Friday, December 18, 2009

The Law of Socialism…errm, Consecration

A serious note, because i think it’s something we need to be reminded of occasionally: The Law of Consecration≠the United Order. The United Order was a method of living the Law of Consecration, but we can live that law without the benefit of such an order being set up.

(Not that i’m doing it myself, of course, but it’s worth keeping in mind anyway.)

5 comments:

Heather the Mama Duk said...

I was about run out of a ward once because said I said Jesus was a utopian communist. Oddly enough, it was the very, very liberal, want lots of social programs, members (of which there were many in that ward - Crystal City) who were most upset by what I said. There is a very huge difference between what craziness is going on in DC right now and socialist countries around the world and the Law of Consecration: the leader. It will never work under any man. It didn't work under Joseph Smith. I would bet it would not work under Thomas S. Monson. I have no doubt it will work only under Jesus Christ.

(Yes, I have put a lot of thought into this. I personally think living in a commune would be wonderful. I look forward to living The Law of Consecration if we should be required to. I do not agree AT ALL with what the government is doing currently. That is a power grab, no divinely organized.)

velska said...

Well, I respectfully submit, that I do live the Law of Consecration, as it has been explained to me.

I dedicate my efforts to building the Kingdom. That's the law, right?

David B said...

@velska: Yeah, i think you’re right. My parenthesis at the end was just pointing out that i’m not living up to it fully. (Interesting question: Can we as mortals actually really live up to any divine law fully?)

I have a pretty strong memory from a Sunday School lesson about the Law of Consecration when i was a teenager, about 25 years ago. The teacher was one of the full-time missionaries, and he taught about the temple. All i really remember is that he said one of the things that happen in the temple is that you promise to follow the Law of Consecration, and he presented it as this immensely difficult thing that we’d one day be required to do.

Even then, before i even believed in the whole thing, and before i had a decent amount of life experience, i recognized that he was probably jut looking at it the wrong way.

kholt05 said...

The Law of Consecration, as I understand it, is not Communism. The priciple of communism was best described as "To each according to their need, from each according to their abbility". However the Law of consecration was best described in the Saviors parrable of the Talents Matthew 25:14-30. We recieve as we are able, given as we build upon. Not everyone will be equall under that law, we will be as great or as small as we make ourselves. However what we have will not be ours, but rather the possesion of the Lords. The part about no poor comes in with the aid of those who cannot support themselves, our surpluss will go to the service of those who cannot, not will not, expand upon that which they are given.

Greg said...

I thought you might be interested in reading Introduction to Notes on Socialism that compares the law of consecration with various types of socialist systems.