Thoughts about Alternatives if Buying and Selling is Prohibited

Remember these verses?

16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. (Revelation 13:16-17)

If you’re like me, you may have read these verses and wondered how one might survive if you are prohibited from buying and selling. What alternatives can we imagine?

One alternative that comes to mind immediately is the formation of a black market (or in this case, it would be a white market that is officially deemed “black” by the powers that be.) However, black markets are demoralizing inasmuch as it forces one to live outside the law. Living in fear of discovery like that is no way to live for faithful people who are commanded not to fear but be of good cheer.

This brings us to the other alternative. An alternative economy must be formed on a legal basis, and that alternative economy must operate on principles other than buying and selling. This is hard to imagine, but what it amounts to is that of volunteering, giving and sharing. Charity becomes the legal basis by which the Zion economy must be run at this time. Workers must give their labor to the Lord, and producers must give their production to the Lord and thereby make Zion the clearinghouse for where the labor is to be bestowed and where the goods to be produced must be sent.

This will take a lot of trust, and will likely not be perfect, but it will be a better alternative than taking the mark to be part of a corrupt network or living in fear as part of a black market.

Consecration will be Zion’s protection.

Some Thoughts about Practicalities of Building Consecrating Economies

From time to time we think about the Law of Consecration and discuss the Saints in the early days of the Church and how they couldn’t live it, and we wonder how to live it today and what would be required to build Zion and the New Jerusalem.  It’s so easy to get caught up in the idealistic part of it and imagine how awesome it would be, isn’t it? 

The older I get and the more I think about it, the more I realize that idealizing it actually gets in the way of thinking it through and figuring out how to solve the problems involved. 

It seems like living a life of consecration and building Zion requires a very fine balance between a number of opposing principles. We have to know what they are and master them to get anywhere on this.   There has to be a balance between the individual and the communal, between the material and the spiritual. The idealistic doctrines and the hard economic realities must either mesh harmoniously or be held in a useful tension.  There’s also the matter of finding a way to make it work across different types of economies at different stages of development, in different areas of the world, with different cultures and law systems governing work and ownership and so on.  This is a complex challenge.

It seems to me that it is something that is learned line upon line, and consecration is a culmination of principles. I also think that the way consecration as an economy would be lived now in a modern economy is different than how the Saints tried to live it in the 1800s, simply because the type of economy we live in has changed. 

Consider just one factor—land. In an agricultural economy, consecrating a farm one owns is one thing, but when one’s livelihood comes from employment at a business one doesn’t own, what does consecration look like? A job can’t be consecrated because the employer would probably say it was never a permanent possession. Instead, one would have to consecrate one’s salary.

Maybe we should pull back a little on that and consider how the principle of consecration might mesh with that of self-reliance.

Self-reliance is about providing for one’s own needs and the needs of one’s family. To that end, we seek to obtain a good education and obtain work in a field that provides enough and hopefully a surplus. We pay our tithing, store food and build up an emergency fund for a rainy day. I think we are also expected to get out of debt. Also, budgeting helps with living within our means.

The storing of food and funds for a rainy day suggests that saving is permitted and even expected.  But then we also run into interesting questions. If one is to consecrate one’s surplus, where does one’s responsibility to provide for future expenses begin or end?  If a person always passes on their surplus to the Church, then how does one pay for large future expenses (car replacement, child’s education, medical expenses, house, retirement)?  Or should consecration of surplus happen after putting by savings for the future? 

I have no hard-and-fast answers. Maybe part of consecration is working these things out for ourselves.

Let’s think about the idea of surplus for a bit. Surplus is whatever is left over that isn’t needed. In order for us to know what is surplus, we have to get an idea of what we really need. The tool for this is the budget.

Budgets are beautiful things. Many people tend to think of them as a strait jacket, but what they are is a tool for analyzing spending, discovering your spending priorities, and dealing with financial challenges and future needs.  They help us uncover inefficiencies in our spending.  The power to reallocate funds from category to category helps us deal with emergencies, roll with the punches, control our money instead of letting it control us, and plan ahead. I really think using a budget is a skill that scales in all kinds of interesting directions. Used to the full, it can help us know whether we are materially self-reliant or not, moment to moment, rather than just at the end of the month when it’s time to balance the accounts.  All those little categories represent little bits of our material stewardship.

