LDS Freedom Forum

Under what circumstances do you think the LoC will be established?

(1) Economic conditions in the country and community

(2) Split within the Church

etc

Clearly there will be a split within the church, but what do you think the economy will look like when the call comes to establish the LoC within local wards and branches? Will there even be an economy like we have today? Do you think the wicked along with a large percentage of the population will have been killed by war, famine and disease? Will the LoC require that the Saints come together into tight knit local communities? At the moment most ward members in the UK are spread thinly throughout towns and cities. Most live in rented accommodation or in homes with mortgages.

Do you think the LoC will come about following greats wars and destruction, or will we be required to live it under conditions similar to todays?

My thought is that perhaps we will be asked to settle in abandoned homes (after some sort of armageddon) and to form new communities living the LoC.

Can socialist attitudes coexist with the LoC?

In answer to your last question, it is my understanding that socialism is the counterfeit of the law of consecration.

In the LOC, you have voluntary cooperation to care for one another with the Lord and his representatives in charge of disbursing the surplus. In socialism you have coerced participation in supporting one another with the state being responsible for distribution of funds that are rarely surplus, and usually borrowed.

The Law of Consecration is in effect now. No need to wait to be commanded in all things.

Original_Intent wrote:The Law of Consecration is in effect now. No need to wait to be commanded in all things.

This is true. There is nothing stopping any of us from devoting everything we have to the church. That isn't just material wealth though. It is everything. Also not only is socialism a counterfeit of consecration, the two are incompatible. You can't have both at the same time.
Living under a socialist/communist state you are robbed of everything you have and are therefore incapable of giving everything you have to build up God's kingdom. You cannot serve two masters.

My opinion is that it will only be lived by the church after the millenium has begun when those that are left people are actually richeoous enough to live the principle.

Have you ever read Approaching zion by Hugh Nibley? He's got some great stuff on the topic. As far as socialism and consecration go the two systems are completely opposite. One is entirely selfish and the other is selfless. It drives me crazy when people call the law of consecration that we talk about socialism.

That's true. We are living the LoC right now in that we are all expected to help build the kingdom of God on earth through charity, missionary work, callings etc. However, when do you think the final stages of the LoC will be implemented? We're not yet asked to sell up and move into LDS cities (is that the United Order?). Do you think our 12-24 month supplies are meant to sustain us so that we will still be alive to live in the United Order at a specific time in the future?

All of the descriptions of life under the LoC seem to me to be set in a post-apocalyptic world. For example, there will be no poor, each according to his need etc. Sounds like we will be living very basic agrarian lives in close communities. I don't think we will be expected to commute to our regular jobs in the city every day, pay taxes and utility bills, then give our excess to the bishop to distribute to those without incomes. Most middle class family incomes barely cover the essentials these days. Anyway, don't you think the Gadiantons will come afer those who seek to set up communities like the United Order outside of their system? I reckon the United Order is for another time when the world is a completely different place to what it is today. No internet or mains water.

President Joseph Fielding Smith explained: “The Lord had given to the Church the law of consecration and had called upon the members, principally the official members, to enter into a covenant that could not be broken and to be everlasting in which they were to consecrate their properties and receive stewardships, for this is the law of the celestial kingdom. Many of those who entered into this solemn covenant broke it and by so doing brought upon their heads, and the heads of their brethren and sisters, dire punishment and persecution. This celestial law of necessity was thereupon withdrawn for the time, or until the time of the redemption of Zion.” ( Church History and Modern Revelation, 2:90–91.)

I would have to disagree about whether we can live the law of consecration now. Absolutely, there is nothing that prevents us from giving our all to the Church. However, the Church cannot give all that we need back to us. At this point in time, we are to be self-reliant.

