So, How Do We Move From Tithing Back To Consecration?

[Avatar4321]

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.

my only question is why would those who are endowed and don't have a recommend for whatever reason be exempt. They've made covenants too

[Sleeper Cell]

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.

This may have some value in promoting humility (for the CEO).  It would certainly appeal to my (terrestrial) desire to occasionally see the “big shots” taken down a peg or two. .But, if I were a maintenance worker in a consecrated society, I would want the CEO (and every other worker) to spend his/her working time in whatever way that produced the greatest economic benefit for the society as a whole (if, for no other reason, this would also produce the greatest economic benefit for me).  In other words, I and my fellow workers would benefit more if I cleaned the CEOs toilet than if the CEO did.  

[rodheadlee]

I'll go first, I'll consecrate my home, it's a sailboat. It comes with a captain and first mate, free. Do we have any volunteers to help deliver some BoMs or medicine to Tahiti? We'll have to polish the stainless steel and put a coat of varnish on the wood before we leave. We'll need a donation of diesel fuel too. 100 gallons will do for that trip, last time we only used 52. Then we'll need someone to pay our bills while were gone. You can drive my station wagon while were away, it's an all wheel drive BMW she just had her 100k mile check up. I've been slinging a 6.2 pound sander over my head all day on a houseboat, we'll need a volunteer to take my place as I can't let my customer down.

[Jude2]

Well we all need to obey the prophets and get out of debt, we can’t concentrate our debt to the Lord. 

[The Nehor]

This may have some value in promoting humility (for the CEO).  It would certainly appeal to my (terrestrial) desire to occasionally see the “big shots” taken down a peg or two. .But, if I were a maintenance worker in a consecrated society, I would want the CEO (and every other worker) to spend his/her working time in whatever way that produced the greatest economic benefit for the society as a whole (if, for no other reason, this would also produce the greatest economic benefit for me).  In other words, I and my fellow workers would benefit more if I cleaned the CEOs toilet than if the CEO did.

I do not think humility is necessarily the goal nor do I think economic efficiency is the goal either. The goal in a consecrated society is personal development. I see this as meaning an absence of over specialization. He might be the best CEO in the world but focusing all his time and efforts on that job would not let him develop just like pigeonholing someone as a janitor and having them only clean toilets would stifle him.

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.

I could not disagree more.

[JLHPROF]

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.

 

 

No, they're not.  All endowed members are under covenant to consecrate everything.  However, it is not currently possible to actually consecrate.  You still have your possessions - home, car, clothing, toys etc...they still belong to you.

[ERayR]

No, they're not.  All endowed members are under covenant to consecrate everything.  However, it is not currently possible to actually consecrate.  You still have your possessions - home, car, clothing, toys etc...they still belong to you.

 

Under the LoC you have ownership of your stewardship. 

[Sleeper Cell]

I do not think humility is necessarily the goal nor do I think economic efficiency is the goal either. The goal in a consecrated society is personal development. I see this as meaning an absence of over specialization. He might be the best CEO in the world but focusing all his time and efforts on that job would not let him develop just like pigeonholing someone as a janitor and having them only clean toilets would stifle him.

 

 

Interesting thought.  If economic efficiency is not the goal (or at least a goal), it raises the possibility that a janitor might  be economically better off in a capitalist society than in a consecrated one.  I had always assumed that one of the biggest obstacles to establishing a consecrated society is that those in well paid professions (e.g., doctors) might be reluctant to join because they would have to live a more modest lifestyle.  The possibility never occurred to me that the janitor might also be reluctant to join because he might also have to live a more modest lifestyle than that to which he has become accustomed.   

 

I am not saying that the CEO should focus all his time on CEO stuff.  Just all of his “at work” time.  Presumably the CEO also has a toilet at home that needs cleaning from time to time.

 

One advantage of economic efficiency is that people would have to work fewer hours to maintain the same lifestyle. Most of my personal development resulted from my activities outside of work.  Church callings.  Reading books. Hobbies. Volunteer work in the community (esp. that which has little to do with my professional expertise).  Indeed, my volunteer activities has given me opportunities to develop in areas that I never would have considered.

 

BTW, I once worked as a janitor.  It didn’t pigeonhole or stifle me.  Nor did it prevent me from getting the necessary education and training to qualify for another job.  Surely, in a consecrated society, it would be much easier for a janitor to do the same thing. -- unless, of course, it was so economically inefficient that it could not afford to offer continuing education and retraining to everyone who wanted it.  

[cinepro]

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.

 

Yes, I agree that every communitarian society works perfectly until it doesn't.

[cinepro]

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.

 

 

 

That might sound good philosophically, but how does it work from a practical standpoint?

 

For example, if "nothing is mine, everything is God's", then how could it be considered unethical for me to transfer the location of something that God owns but is in your garage to my garage?  It can't be "stealing" or theft, because the owner hasn't changed.  Just the location.  