Let’s think about stewardship a little.  The principle of stewardship is that God is the owner and we are his stewards, so everything we have is part of that. Eventually we will have to give an account of our stewardship (material and spiritual), so we have an eternal interest in working hard, maximizing our efficiency, growing in capability, preserving what we have, and learning to make wise decisions.  Keeping and maintaining a budget is a fabulous tool for seeing how financial decisions have consequences over time.  It reveals inefficiencies. It reveals where our money priorities have been in the past, which is an invitation to evaluate and make changes if needed. 

Here’s another question I have. When it comes time to build the New Jerusalem, I wonder about how its economy will work. Obviously it will require faithful, consecrating people. The faithful people must provide for themselves, so I assume they will have jobs. In order for there to be jobs, there must be businesses and entrepreneurship.  Perhaps they will own the businesses.  But for there to be businesses, there must be demand, so there must be a solid customer base.  Where do these customers come from?

Perhaps the customer base doesn’t have to be in the New Jerusalem itself. Maybe it can be elsewhere.  But for Zion businesses to have a good customer base, the products must be superior enough and/or cheap enough among all the choices available that customers gravitate toward those businesses. (Oh look! Supply-side management! Manufacturing! Economies of scale!) Another factor that makes this tricky is that command economies tend to fall apart, so creating artificial demand or supply is not going to work.  And then there’s the can of worms of hiring faithful members without running afoul of anti-discrimination hiring laws.  Members will have to be work to be the best possible job candidate to be hired on.

Another question I have pertains to how interconnected economies are today. And yet there is a scripture that speaks of Zion becoming independent of all other creatures. Does that independence apply at the individual level, or at the level of economies? Is it possible to be interconnected and yet independent on an aggregate level?

I don’t pretend to know all the factors that have to be in place, but these are a few things that run through my mind.  What about you? 

Certifying worthiness to go to Zion

-->

15 Thus it cometh out of the church, for according to the law every man that cometh up to Zion must lay all things before the bishop in Zion.

16 And now, verily I say unto you, that as every elder in this part of the vineyard must give an account of his stewardship unto the bishop in this part of the vineyard—

17 A certificate from the judge or bishop in this part of the vineyard, unto the bishop in Zion, rendereth every man acceptable, and answereth all things, for an inheritance, and to be received as a wise steward and as a faithful laborer;

18 Otherwise he shall not be accepted of the bishop of Zion.

19 And now, verily I say unto you, let every elder who shall give an account unto the bishop of the church in this part of the vineyard be recommended by the church or churches, in which he labors, that he may render himself and his accounts approved in all things….

24 A few words in addition to the laws of the kingdom, respecting the members of the church—they that are appointed by the Holy Spirit to go up unto Zion, and they who are privileged to go up unto Zion—

25 Let them carry up unto the bishop a certificate from three elders of the church, or a certificate from the bishop;

26 Otherwise he who shall go up unto the land of Zion shall not be accounted as a wise steward. This is also an ensample. Amen.  (D&C 72:15-19)

In these verses we are given some of the rules by which people were to go up to Zion. 

1)   Consecration – “every man that cometh up to Zion must lay all things before the bishop in Zion” (v15)

2)   Stewardship and accountability – “every elder in this part of the vineyard must give an account of his stewardship unto the bishop in this part of the vineyard” (v16)

3)   Recommendation by the bishop – “a certificate from the judge or bishop…unto the bishop in Zion, rendereth every man acceptable” (v17)

I think we have a mistaken idea today that anyone could decide to go to Zion and settle. These verses give us a different view. They show us that members had to have a certificate from the bishop to take with them to show the bishop in Zion that they had done what was required.  They had to give an account of their stewardship.  The certificate showed they were good stewards (a faithful laborer and wise with their resources) and they could be given an inheritance.  Everyone going up to Zion had to have that certificate, otherwise they were not to be considered a wise steward.

Once they got to Zion, there would be a stewardship interview right off the bat to assess what the new arrival had in their charge (and probably to determine any additional needs or any surpluses that could be disposed).

So, this meant that Zion was to be a place full of people who had consecrated, who were wise stewards (hard workers and wise managers of resources) and had been certified as such by their bishops. Going to Zion did not happen willy-nilly; in fact, people who tried to move there without the certificate would not be given an inheritance by the bishop. According to D&C 85: 1-5, 9-11 there was to be a history kept of those who received their inheritances and those who “snuck to Zion” were not to be listed in those records.