To illustrate my thoughts:

Say I have in my accounts in excess of a million dollars. Say I am a widow and have only one child. We are in excellent health and have all our physical needs provided for. I foresee no real need for a million dollars, so I give it to the Church. A year or two passes, and my child becomes diabetic. There is no insurance, so health maintenance costs for this child exceed $1K per month. Other problems arise, and it is determined that this child needs a new kidney. Assuming one becomes available, it will cost several hundred thousand dollars, at best. The Church will not pay for it, even though I "consecrated" a million dollars a short while back.

We are to be wise stewards of what we have. We need to save for a rainy day, children's education, and retirement years (not that I believe people will be able to retire much in the future, that's just what the counsel has been). We are to be generous in our offerings, but at this point, there is no law of consecration in effect. The law of consecration involves donating all our surplus and receiving back all we need. If I can't receive back what I need, when I need it, there is no law of consecration in effect.

If there are errors in my logic, I welcome discussion. I really do wish to learn more about this topic.

The Law of Consecration will be in force in New Jerusalem. I have heard Church Authorities say people will be called to go to Jackson County to live the law, but only people who are debt free qualify. A person who is in debt does not quality to join the Order.

Rincon wrote:The Law of Consecration will be in force in New Jerusalem. I have heard Church Authorities say people will be called to go to Jackson County to live the law, but only people who are debt free qualify.

emmmm everyone who survives the WWIII attack on America will be debt free. All records are going to be destroyed.

The thing that drives me the most nuts about people's ideas about the law of consecration is the idea that you have to turn your excess in to the bishop for redistribution. No, no, no - central planning is not the best use of resources.

I know people are going to resist this because of their preconceptions, please hear me out.

What is the most efficient - 100 families turning in their excess to the bishop and the bishop redistributing it as needed OR
100 families looking to assist others and distributing their excess themselves?

I think it is people waiting for the former to be implemented by the church that is hampering a lot of our growth. We already have the principle - take care of our immediate family first, then extended family and then our neighbors (and beyond that our nation and then the world). And when we are the ones needing help, we are to turn first to our own saved resources, then to our families, then to the church (our neighbors). The bishop should only be there to assist when the rest of us fail to do on our own what we should be doing. If we truly start living the law of consecration, the bishops job in regards to taking care of the needy should be less, not more, because we wiil be taking care of those in need on our own. Right now we tend to not see that as our responsibility, "that's the bishop's job" I think we need to rethink that and truly bear one another's burdens. That's why I think we should not be waiting for the law of consecration to be implemented, consecration is much more an attitude of looking for ways to serve and build up the kingdom than it is about increasing our fast offering, or waiting for the church to add another entry to the contribution slip called "consecration".

And I am not living consecration myself, yet - I am trying and I see the vision of it and how incredibly wonderful it will be - but far too often I am very selfish and am more worried about my comforst and wants and not taking care of others needs. There is certainly a balance though, I think we can certainly run faster than we have strength in this regard. But I also believe that as we live the law that we will be given more of the worldy wealth as we prove ourselves to be good stewards of what we have.

English Saint wrote:. Anyway, don't you think the Gadiantons will come afer those who seek to set up communities like the United Order outside of their system? I reckon the United Order is for another time when the world is a completely different place to what it is today. No internet or mains water.

Eventually, but God will fight out battles. Sounds like the Nephites in the book of Helaman. They gathered together in one place and the Gadiantons tried to take what they wanted, again.

There are a few steps in between what we are doing now and the full LofC. IF we were really living it, our fast offerings would be huge. The Church would not be running any kind of deficits anywhere in that program.

Original_Intent wrote:The thing that drives me the most nuts about people's ideas about the law of consecration is the idea that you have to turn your excess in to the bishop for redistribution. No, no, no - central planning is not the best use of resources.

I know people are going to resist this because of their preconceptions, please hear me out.

What is the most efficient - 100 families turning in their excess to the bishop and the bishop redistributing it as needed OR
100 families looking to assist others and distributing their excess themselves?

