LDS Freedom Forum

Can we live the law of consecration to the fullest (key word fullest) individually without a community effort?

Yes.

Living the law of consecration isnot giving everything away that you have. It is consecratimg everything that you have. That is, to use everything that you have for a holy purpose.

DesertWonderer2 wrote: ↑June 23rd, 2018, 7:16 pm Yes.

Living the law of consecration isnot giving everything away that you have. It is consecratimg everything that you have. That is, to use everything that you have for a holy purpose.

Thank you, I also thought this was worthwhile from Elder Bednar:

Consecration is related to but different from sacrifice. The word consecrate means to develop and “dedicate to a sacred purpose.” Sacrifice is what I will offer, surrender, yield, or give up. Consecration, on the other hand, is to fully develop and dedicate to a sacred purpose….
The principle of sacrifice is a lesser law of preparation for the principle of consecration. Consecration includes and encompasses sacrifice and much more. We are not only willing to offer up our possessions, but we will become the best we can be and assist however possible in building the kingdom in righteous ways.
We will not only die for the gospel, but we will develop ourselves and live for the gospel. (Ricks College Devotional, January 5, 1999)

Well...

The Gospel is meant to be practiced in families. Where one person falls short in one area another family member may be able to meet what that person has, and vice versa. The way of living and surviving of the early Norse settlers for example was in small settlements of closely knit small communities that would seek out new places partly because I think they knew being free was happy too. It's interesting to think about.

If you can look at it like that then it can be made to work out if you have people working on each part of the families needs. But the problem is it takes time to learn and to overcome the psychology of learning how 'buying from the store' isn't self sufficiency and makes you under someone's thumb. Buying from the store is actually captivity because the stress that nothing you own you can produce on your own is huge. (Why do Satan and evil spirits rage so much against food storage and self sufficiency, if its not something that will really help you be happy?)

The idea of community though people struggle with. On paper it's good, but in reality the United Order was emphasized in small communities but was undone by greed, but not by lack of the resources and food production etc. working out. It was always selfishness that stopped it. The idea of Kibbutz communities is also based on small communities and works if you have everyone given work and have everyone pull their weight in it; people with disabilities could be asked to do less but the emphasis would still be on contribute where you can.

Part of the problem with this is that people are brainwashed into thinking money is everything.

Think about this...why is there so many families broken up?

Because of lack of self sufficiency, captivity, and money.

But often those people aren't lazy, but they are trapped while even being good people into the captivity 'option' of thinking that they should get everything from the store, they must buy from the store, and they must have more than the Jones' from the store'. So the end result is the mass numbers of divorces are occurring because we're in bondage by not being allowed to make our own futures as families and work together. Instead we have to use this medium called 'money' where the bankers, taxers, and government people take the fat of the land, and leave you poor. Then your spouse is fed 'disatisfaction' and 'the grass is greener' with someone else while at work. No wonder so many people are divorced.

If you want to be happy though, peaceful family living where you are self sufficient and not in bondage to someone is happy. People don't think about this idea enough. Being in debt isn't happy, it's stress. People are all in a rush for financed debt and pushed into it primarily because of the cost of housing.

So basically self sufficiency and producing and making what you need and love in the home are true happiness and this is how Heavenly Father lives and how Adam also lived. Adam was happy and lived in peace. I think Noah, and Nephi also lived this way. Laman and Lemuel thought Nephi was nuts not because his projects didn't work but because their hearts were on riches and immorality in the Great and Spacious building. (And we know that from their behavior on the ship; dancing and merrymaking was a cluster illusion to hide immorality.)

So if we lived like Adam and Heavenly Father there likely wouldn't be any divorces because of the idea of teamwork together like penguins in a snowstorm, and actually caring for others producing charity love that would blanket protect the couple, and there wouldn't be enmity, and there would be prosperity, and enough to grow towards the future also. People would actually learn to cooperate too! Can you imagine how wonderful families would be like if a couple could work together during the day instead of be separate all the time? (Well to some that might be horrifying actually...)

Well...if we tried to go out and do this in its ideal version there would be government crackdowns because it's so different than the current system (and would be untaxable of course as the real reasoning.)

So the law of consecration is to teach us how to behave to learn the recipe of happiness...?

Isn't the law of consecration just learning how to share your toys?

Isn't the law of consecration just learning how to share your toys?

No.

Yes, you can live it in your family - and many families do, effectively - having/sharing all things in common (with each other) and being of one heart and mind and no poor (everyone's need and reasonable wants met). Living it as a community would be much more difficult though.

drtanner wrote: ↑June 23rd, 2018, 6:44 pm Can we live the law of consecration to the fullest (key word fullest) individually without a community effort?

Yes. Depends on what we offer, if we offer all we have, who we offer it to, and the intention behind the offering. Like the Jews, we should not hold our children to the same burdens we (lds) were not able to bare. That’s the blind leading the blind into a ditch.