It is more than likely that when it comes to the point that we are building Zion in Jackson county, Missouri, this same pattern will be used again to determine who will go there.  Temple recommend interviews and tithing settlement interviews give us an idea of what it might be like to receive a Zion recommend. 

We’re pretty comfortable with tithing settlement interviews, and it is pretty easy to declare whether we have been a full-tithe payer or not. It’s kind of a binary thing—either we are or we’re not.  A stewardship interview may be trickier because stewardships can be complex.  It occurs to me that probably the best and easiest tool for demonstrating wise stewardship may be our ability to show that we can make and keep a budget and live within our means…

Brigham Young on collecting surplus from the Saints

In a somewhat humorous but sadly true commentary, President Brigham Young recounted his early experiences in attempting to get people to live the law of consecration:

“When the revelation . . . was given in 1838, I was present, and recollect the feelings of the brethren. . . . The brethren wished me to go among the Churches, and find out what surplus property the people had, with which to forward the building of the Temple we were commencing at Far West. I accordingly went from place to place through the country. Before I started, I asked brother Joseph, ‘Who shall be the judge of what is surplus property?’ Said he, ‘Let them be the judges themselves. . . .’

“Then I replied, ‘I will go and ask them for their surplus property;’ and I did so; I found the people said they were willing to do about as they were counselled, but, upon asking them about their surplus property, most of the men who owned land and cattle would say, ‘I have got so many hundred acres of land, and I have got so many boys, and I want each one of them to have eighty acres, therefore this is not surplus property.’ Again, ‘I have got so many girls, and I do not believe I shall be able to give them more than forty acres each.’ ‘Well, you have got two or three hundred acres left.’ ‘Yes, but I have a brother-in-law coming on, and he will depend on me for a living; my wife’s nephew is also coming on, he is poor, and I shall have to furnish him a farm after he arrives here.’ I would go on to the next one, and he would have more land and cattle than he could make use of to advantage. It is a laughable idea, but is nevertheless true, men would tell me they were young and beginning [in] the world, and would say, ‘We have no children, but our prospects are good, and we think we shall have a family of children, and if we do, we want to give them eighty acres of land each; we have no surplus property.’ ‘How many cattle have you?’ ‘So many.’ ‘How many horses, &c?’ ‘So many, but I have made provisions for all these, and I have use for every thing I have got.’

“Some were disposed to do right with their surplus property, and once in a while you would find a man who had a cow which he considered surplus, but generally she was of the class that would kick a person’s hat off, or eyes out. . . . You would once in a while find a man who had a horse that he considered surplus, but at the same time he had the ringbone, was broken-winded, spavined in both legs, and had the pole evil at one end of the neck and a fistula at the other, and both knees sprung.” (In Journal of Discourses, 2:306–7.)

This is a time for self-evaluation. Are we of the kind who are willing to give and do whatever the Lord asks, or would we begin rationalizing about why we could not fully participate?  (Doctrine & Covenants Institute Student Manual, Enrichment L, “The Law of Consecration and Stewardship” )

At first glance, this is a very sad observation on the Saints failure to live the Law of Consecration, but when we look deeper, we see that there are some concerns behind these Saints' judgment about what was surplus and what was not.  They are issues similar to what we deal with today.

 

I notice that Joseph Smith wisely said that the Saints would be the judge themselves as to what was surplus.  That privilege to judge for ourselves continues today, and it is intended that we learn by experience and study.

 

Note that it says the people were willing to do as counseled, but when they were asked about their surplus property, well.. the devil is always in the details.

The fathers were looking ahead and planning out how to provide inheritances for their sons to farm.  Did they consider this a duty (like providing feeding and clothing) to provide for their children’s future, or was this actually conferring undue privilege?  Would the modern equivalent be giving your kid a house for free when they got married, or would the modern equivalent be giving your kid a job at the family business?  Was it an attempt to provide means for their children to make a living when grown up, or was it an attempt to smooth the way too much?  One might ask what the sons and daughters would do if they grew up and were not provided with land inheritances.  Likely they would have to work and save the money for it like everyone else.  Perhaps Brigham Young felt the children should work and save like everyone else.   Meantime, their children would not be given the land for many years in the future, and Brigham Young was trying to find surplus to finance the building of the Far West temple—an immediate need.  So perhaps Brigham Young was making a very subtle point about how people were letting distant future “needs” get in the way of giving for a present church need.