I think it is people waiting for the former to be implemented by the church that is hampering a lot of our growth. We already have the principle - take care of our immediate family first, then extended family and then our neighbors (and beyond that our nation and then the world). And when we are the ones needing help, we are to turn first to our own saved resources, then to our families, then to the church (our neighbors). The bishop should only be there to assist when the rest of us fail to do on our own what we should be doing. If we truly start living the law of consecration, the bishops job in regards to taking care of the needy should be less, not more, because we wiil be taking care of those in need on our own. Right now we tend to not see that as our responsibility, "that's the bishop's job" I think we need to rethink that and truly bear one another's burdens. That's why I think we should not be waiting for the law of consecration to be implemented, consecration is much more an attitude of looking for ways to serve and build up the kingdom than it is about increasing our fast offering, or waiting for the church to add another entry to the contribution slip called "consecration".

And I am not living consecration myself, yet - I am trying and I see the vision of it and how incredibly wonderful it will be - but far too often I am very selfish and am more worried about my comforst and wants and not taking care of others needs. There is certainly a balance though, I think we can certainly run faster than we have strength in this regard. But I also believe that as we live the law that we will be given more of the worldy wealth as we prove ourselves to be good stewards of what we have.

Original_Intent: you have clearly thought this out further than I have. I always assumed the idea that we would turn our excess in to the bishop for redistribution. (effectively central planning). Never seen it any alternative until now .

I think you hit the nail right on the head with this one:

What is the most efficient - 100 families turning in their excess to the bishop and the bishop redistributing it as needed OR
100 families looking to assist others and distributing their excess themselves?

It does appear to me that the Lord would have us do the latter. Also would not unduly burden the Bishop's (as if they don't already have a plate full to deal with).

Does anyone see a problem with this? Is this how you envisioned the LoC? My only issue is that I mostly recall reading in the D&C about turning in our residue to the Bishop for redistribution. Does the D&C also directly tie in the idea of everyone looking to provide for others in relation to the LoC? If so, then what is the need for the BIshop to collect the residue??? Need to go back and study this again (and again, and again...).

I hadn't really thought it out, but OI's understanding does make sense. I have heard a general authority say that if the home teaching and visiting teaching programs were administered as they were intended and to their full potential all saints would be looked after, there would be no unmet needs.

Perhaps this is how the LOC is to be implemented?

Teancum wrote:

Original_Intent wrote:The thing that drives me the most nuts about people's ideas about the law of consecration is the idea that you have to turn your excess in to the bishop for redistribution. No, no, no - central planning is not the best use of resources.

I know people are going to resist this because of their preconceptions, please hear me out.

What is the most efficient - 100 families turning in their excess to the bishop and the bishop redistributing it as needed OR
100 families looking to assist others and distributing their excess themselves?

I think it is people waiting for the former to be implemented by the church that is hampering a lot of our growth. We already have the principle - take care of our immediate family first, then extended family and then our neighbors (and beyond that our nation and then the world). And when we are the ones needing help, we are to turn first to our own saved resources, then to our families, then to the church (our neighbors). The bishop should only be there to assist when the rest of us fail to do on our own what we should be doing. If we truly start living the law of consecration, the bishops job in regards to taking care of the needy should be less, not more, because we wiil be taking care of those in need on our own. Right now we tend to not see that as our responsibility, "that's the bishop's job" I think we need to rethink that and truly bear one another's burdens. That's why I think we should not be waiting for the law of consecration to be implemented, consecration is much more an attitude of looking for ways to serve and build up the kingdom than it is about increasing our fast offering, or waiting for the church to add another entry to the contribution slip called "consecration".

And I am not living consecration myself, yet - I am trying and I see the vision of it and how incredibly wonderful it will be - but far too often I am very selfish and am more worried about my comforst and wants and not taking care of others needs. There is certainly a balance though, I think we can certainly run faster than we have strength in this regard. But I also believe that as we live the law that we will be given more of the worldy wealth as we prove ourselves to be good stewards of what we have.

