also submit that only in keeping the second commandment can a person keep the first. These, I believe are the principles of Mormonism that Joseph Smith said could/would revolutionize the world. We are quite strict with the chastity one (even to the condemning of adolescent masturbators), yet in my limited experience, consecration, in its truest form, is thought of as something of the past and of the future, and only more abstract in the present. Edited November 7, 2014 by Coreyb
ERayR Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 Its not really that strange. Why do you suppose these laws are the only ones "fully initiated" latter day saints covenant to keep in order to be "endowed with power"? I would submit that in perfectly keeping these commandments a person would be perfectly keeping Christ's second commandment, to love your neighbor as yourself. I would also submit that only in keeping the second commandment can a person keep the first. These, I believe are the principles of Mormonism that Joseph Smith said could/would revolutionize the world. We are quite strict with the chastity one (even to condemning of adolescent masturbators), yet in my limited experience, consecration, in its truest form, is thought of as something of the past and of the future, and only more abstract in the present. I said I understand and am not arguing with you. I just think it is and odd comparison. Perhaps that is because my mind works a little differently than yours.
Coreyb Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 I said I understand and am not arguing with you. I just think it is and odd comparison. Perhaps that is because my mind works a little differently than yours.I know, not arguing. Just explaining my point a bit better brother
BCSpace Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peculiarpeople/2014/11/consecrating-the-widows-mite/Kind of a fun blog post on the journey we are going to have to take from tithing back towards consecration in the building up of Zion.I really like their definition: So what do people think? What are some things we can do now to prepare for then? How do we move ourselves and our lives closer to consecration? Because this is depressing: Well, we expressly know from the official doctrine (see my siggy), that living the LoC is not any type of communal, redistributive, or Socialist system. It's not an economic system because it doesn't try to affect supply, demand, price, production, etc. The requirement for each stewardship to be private property freely run and exercised by the steward as well as the fact that everyone's wants and needs have equal standing imply a free market capitalist economy for the LoC to function in. It's going to be the only economic system under the LoC can function well as it's the only system that creates wealth. Also there are many LDS not living in an agrarian society, at least in the USA, whereas when previously practiced, most seemed to be "on the farm". So we are likely not going to be managing our stewardships based on commodities, at least not very much (keeping the modern Bishop's storehouse in mind). I'd say we can effect the LoC with little to no change at all. Perhaps in a way, it is already effected. 1. As all endowed temple goers know, we are already practicing the LoC. Therefore, no need for deeds or any other barriers to entry needed.2. A family of 4 lives in a 4800 sq ft. house. Another family of 4 lives in a 2400 sq ft. house. Do we knock them both down and build each family a new 3600 sq ft house? Of course not. This would violate the LoC's notion of equality (wants, needs, desires are equal before the Lord, NOT assets) and be incredibly wasteful. Everyone continues living economically as before. At the end of the year (or at other regular intervals or as need arises) surplus is determined and given to the Church by existing temple recommend holders, probably mostly as money. Other temple recommend holders in need may draw upon this surplus. Notice that it is only endowed temple recommend holders that are subject to this and benefit from it because they are the ones who have willingly volunteered and committed to live the LoC. Notice also that surplus may or may not be 100%. Capital investments, retirements, vacations, rainy day funds, etc. are all valid wants and needs. But an LoC family will likely have a longer meeting with the Bishop than the usual 10 minute tithing settlement and think more about what their wants and needs truly are compared to any needs being claimed. That is the only thing that really changes. It's going to be very easy and very effective imho. Having some small experience with local Church finances and having sat down and made some quick rough calculations in several wards and stakes, I'd say if everyone paid a truly generous fast offering, say an additional 1% of income in top of the 10% for tithing, most if not all local needs could be met. Edited November 7, 2014 by BCSpace
Bernard Gui Posted November 7, 2014 Posted November 7, 2014 (edited) http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peculiarpeople/2014/11/consecrating-the-widows-mite/Kind of a fun blog post on the journey we are going to have to take from tithing back towards consecration in the building up of Zion.I really like their definition: So what do people think? What are some things we can do now to prepare for then? How do we move ourselves and our lives closer to consecration? Easy. You can live the law of consecration through your donations to fast offerings. Edited November 7, 2014 by Bernard Gui
Recommended Posts