But this still causes us to wonder where saving and planning for future needs fits in the Law of Consecration.  Is it the individual’s duty to save for future needs, or would the surpluses of others be given to fill those needs when need arose?  Or will the need be miraculously filled by the Lord?  Perhaps one of the aspects of consecration that challenges us is how it requires us to trust that the Lord will provide in some way for us when financial emergencies arise.

Brigham Young also observed that some were willing to part with a horse as surplus if it had many physical and behavior faults.  The unspoken message here is his disappointment that people gave of the worst and not the best they had.  It causes me to wonder if sometimes our donations should be of the good things we have instead of our rejects.  On the other hand, looking at it from a practical perspective, it makes perfect sense for a farmer to get rid of a bad horse; likely the horse was more trouble than it was worth, and getting rid of it was a wise decision about their stewardship.  However, to give a bad horse as surplus means the horse would become a problem to another Saint, and does a faithful Saint deserve to be given a bad horse when they need and hope for a good horse to help them with their farm work?  No.   Maybe the horse would be a good gift for a horse doctor, otherwise.. it should have been shot. 

I think there is a lesson here that shows us that if we are giving as surplus things that are so clearly useless to us that they also useless to others as well, we aren’t really consecrating.  What is harder for us to let go of are the things that are still useful and which we think we might still use someday. 

Gospel principles help with de-cluttering

Organizing and de-cluttering is an activity near and dear to my heart. So near, in fact, that one of my dreams is to be a professional organizer. My mom has told me that when I was three, she found me organizing and arranging the toys in the milk crate that they were kept in. During my growing up years, she would periodically enlist my help to restore order to various chaotic areas of the house. My dad would occasionally ask me to organize his collection of CDs.

I’ve learned that there are principles in the scriptures that can be applied to organizing and de-cluttering. I’ve learned that when we look at organizing and de-cluttering from a spiritual perspective, it has much more meaning and can give us more motivation to succeed. For instance, I realized that at bottom, there might not be much difference between clearing clutter and consecrating our surplus. I hope to share with you some scriptures that can help with efforts to de-clutter, so that you realize these efforts are sanctifying.

19 ¶Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. (Matthew 6:19)

This scripture can be extremely challenging, but it also can be extremely liberating. I’m sure you are perfectly aware of that. But I also believe that we have a tendency to interpret it too strictly, which causes us to get frustrated and feel like we can’t live by it, which in turn causes us to find ways of ignoring it. (Thinking it impossible and ignoring it would be exactly what Satan would want us to do.)

One of the things I have realized about this scripture is that Jesus didn’t go into great detail about what “treasures” were. All kinds of objects can be treasures to people. (Heck, I once met a woman who considered an empty Evian water bottle to be one of her treasures.) Because Jesus didn’t explain in hair-spitting detail what a “treasure" is, this leaves it up to us to ponder exactly what in our lives we lay up as treasures on earth. We can ponder the difference between “treasures” and tools that we need. We can ponder whether there is a difference between treasures we lay up and treasures we use. The ball is in our court to ponder and apply the principle according to our individual circumstances.

If you look at this scripture from an organizing and de-cluttering perspective, it makes perfect sense to let go of treasured objects that are just being stored, especially if they really aren’t useful for anything. They just take up space when they are stored. Jesus could see that when we lay up our treasures, we do it because at bottom we want them to last extra long…even forever, if possible. (Sometimes we even let them go completely unused because we don’t want to ruin them.) Jesus noted that when treasured things are stored for long periods, they usually get ruined or stolen. He gave a better solution—lay up treasures in heaven instead (suggesting that the treasures on earth be sold and used to help someone in need) and the reward from the good deed would last throughout eternity.

Ananias and Sapphira: No room for distrust in consecration

1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. (Acts 5:1-5)

This is rather an alarming story. It’s alarming nature stems from the fact that the punishment (death) of this fellow Ananias (and later his wife Sapphira) seems to us to be far out of proportion to the sins committed—selfishness, lying to the Holy Ghost, and lying to God. Because of this, it behooves us to carefully study this story to understand exactly why Ananias incurred the wrath of God to such an extent so that we can avoid making the mistakes he made.

It might help us to first make some observations about this story. We must make sure that we see the events with an eye of faith. This will put us in a frame of mind to understand the higher wisdom of God in it.