Original_Intent: you have clearly thought this out further than I have. I always assumed the idea that we would turn our excess in to the bishop for redistribution. (effectively central planning). Never seen it any alternative until now .

I think you hit the nail right on the head with this one:

What is the most efficient - 100 families turning in their excess to the bishop and the bishop redistributing it as needed OR
100 families looking to assist others and distributing their excess themselves?

It does appear to me that the Lord would have us do the latter. Also would not unduly burden the Bishop's (as if they don't already have a plate full to deal with).

Does anyone see a problem with this? Is this how you envisioned the LoC? My only issue is that I mostly recall reading in the D&C about turning in our residue to the Bishop for redistribution. Does the D&C also directly tie in the idea of everyone looking to provide for others in relation to the LoC? If so, then what is the need for the BIshop to collect the residue??? Need to go back and study this again (and again, and again...).

I'll warn that this is my own thoughts on the matter, I don;t have a single quote of scripture or prophet to back me up. I do know that I have been strongly impressed that consecration is a change of heart and desire and what we work for (Zion, not money) rather than there being a sudden change where the church directs us to "turn in our excess." The day may come where that happens, but we should not let that get in our way.

As far as the question posted above, regarding what do to to prepare for illness, after you have "consecrated" your million dollars to the church.

Maybe the way you need to consecrate the million dollars is to start a business that you can help employ a few people without a job. You concenstrate on providing for others and of course to that the business needs to at least break even - again the point is you are not trying to profit from others labors, you continue to contribute your labor as well - then if crisis does befall you, you can sell the assets of the business if needed to take care of an unforeseen health crisis.

As this business model suceeds and enriches everyone involved (as opposed to shareholders in a corporation that do not contribute any labor) I believe consecration will become the business model, if you will of LDS and non-LDS alike. (because people will not work for the old corporate model if they can be rewarded based on their contribution.) Why would you work for a model that is focussed on getting as much from you as possible and giving you the minimum required to keep you when you could work in a model that your contribution is returned to you in full?

English Saint wrote: Anyway, don't you think the Gadiantons will come afer those who seek to set up communities like the United Order outside of their system? I reckon the United Order is for another time when the world is a completely different place to what it is today.

Yes and the community will be called Zion, and she will be great and terrible. And the Lord Himself will walk her streets, and there will be no poor among her residents. I don't believe the the "church" is going to initiate the law of consecration. That will come about as a result of Zion being established. And Zion will only be established by those who have risen to a Zion level(celestial) of righteousness in their personal lives. Establishing Zion will not be a "calling" randomly assigned to members of the church. It will be the privilege of a few individuals who are worthy to stand in the presence of their God.

Why we are not pursuing Zion with a singleness of mind is beyond me. Can any of us afford to run the risk of not being ready and worthy when this great community is established, for our own protection against the storms that are at our doorsteps even now?

I don't believe that Zion is for another time when the world is completely different. We are told in the scriptures to flee babylon. We are told numerous times that Zion must be established before the Lord comes again. The LOC will not come about until Zion is established. And Zion can be established without us even knowing about it, until it is too late......

“The righteous disappear, and no man gives it a thought; the godly are gathered out, but no one perceives that from impending calamity the righteous are withdrawn” (Isaiah 57:1).

I will say - I do think that we will be giving generously to the bishop as well - eventually we will reach a point where everyone locally will be taken care of - then our excess production goes to helping those throughout our state - then as our state's needs are met our nation - then our continent - then our hemisphere - then the world.

I see consecration not as a donation but as a business model and as a way of life. One of the biggest fears of Europe was that America was so free that all of the best and brightest would come to America and we would totally leave the rest of the world in the dust. Same exact idea I think, this is part of the stone that will be cut from the mountain without hands - it is the choice between slavery and liberty - with liberty comes responsibility and there will be the fearful that will not want the attendant responsibilities of freedom. As Zion becomes richer I think we will gladly be helping even those who don't embrace it - why wouldn't we when we will be living laws of plenty, not laws of scarcity? I believe nothing could stop it, it is one of the most exciting things I see coming!