The answer is no because the law of consecration is a commandment in which adherents promise to dedicate their lives and material substance to the church.

20 But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another,
wherefore the world lieth in sin.
D&C 49:20


The law of consecration

D&C 105
3 But behold, they have not learned to be obedient to the things which I required at their hands, but are full of all manner of evil, and do not impart of their substance, as becometh saints, to the poor and afflicted among them;

4 And are not united according to the union required by the law of the celestial kingdom;

5 And Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself.

I will just throw out an answer of "yes." When we covenant to live this law, I believe we are doing it once we have made that commitment, whether it currently plays out in a material sense, or whether it only is only in our heart. I sometimes stop to think whether I would consecrate certain loved possessions if/when asked, to make sure my heart is in line with my covenants.

In spirit, yes.

But I believe we should always be prepared for the coming of a more glorious day, not only to receive of its blessings, but to suffer its attendant sacrifices.

LdsMarco wrote: ↑June 23rd, 2018, 9:06 pm The answer is no because the law of consecration is a commandment in which adherents promise to dedicate their lives and material substance to the church.

...to the building up of the kingdom of God, not the church. This is what enables you to change the answer to yes.

Original_Intent wrote: ↑June 24th, 2018, 7:25 am

LdsMarco wrote: ↑June 23rd, 2018, 9:06 pm The answer is no because the law of consecration is a commandment in which adherents promise to dedicate their lives and material substance to the church.

...to the building up of the kingdom of God, not the church. This is what enables you to change the answer to yes.

The kingdom of God on earth is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (D&C 65). The purpose of the Church is to prepare its members to live forever in the celestial kingdom or kingdom of heaven. However, the scriptures sometimes call the Church the kingdom of heaven, meaning that the Church is the kingdom of heaven on earth.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the kingdom of God on the earth, but it is at present limited to an ecclesiastical kingdom. During the Millennium, the kingdom of God will be both political and ecclesiastical.

LdsMarco wrote: ↑June 24th, 2018, 8:10 pm

Original_Intent wrote: ↑June 24th, 2018, 7:25 am

LdsMarco wrote: ↑June 23rd, 2018, 9:06 pm The answer is no because the law of consecration is a commandment in which adherents promise to dedicate their lives and material substance to the church.

...to the building up of the kingdom of God, not the church. This is what enables you to change the answer to yes.

The kingdom of God on earth is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (D&C 65). The purpose of the Church is to prepare its members to live forever in the celestial kingdom or kingdom of heaven. However, the scriptures sometimes call the Church the kingdom of heaven, meaning that the Church is the kingdom of heaven on earth.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the kingdom of God on the earth, but it is at present limited to an ecclesiastical kingdom. During the Millennium, the kingdom of God will be both political and ecclesiastical.

If the Church represents the actual Kingdom of God and not an "ideal" condition, then I'm not interested in the Kingdom of God. Yes, there is good in the Church, but, in the end the Church is too imperfect, too many issues, and too much sin. That means I have to come to terms with the fact that God's kingdom is filled with sinners and sin and there are all sorts of issues going on. I, personally, can't accept that. I reject the idea that the Church is currently and literally the Kingdom of God "on earth".

There is some missing ingredient in this idea department.

-Finrock

Finrock wrote: ↑June 25th, 2018, 1:33 pm

LdsMarco wrote: ↑June 24th, 2018, 8:10 pm

Original_Intent wrote: ↑June 24th, 2018, 7:25 am

LdsMarco wrote: ↑June 23rd, 2018, 9:06 pm The answer is no because the law of consecration is a commandment in which adherents promise to dedicate their lives and material substance to the church.

...to the building up of the kingdom of God, not the church. This is what enables you to change the answer to yes.

The kingdom of God on earth is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (D&C 65). The purpose of the Church is to prepare its members to live forever in the celestial kingdom or kingdom of heaven. However, the scriptures sometimes call the Church the kingdom of heaven, meaning that the Church is the kingdom of heaven on earth.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the kingdom of God on the earth, but it is at present limited to an ecclesiastical kingdom. During the Millennium, the kingdom of God will be both political and ecclesiastical.

If the Church represents the actual Kingdom of God and not an "ideal" condition, then I'm not interested in the Kingdom of God. Yes, there is good in the Church, but, in the end the Church is too imperfect, too many issues, and too much sin. That means I have to come to terms with the fact that God's kingdom is filled with sinners and sin and there are all sorts of issues going on. I, personally, can't accept that. I reject the idea that the Church is currently and literally the Kingdom of God "on earth".

There is some missing ingredient in this idea department.

-Finrock

If the church is the kingdom of God ( which it is not) how does it feel to be subservient to the kingdom of the United States of America because that is what the Church is, it is subservient to the Federal government. But when the Kingdom of God is established physically upon this earth, all nations including our Federal Government (if there is anything left of it) will be subservient to the Kingdom of God.