First, I observe that Peter knew by the Holy Ghost and the spiritual gift of discernment all about what Ananias had done. Peter could have let it pass, but he didn’t. The intelligence Peter received seemed to have come with the conviction that it was his responsibility to confront Ananias with the truth to show him that God knew all about what Ananias was doing and that Ananias couldn’t put one over God or his apostles.

Second, I observe that Peter did not call down any sort of curse on Ananias. He asked Ananias why he had thought of doing it. "[W]hy hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?.... why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart?" (Acts 5:3-4)

Peter’s words suggest that the Holy Ghost had been working on Ananias to give the full price of his possessions to the apostles and Satan had been working on him to withhold part, and that Ananias had yielded to the temptation and had rationalized (told rational lies) to justify his actions to himself.

The question that will no doubt come to all of us about Ananias’s deeds is “Sure, it is great to give all your possessions to the church, but what is so bad about deciding to only give half?”

The answer can only come if we understand the nature of the offering Ananias was pretending to make. We are very used to the idea of offerings when you give as much as you feel inclined to. However, this doesn’t seem to be the type Ananias was making. He seems to have been pretending to make an offering of consecration, of the strictest all-or-nothing variety.

Something I realized as I looked closely a few verses in the chapter just before this story is that the early church’s consecration was carried out quite similarly to the method of consecration revealed to Joseph Smith.

Here’s the revelation given to Joseph Smith in 1831:

30 And behold, thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken.
31 And inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me; and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church and his counselors, two of the elders, or high priests, such as he shall appoint or has appointed and set apart for that purpose.
32 And it shall come to pass, that after they are laid before the bishop of my church, and after that he has received these testimonies concerning the consecration of the properties of my church, that they cannot be taken from the church, agreeable to my commandments, every man shall be made accountable unto me, a steward over his own property, or that which he has received by consecration, as much as is sufficient for himself and family.
33 And again, if there shall be properties in the hands of the church, or any individuals of it, more than is necessary for their support after this first consecration, which is a residue to be consecrated unto the bishop, it shall be kept to administer to those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants. (D&C 42:30-33, emphasis added)

Those who desired to consecrate their properties were to lay everything in front of the bishop, who was acting in the stead of God, to receive their offering. The offering was to be a tangible testimony from the saint symbolizing their knowledge that everything belonged to the Lord.

Here’s how it was done in the New Testament:

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common….
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. (Acts 4:32,34-35)

I’m going to rearrange the order of some of those elements to make it more clear. Here’s my ultra-unofficial version:

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own;
34 for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need; so they had all things common, Neither was there any among them that lacked.

These were the circumstances in the church at the time of Ananias’s story. Maybe Ananias felt like he was under a little bit of social pressure to do what others were doing. We’ve already noted that the Holy Ghost had also been working on Ananias in this respect. Perhaps he felt like he was being forced. If he was being forced, any of us can understand why he might try to hold something back for himself.

However, Peter tells Ananias that force had never entered into the case. “Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?” (Acts 5:4) To me this suggests that Ananias had had a choice to consecrate or not and that he wouldn’t have been penalized if he had chosen not to. It also suggests that he could have given it in part of he wanted to, as long as he hadn’t pretended to completely give it all. There had to be something about laying it at the apostles’ feet that ceremonially implied that he was giving it all.

Another thing that we have to remember about this act of laying everything at the apostles’ feet is that once all was given, it was the apostles’ turn to give back--“distribution was made unto every man according as he had need” (Acts 4:35). Everyone received their stewardship as though from the hands of God. It would take strong faith to give everything you had and trust that the apostles would be both fair and charitable and counsel with you to make sure you were given everything you needed. It would take great discipline of mind and heart to be content, to refrain from envy.

With this in mind, we begin to see Ananias’s fault. He wanted to look like he was giving it all without actually doing it. And he lay only part of his possessions at the apostles’ feet, expecting that they would distribute a stewardship to him afterwards. He didn’t give it all because he didn’t trust that he would be given enough for his needs, so he was hedging his bets. He doubted the apostles’ generosity because he wasn’t very generous himself. He couldn’t believe in that kind of complete charity. The thing is, consecrating all you have isn’t about trusting to the mercy of man—God’s apostles. It’s about developing inner charity and trusting that God will provide for you if you have sudden needs after having given away that comforting mound of surplus. Saying you are not holding back anything from God when you really are shows distrust in God’s ability to provide, and if you are taking a covenant to consecrate and give it all, that is lying to God.

