Sleeper Cell Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 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. Why? I think that one of the points of a consecrated society is that we learn to value the janitor as much as the CEO, not that the CEO should do his own janitorial work. It is not merely a matter of the CEO having “more important things” to do; he simply may not have what it takes to be very good at janitorial work. Learning how to be a janitor is one thing. Becoming a good janitor is quite another. Although it is tempting to make a little list of professions that we feel we will never miss, I think that we will still need marketing, insurance, sales and investment specialists in a consecrated society. Even (sigh) lawyers. At least, until we are well into the millennium. But this thread is about setting up a consecrated society in our day .-- not in the millennium And, unfortunately, we would probably need lawyers, etc. more than ever. A consecrated society will still be subject to the laws of the land. Do you think the IRS is going to consider transfers of good and services within the community as non-taxable events? Or regard a consecrated society as a tax-exempt entity? What about sales tax? Do you suppose that the president will exempt the members of a consecrated society from the requirement to buy health insurance? What about auto insurance? What about probate? Far from reducing specialization, establishing consecrated societies may lead to new professional specialties (such as “consecrated society tax law“ and “consecrated probate law“).. Will the society be self sufficient (or, at least, trade only with other consecrated societies) or will it buy and sell to the “gentile” world? If the latter, we will certainly need marketing and sales people.
Calm Posted November 9, 2014 Posted November 9, 2014 The janitor comments make me think about other comments of the varying quality of work by those who clean our churches.I don't see getting completely away from having janitors even if people clean up after they use facilities. As long as there were shared public buildings with restrooms there seems to me there would be need to have janitors to do deep cleaning unless people alternate in volunteering to take these jobs.
ERayR Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 The janitor comments make me think about other comments of the varying quality of work by those who clean our churches.I don't see getting completely away from having janitors even if people clean up after they use facilities. As long as there were shared public buildings with restrooms there seems to me there would be need to have janitors to do deep cleaning unless people alternate in volunteering to take these jobs. In our ward it is done by rotational assignment.
BCSpace Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 "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. Incorrect. The doctrine is reviewed and OK'd by the FP and Qo12 as the Church's 2007 statement on doctrine says. In this case, the currently published doctrine in this format has been around for 30 to 40 years if not longer and has survived several updates.
BCSpace Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 (edited) 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. Perhaps you are. I'm simply answering the OP's question on how the LoC might be brought back from the current tithing standard. In this case, I'm using endowment as the standard for those who have already covenanted to live the LoC, partly why such a change would be easy, and I'm comparing the actual conditions of living the LoC with the Church's official doctrine. You understand correctly and BCSpace doesn't. There is nothing I said that implies Silhouette's specific case wouldn't be eligible. It would depend on what was decided on what constitutes leaving the LoC or breaking the covenant. My personal opinion would be that major inactivity should make one ineligible but that reactivation would be all that was necessary to come back into eligibility, just like it is for a TR.It happens a lot around here. I'll bet you can't point to a single instance. Edited November 10, 2014 by BCSpace
The Nehor Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 Incorrect. The doctrine is reviewed and OK'd by the FP and Qo12 as the Church's 2007 statement on doctrine says. In this case, the currently published doctrine in this format has been around for 30 to 40 years if not longer and has survived several updates.It is reviewed by the correlation committee, which based on past manuals, means some of the Twelve probably skim the main part. How much attention is paid to the appendices where institute teachers throw in their guesswork is an open question. And that is not the only appendix in that book to get stuff wrong.
BCSpace Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 (edited) It is reviewed by the correlation committee, which based on past manuals, means some of the Twelve probably skim the main part. How much attention is paid to the appendices where institute teachers throw in their guesswork is an open question. And that is not the only appendix in that book to get stuff wrong. I don't think it matters precisely how you might think it's done: With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine At best, you're looking at official doctrine that's been around for so long that it would be unreasonable to argue that someone missed any potential error. Edited November 10, 2014 by BCSpace
The Nehor Posted November 10, 2014 Posted November 10, 2014 I don't think it matters precisely how you might think it's done: No, I actually know that that is how it is done. At best, you're looking at official doctrine that's been around for so long that it would be unreasonable to argue that someone missed any potential error. This is like claiming that an obscure article in the Ensign containing an error has never been spoken against and that proves there is no error and it is true by default.
Recommended Posts