Right you are, simpleton and finrock, as well as the fact that the Kingdom of God has been explicitly stated by J.S. to be both political and across denominations. So the statement that the LDS Church is the Kingdom of God on earth flies in the face of what Joseph Smith Jr. taught about it.

Joseph taught on 6 March 1840 that the Lord had rescinded the requirement to live the Law on Consecration. So until we receive further revelation that it is to be reinstated there is no requirement to live it.

He said that the Law of consecration could not be kept here, & that it was the will of the Lord that we should desist from trying to keep it, & if persisted in it would produce a perfect abortion, & that he assumed the whole responsibility of not keeping it untill prosposed by himself.

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... as-smith/1

Finrock wrote: ↑June 25th, 2018, 1:33 pm

LdsMarco wrote: ↑June 24th, 2018, 8:10 pm

Original_Intent wrote: ↑June 24th, 2018, 7:25 am

LdsMarco wrote: ↑June 23rd, 2018, 9:06 pm The answer is no because the law of consecration is a commandment in which adherents promise to dedicate their lives and material substance to the church.

...to the building up of the kingdom of God, not the church. This is what enables you to change the answer to yes.

The kingdom of God on earth is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (D&C 65). The purpose of the Church is to prepare its members to live forever in the celestial kingdom or kingdom of heaven. However, the scriptures sometimes call the Church the kingdom of heaven, meaning that the Church is the kingdom of heaven on earth.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the kingdom of God on the earth, but it is at present limited to an ecclesiastical kingdom. During the Millennium, the kingdom of God will be both political and ecclesiastical.

If the Church represents the actual Kingdom of God and not an "ideal" condition, then I'm not interested in the Kingdom of God. Yes, there is good in the Church, but, in the end the Church is too imperfect, too many issues, and too much sin. That means I have to come to terms with the fact that God's kingdom is filled with sinners and sin and there are all sorts of issues going on. I, personally, can't accept that. I reject the idea that the Church is currently and literally the Kingdom of God "on earth".

There is some missing ingredient in this idea department.

-Finrock

Uuum you guys are not reading this in spiritually. Who is the Church? A building? An organization? Or is it the people who are the Church?

Besides, it looks like some of you are not understanding the temple covenants being made. I suggest to please ponder them and ask God what do they REALLY mean

LdsMarco wrote: ↑June 25th, 2018, 9:15 pm

Finrock wrote: ↑June 25th, 2018, 1:33 pm

LdsMarco wrote: ↑June 24th, 2018, 8:10 pm

Original_Intent wrote: ↑June 24th, 2018, 7:25 am

...to the building up of the kingdom of God, not the church. This is what enables you to change the answer to yes.

The kingdom of God on earth is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (D&C 65). The purpose of the Church is to prepare its members to live forever in the celestial kingdom or kingdom of heaven. However, the scriptures sometimes call the Church the kingdom of heaven, meaning that the Church is the kingdom of heaven on earth.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the kingdom of God on the earth, but it is at present limited to an ecclesiastical kingdom. During the Millennium, the kingdom of God will be both political and ecclesiastical.

If the Church represents the actual Kingdom of God and not an "ideal" condition, then I'm not interested in the Kingdom of God. Yes, there is good in the Church, but, in the end the Church is too imperfect, too many issues, and too much sin. That means I have to come to terms with the fact that God's kingdom is filled with sinners and sin and there are all sorts of issues going on. I, personally, can't accept that. I reject the idea that the Church is currently and literally the Kingdom of God "on earth".

There is some missing ingredient in this idea department.

-Finrock

Uuum you guys are not reading this in spiritually. Who is the Church? A building? An organization? Or is it the people who are the Church?

-------------------------------------------

Matthew 23

27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Finrock wrote: ↑June 25th, 2018, 1:33 pm

LdsMarco wrote: ↑June 24th, 2018, 8:10 pm

Original_Intent wrote: ↑June 24th, 2018, 7:25 am

LdsMarco wrote: ↑June 23rd, 2018, 9:06 pm The answer is no because the law of consecration is a commandment in which adherents promise to dedicate their lives and material substance to the church.

...to the building up of the kingdom of God, not the church. This is what enables you to change the answer to yes.

The kingdom of God on earth is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (D&C 65). The purpose of the Church is to prepare its members to live forever in the celestial kingdom or kingdom of heaven. However, the scriptures sometimes call the Church the kingdom of heaven, meaning that the Church is the kingdom of heaven on earth.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the kingdom of God on the earth, but it is at present limited to an ecclesiastical kingdom. During the Millennium, the kingdom of God will be both political and ecclesiastical.