That's one reason I think we need to get out of debt - as I have tried to consecrate myself, it is ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that you cannot consecrate what you do not own! So for now, tithing, a generous fast offering, and everything else possible to getting rid of debt, and look ing for service opportunities and aiding others as we can! It makes even going to work and working on mundane worldly things more exciting because it is not the purpose or the focus any more! It is the means to the END, which is looking for the best ways to use that income for the building of the kingdom!

This is an interesting discussion. There are so many different opinions of what the LoC and the United Order really are and how they will come about.

I agree that it makes more sense to be more self-sufficient and use our time, talents, wealth wisely in order to build up the kingdom of God and help our fellow men. It seems to be contrary to the Gospel to only be required to hand our excess wealth to the bishop and let him deal with our fellow brethren's problems. I wouldn't want to be a bishop under those circumstances. It would be an awful responsibility if fellow saints could wash their hands of other people's needs so easily.

reese wrote:

English Saint wrote: Anyway, don't you think the Gadiantons will come afer those who seek to set up communities like the United Order outside of their system? I reckon the United Order is for another time when the world is a completely different place to what it is today.

Yes and the community will be called Zion, and she will be great and terrible. And the Lord Himself will walk her streets, and there will be no poor among her residents. I don't believe the the "church" is going to initiate the law of consecration. That will come about as a result of Zion being established. And Zion will only be established by those who have risen to a Zion level(celestial) of righteousness in their personal lives. Establishing Zion will not be a "calling" randomly assigned to members of the church. It will be the privilege of a few individuals who are worthy to stand in the presence of their God.

Why we are not pursuing Zion with a singleness of mind is beyond me. Can any of us afford to run the risk of not being ready and worthy when this great community is established, for our own protection against the storms that are at our doorsteps even now?

I don't believe that Zion is for another time when the world is completely different. We are told in the scriptures to flee babylon. We are told numerous times that Zion must be established before the Lord comes again. The LOC will not come about until Zion is established. And Zion can be established without us even knowing about it, until it is too late......

“The righteous disappear, and no man gives it a thought; the godly are gathered out, but no one perceives that from impending calamity the righteous are withdrawn” (Isaiah 57:1).

Reese, I see that you are seeing this as I am! We are putting the cart in front of the horse, waiting for Zion because we don;t see how to consecrate in a wicked world. It isn't easy! As excited as I am to be working towards this, there is always fear of the future, there are always plenty of reasons not to - always worldly things that I want, but ultimately those things are just going to take up my time and talents in unproductive ways - so there is not only the small dollar cost that is lost, but more often the bigger cost is the time cost that we are going to invest in playing with our new toys! It's not only the $20 or $50 that is lost for the new computer game, it is how many hours that is going to end up with a net gain for the kingdom and for even myself of ZERO. And yet the temptation is still there, and not always resisted I might add...and the devil rejoices... :ymdevil:

consecration is much more an attitude of looking for ways to serve and build up the kingdom

It is even more than 'looking for ways to serve'; it's being worthy to be guided by the Spirit in what 'ways and how to go about building up the kingdom'.

We hear of and read about many such testimonies regarding being 'prompted' to visit, turn from a regular routine, stop to talk with a certain person,...

'No poor among them' may also mean that everyone is 'poor' to begin with. If we are all 'in need' then we MUST assist one another according to our individual skills, gifts, and physical resources.

NO ONE person or family will have everything stashed away to survive absolute economic devastation. We will need to 'dovetail' our abilities and resources in order to build anew.

http://followingthelight.org/books-and-essays/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; I recently read the Millenial Quest series by John Pontius. It was very good and thought provoking...very testimony strengthening. The most relevant to this discussion are even downloadable for free on his website, the last 3 books in the series. I love his vision of how things might be. If anyone reads it in the next little while, post a thread I want to know what you think about his (fictional, of course) take on how events will transpire.