 

I know it's taboo to compare "The Law of Consecration" with other earthly societies that take novel (and communal) approaches to private property, but it still needs to be done.  History shows that when you take away people's ownership and personal accountability for property, disaster ensues.  Not disaster like people have to wear last year's fall collection by Ralph Lauren, but disasters like starvation and death from lack of shelter and medical care. 

 

Communitarian societies always look great on paper, and they might start out well, but they scale horribly, and degrade over time.  The only way one could work would be if it somehow overcomes everything we know about basic human nature.  Obviously, you can say that "overcoming basic human nature" is a prerequisite for the Law of Consecration, but there has been no evidence to show that it can actually happen, and lots of evidence to show that it won't.

Edited November 7, 2014 by cinepro

[cinepro]

Under the LoC you have ownership of your stewardship. 

 

Which version of the LoC are you referring to?  1831?  1832? 1834?

[BCSpace]

my only question is why would those who are endowed and don't have a recommend for whatever reason be exempt. They've made covenants too

 

 

To clarify, I wouldn't necessarily exempt them.  It depends on why they don't have a recommend. I suppose one could also covenant to live the LoC outside the temple context, but that's something that is not extant today unless you want to assume that the baptismal covenant is a catchall. In that case, you might as well do the endowment at the same time as baptism.

[The Nehor]

Interesting thought.  If economic efficiency is not the goal (or at least a goal), it raises the possibility that a janitor might  be economically better off in a capitalist society than in a consecrated one.  I had always assumed that one of the biggest obstacles to establishing a consecrated society is that those in well paid professions (e.g., doctors) might be reluctant to join because they would have to live a more modest lifestyle.  The possibility never occurred to me that the janitor might also be reluctant to join because he might also have to live a more modest lifestyle than that to which he has become accustomed.   

 

I am not saying that the CEO should focus all his time on CEO stuff.  Just all of his “at work” time.  Presumably the CEO also has a toilet at home that needs cleaning from time to time.

 

One advantage of economic efficiency is that people would have to work fewer hours to maintain the same lifestyle. Most of my personal development resulted from my activities outside of work.  Church callings.  Reading books. Hobbies. Volunteer work in the community (esp. that which has little to do with my professional expertise).  Indeed, my volunteer activities has given me opportunities to develop in areas that I never would have considered.

 

BTW, I once worked as a janitor.  It didn’t pigeonhole or stifle me.  Nor did it prevent me from getting the necessary education and training to qualify for another job.  Surely, in a consecrated society, it would be much easier for a janitor to do the same thing. -- unless, of course, it was so economically inefficient that it could not afford to offer continuing education and retraining to everyone who wanted it.

I do not think quality of life will diminish. A consecrated society would be able to get rid of a lot of economic waste (marketing, insurance, sales, investment companies, lawyers, and much more). I would argue that everyone would have a more fulfilling and diversified work life and more time for personal development. I am suggesting instead that there will be no janitors at all. That level of specialization will go away.

[BCSpace]

I could not disagree more.

 

Seeing as how you have no reasons for disagreement, I'm good to go with my opinion.

[The Nehor]

Communitarian societies always look great on paper, and they might start out well, but they scale horribly, and degrade over time.  The only way one could work would be if it somehow overcomes everything we know about basic human nature.  Obviously, you can say that "overcoming basic human nature" is a prerequisite for the Law of Consecration, but there has been no evidence to show that it can actually happen, and lots of evidence to show that it won't.

And that is what makes it so scary and why it fails but God insists that in the end He will accept nothing less so we have to prepare for it.

[BCSpace]

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.

 

No, they're not.  All endowed members are under covenant to consecrate everything.  However, it is not currently possible to actually consecrate.  You still have your possessions - home, car, clothing, toys etc...they still belong to you.

 

 

 

There is nothing to prevent one from giving (consecrating) anything to the Church.

 

 

You still have your possessions - home, car, clothing, toys etc...they still belong to you.

 

 

That is how the LoC works. According to the official doctrine (see my siggy), private property is the fundamental principle of the Law of Consecration. Your stewardship IS your private property and you may do with it as you see fit.

Edited November 7, 2014 by BCSpace

[The Nehor]

Seeing as how you have no reasons for disagreement, I'm good to go with my opinion.

Your version of the Law of Consecration is insipid. You have watered it down to "business as usual" with a fairly weak contribution system that is basically fast offerings by another name. To put it in perspective the Jehovah's Witnesses as a culture sacrifice more and are more consecrated then your system is. If it is that easy then why has God not brought it back? It would be seen as a mild inconvenience, not the massive difficulty that societies since the beginning of time have stumbled and failed at whenever God tried to bring about Zion with very few successes. The lesser law of Moses is more difficult to live then your idea and it was softened because the people were too weak to live the whole law.

So, you are wrong.

[BCSpace]

Communitarian societies always look great on paper, and they might start out well, but they scale horribly, and degrade over time.  The only way one could work would be if it somehow overcomes everything we know about basic human nature.  Obviously, you can say that "overcoming basic human nature" is a prerequisite for the Law of Consecration, but there has been no evidence to show that it can actually happen, and lots of evidence to show that it won't.