If the Church represents the actual Kingdom of God and not an "ideal" condition, then I'm not interested in the Kingdom of God. Yes, there is good in the Church, but, in the end the Church is too imperfect, too many issues, and too much sin. That means I have to come to terms with the fact that God's kingdom is filled with sinners and sin and there are all sorts of issues going on. I, personally, can't accept that. I reject the idea that the Church is currently and literally the Kingdom of God "on earth".

There is some missing ingredient in this idea department.

-Finrock

By this same token and thought process let me ask you this: would you also reject the idea that we are all currently and literally the children of God? We are all "too imperfect," with "too many issues," full of sin, and "all sorts of issues going on" so does that mean, by your rationale, that we cannot actually be children of God?

I reject such a philosophy. I know that I am a child of God, despite my own current failings and weaknesses. Likewise, I also know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Kingdom of God on earth, in spite of any current limitations or failings, for "it doth not yet appear what we shall be." These things I know to be true because the scriptures, prophets, and Holy Ghost all testify to me that they are true, and I know that God cannot lie.

Onsdag wrote: ↑June 26th, 2018, 11:11 am

Finrock wrote: ↑June 25th, 2018, 1:33 pm

LdsMarco wrote: ↑June 24th, 2018, 8:10 pm

Original_Intent wrote: ↑June 24th, 2018, 7:25 am

...to the building up of the kingdom of God, not the church. This is what enables you to change the answer to yes.

The kingdom of God on earth is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (D&C 65). The purpose of the Church is to prepare its members to live forever in the celestial kingdom or kingdom of heaven. However, the scriptures sometimes call the Church the kingdom of heaven, meaning that the Church is the kingdom of heaven on earth.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the kingdom of God on the earth, but it is at present limited to an ecclesiastical kingdom. During the Millennium, the kingdom of God will be both political and ecclesiastical.

If the Church represents the actual Kingdom of God and not an "ideal" condition, then I'm not interested in the Kingdom of God. Yes, there is good in the Church, but, in the end the Church is too imperfect, too many issues, and too much sin. That means I have to come to terms with the fact that God's kingdom is filled with sinners and sin and there are all sorts of issues going on. I, personally, can't accept that. I reject the idea that the Church is currently and literally the Kingdom of God "on earth".

There is some missing ingredient in this idea department.

-Finrock

By this same token and thought process let me ask you this: would you also reject the idea that we are all currently and literally the children of God? We are all "too imperfect," with "too many issues," full of sin, and "all sorts of issues going on" so does that mean, by your rationale, that we cannot actually be children of God?

I reject such a philosophy. I know that I am a child of God, despite my own current failings and weaknesses. Likewise, I also know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Kingdom of God on earth, in spite of any current limitations or failings, for "it doth not yet appear what we shall be." These things I know to be true because the scriptures, prophets, and Holy Ghost all testify to me that they are true, and I know that God cannot lie.

By the same token you cannot make the argument that you make. A place and a person are not the same and what makes someone a son and what makes some place God's Kingdom are conditioned on different criteria. Sonship/Daughtership maintains no matter what. The same can't be said of what identifies or defines a place.

If I accept what you are saying about God's Kingdom then God's Kingdom can't be distinguished between any other place or any other kingdom. I hope the Church isn't God's Kingdom because I was really hoping for God's kingdom to be much better. In its ideal the Church is or can be God's Kingdom on earth, but, as it is, it is not. It doesn't meet the criteria.

-Finrock

As with most things on blogs & forums, so many of our discussions or sometimes arguments are about semantics - our different interpretations of words and terms & even our perspective on them. Oh well.

I think we can all agree that almost everything down here on the physical/mortal plane (Earth, for us) is some kind of "work in progress" - even the idea of perfection as we attempt to define it doesn't seem to exist. "Flawlessness" is so relative. Everything down here is really "margins of error" not "flawless".

"The Kingdom of God"? I'm inclined to say, who cares, what's real? Whatever is real or ends up being true is what I really care about. Theory, hypothesis, speculation - it's all fun and games, guys. We can't prove a dang thing. Dispute not because ye see not for ye receive no witness until AFTER the trial of your faith (most likely death).

If we go with Joseph Smith's strict definition of "the kingdom of God" then it is not the Church - it is not even set up yet - it was to be a political theocracy, the temporal counterpart or sister to ZION - neither one came to fruition or has come to fruition yet. We don't really know if they will in our lifetimes. Every generation has hoped for it & even believed it would happen in their generation: Peace on Earth, end of war & harm/sin, etc. - & so far none have realized it.

Is the Church some kind or version of "the kingdom of God on earth"? Yeah, it seems so, some kind or version, a preparatory version maybe - but definitely not a complete or perfect one, not even close. We are most definitely INCOMPLETE. We don't have all the TRUTH/RIGHT and we still have some FALSE/WRONG. We are still evolving, hopefully progressing.

That's my take anyway.