Another thought along the lines of "what if I get sick or have a health issue after consecrating?"

Thing about how insurance currently works. Essentially a bunch of people pay premiums in order to share the risk of someone having a large health expense. However, health insurance companies do this at a huge cost, and also insurance companies have a vested interest in seeing that healthcare costs rise! That may seem counter-intuitive and I cna go into it in more depth if anyone wants me to. But the point is, insurance companies make huge profits under our current system, as well as doing their best to make sure that the costs of the healthcare itself are as high as possible.

Consider the alternative - eveyone takes care of their normal health expenses such as preventative and kids have the sniffles etc. Insurance is only for large expenses. So say 1000 people pay a small amount into a fund to help those that have a big health expense come up. Each month on average lets say 2 people out of this thousand have a large expense (the actual numbers don't matter, it is to explain the concept only.) Soemthing like this could be done at a very minimal administrative cost if it were not done for profit. Also, people would be incented to look for the best prices because doing so would keep their premium down. Also, doctors expenses would go down as they would not need to hire people to deal with all of the insurance red tape. Doctor's would not need to deal with huge insurance costs themselves such as malpractice insurance, because in a consecration society, multimillion dollar lawsuits to get gain will not happen. So the cost of healthcare gets cut drastically and the healthcare provided is vastly better. We are just cutting out all the huge costs added due to lawsuits and insurance overhead.

I realize I have wandered a bit from how to consecrate now to a more theoretical "how things could be" - Obviously for something like this it would need to be a systemic change and is not something we could really implement as individuals.

Consider the alternative * - eveyone takes care of their normal health expenses such as preventative and kids have the sniffles etc. Insurance is only for large expenses. So say 1000 people pay a small amount into a fund to help those that have a big health expense come up. Each month on average lets say 2 people out of this thousand have a large expense (the actual numbers don't matter, it is to explain the concept only.) Soemthing like this could be done at a very minimal administrative cost if it were not done for profit. Also, people would be incented to look for the best prices because doing so would keep their premium down. Also, doctors expenses would go down as they would not need to hire people to deal with all of the insurance red tape. Doctor's would not need to deal with huge insurance costs themselves such as malpractice insurance, because in a consecration society, multimillion dollar lawsuits to get gain will not happen. So the cost of healthcare gets cut drastically and the healthcare provided is vastly better. We are just cutting out all the huge costs added due to lawsuits and insurance overhead.

* And...what happened to Ministering to the Sick?

buffalo_girl wrote:

Consider the alternative * - eveyone takes care of their normal health expenses such as preventative and kids have the sniffles etc. Insurance is only for large expenses. So say 1000 people pay a small amount into a fund to help those that have a big health expense come up. Each month on average lets say 2 people out of this thousand have a large expense (the actual numbers don't matter, it is to explain the concept only.) Soemthing like this could be done at a very minimal administrative cost if it were not done for profit. Also, people would be incented to look for the best prices because doing so would keep their premium down. Also, doctors expenses would go down as they would not need to hire people to deal with all of the insurance red tape. Doctor's would not need to deal with huge insurance costs themselves such as malpractice insurance, because in a consecration society, multimillion dollar lawsuits to get gain will not happen. So the cost of healthcare gets cut drastically and the healthcare provided is vastly better. We are just cutting out all the huge costs added due to lawsuits and insurance overhead.

* And...what happened to Ministering to the Sick?

and of course that - in fact, I agree with you - everyone living the WoW and the ministering of the sick - that would take care of a lot of it, although I think physicians have their place in the picture.

It's not only the $20 or $50 that is lost for the new computer game, it is how many hours that is going to end up with a net gain for the kingdom and for even myself of ZERO. And yet the temptation is still there, and not always resisted I might add...and the devil rejoices... :ymdevil:

Well that makes me toast... I LOVE Lord Of The Rings Online...running around Middle-earth....