 

 

Thank goodness the LDS Church teaches against communalism vis a vis the Law of Consecration. One of the most common mistakes people make regarding the LoC is they think it's an actual economic system when in fact all it is is a more strongly binding command and commitment to make your fast offering generous.

[cinepro]

And that is what makes it so scary and why it fails but God insists that in the end He will accept nothing less so we have to prepare for it.

 

I suspect that any future millennial implementation of the LoC will involve a massive change to human nature.  Just as "the wolf and the lamb shall feed together", so to will people work for the benefit of the community and not themselves, not compare their clothing and possessions with others, and be happy with what they have if it is enough to meet their needs and not always be desiring more and better things.

 

But to get there it will take a drastic, supernatural intervention in the basic desires and motivations of humankind.  Good intentions and willpower are not enough (especially beyond the first generation).

[BCSpace]

Your version of the Law of Consecration is insipid.

 

 

"My" version is actually official LDS doctrine.  For example:

 

“They had all things common.” The phrase “they had all things common” ( Acts 4:32 ; see also Acts 2:44 ; 3 Nephi 26:19 ; 4 Nephi 1:3 ) is used to characterize those who lived the law of consecration in ancient times. Some have speculated that the term common suggests a type of communalism or “Christian Communism.” This interpretation is in error. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught the true nature of having all things common: “I preached on the stand about one hour on the 2nd chapter of Acts , designing to show the folly of common stock [holding property in common]. In Nauvoo every one is steward over his own [property].” ( History of the Church, 6:37–38.)

Each stewardship is considered private property (see Reading L-4 ), and the residues and surpluses consecrated for the storehouse became the “common property of the whole church” ( D&C 82:18 ). It is referred to as the “common property” because the covenant members of the order had access to it, according to their just “wants” and “needs,” including the need to improve their stewardship (see D&C 82:17–18 ).

The word equal is frequently used in the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants: “In . . . temporal things you shall be equal” ( D&C 70:14 ); “for if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things” ( D&C 78:6 ); “appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs” ( D&C 51:3 ). The Lord gave His definition of the term equal: “And you are to be equal, or in other words, you are to have equal claims on the properties, for the benefit of managing the concerns of your stewardships, every man according to his wants and his needs, inasmuch as his wants are just” ( D&C 82:17 ).

.....................

“This procedure [of providing deeds] preserved in every man the right of private ownership and management of his property. Indeed, the fundamental principle of the system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which, at his option, he could alienate [transfer], keep and operate, or otherwise treat as his own. The Church did not own all of the property, and life under the united order was not, and never will be, a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph himself said.

.....................

President Lorenzo Snow emphasized the importance of individual agency in moving forward the work of consecration: “In things that pertain to celestial glory there can be no forced operations. We must do according as the Spirit of the Lord operates upon our understandings and feelings. We cannot be crowded into matters, however great might be the blessing attending such procedure. We cannot be forced into living a celestial law; we must do this ourselves, of our own free will. And whatever we do in regard to the principles of the United Order, we must do it because we desire to do it. Some of us are practising in the spirit of the United Order, doing more than the law of tithing requires.” (In Journal of Discourses, 19:346.)

.....................

“Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness.

http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichments/enrichment-l-the-law-of-consecration-and-stewardship?lang=eng

 

 

 

[The Nehor]

"My" version is actually official LDS doctrine.  For example:

An Institute teacher has spoken so the thinking has been done. I have read and taught out of enough church manuals to know how flawed they can be.

[Silhouette]

To clarify, I wouldn't necessarily exempt them. It depends on why they don't have a recommend. I suppose one could also covenant to live the LoC outside the temple context, but that's something that is not extant today unless you want to assume that the baptismal covenant is a catchall. In that case, you might as well do the endowment at the same time as baptism.

I don't hold a temple recommend right now because I'm just coming back from inactivity. It's just a matter of me being active again long enough to get my recommend again. I've always assumed that the covenants I made in the temple were forever, regardless of whether or not I had a recommend at any given time. I assumed the Law of Consecration would still apply to me just the same way as anybody else who covenanted about it in the temple, and that I would be required to participate in it fully, like everybody else, since I covenanted to do so in the temple.

I must be misunderstanding something in these posts.

Edited November 7, 2014 by Silhouette

[Ahab]

I don't hold a temple recommend right now because I'm just coming back from inactivity. It's just a matter of me being active again long enough to get my recommend again. I've always assumed that the covenants I made in the temple were forever, regardless of whether or not I had a recommend at any given time. I assumed the Law of Consecration would still apply to me just the same way as anybody else who covenanted about it in the temple, and that I would be required to participate in it fully, like everybody else, since I covenanted to do so in the temple.

I must be misunderstanding something in these posts.

You understand correctly and BCSpace doesn't.

It happens a lot around here.

[Silhouette]

You understand correctly and BCSpace doesn't.

It happens a lot around here.

Thank you for the confirmation of the way I've always understood this covenant. Once covenanted, covenanted forever, current recommend or not.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Which version of the LoC are you referring to?  1831?  1832? 1834?

Dunno, probably needs to be updated.