And we LDS know how high and holy the covenant of consecration is. It stands to reason that there is terrible price to be paid if that covenant is broken or taken “in vain” with feigned words.

You and I do give of all we possess to help build the kingdom. We give time, talents, and so much energy! We pay tithing, which could be seen as a minimum sum that we consecrate. We pay fast offerings, donate to temple funds, perpetual education funds, missionary funds, humanitarian aid funds, and so on. We do all of this, more or less, to greater or lesser degrees, in all varied combinations of focus. We give so much already! I wonder what is stopping us from going the rest of the way?

Nothing is really stopping us from laying our possessions at our bishop’s feet and then receiving our stewardship. Sure, it doesn’t seem to be done today, but that doesn’t mean we can’t start to do it. We just have to be willing to give it all if we do.

This story also gets me thinking. It reminds me that someday this practice of consecrating our possessions will begin again in the church. It shows me most emphatically that we cannot and will not be forced to do it. We must choose it of ourselves. It shows me that if it begins in the church and I find myself unwilling to do it myself, I should not allow myself to feel pressured to do it. It has to be a completely voluntary act to give it all and hold nothing back. There is no halfway consecration. It’s all or nothing.

Now, here’s another thought that occurred to me that was rather intriguing. This act of laying it all out on the line reminds me a little of a technique used by some professional organizers to help their clients de-clutter a room. Everything in the room is pulled out and put in the front yard and the driveway and then the client gradually puts back in the room just what they need. Of course, the client hasn’t given it all up in the beginning, and they will still need to work on letting go at the end, but all the same, it shares some elements of consecration.

So this kind of gets me thinking that it might be possible to make up an exercise for ourselves, a thought experiment if you will, to see how we would do at this if we were really to consecrate all we possessed and lay it at the feet of the bishop and his counselors. Are you up for this? Yeah, this might take some time, but the self-knowledge gained will probably make it totally worth it. Get ready to use your imagination.

First, make a list of everything you own, leaving nothing out. (Inventories are useful anyway for insurance purposes in the event your house burns down or something.)

Second, pretend you have consecrated the whole list and are laying it before your bishop. Imagine what it would be like. Imagine yourself signing a deed to transfer it to the ownership of the church. Pretend you are now completely without possessions.

Then pretend that your bishop asks you to tell him what you need as part of your stewardship. Imagine that he asks you to “go shopping” or pick out what you need from a catalogue that happens to be the list that you have just presented to him. Do you know what you need? Circle or highlight everything you have chosen from the list..

Then your bishop asks you if there is anything you need for your stewardship that is NOT listed. What would you say? Can you say exactly what it would be without hesitation?

This might be a good exercise to try for family home evening just to see what would happen. (To some it might be an exciting challenge, while to others it might seem like a test of Abrahamic proportions.) Allow each family member to help decide what they need for their stewardship. (Maybe you will find you have to teach an impromptu lesson about “greed versus unselfishness”.)

This exercise could help prepare us to do the actual deed.

Chemistry and Consecration

During the early spring semester in 2008 I took a chemistry class and here are some things I wrote back then:

As I consider the idea of covalent and ionic bonding, it seems to me that it is a fabulous example of how earth does everything the Lord commands. These types of chemical bonds are great testifiers of the Law of Consecration.

Consider – when an atom has too many electrons, it is not happy unless it gives them away to some other atom or molecule that doesn’t have enough. They are bound together by this generosity.

Also, when an atom almost has enough electrons, but not quite, it will share what it has with another atom that similarly doesn’t have quite enough electrons, and so both atoms have enough electrons and achieve stability by sticking together. This binds them together.

How foolish and opposite is man in comparison! For man, when he has plenty of income, is not contented, but will continue to accumulate, and will withhold from those who actually need it! Man is so independent that he looks with distaste upon sharing anything valuable and useful with anyone else, even if it is necessary. It reminds me a lot of the verses from Helaman that say thus:

7 O how great is the nothingness of the children of men; yea, even they are less than the dust of the earth.
8 For behold, the dust of the earth moveth hither and thither, to the dividing asunder, at the command of our great and everlasting God.
9 Yea, behold at his voice do the hills and the mountains tremble and quake.
10 And by the power of his voice they are broken up, and become smooth, yea, even like unto a valley.
11 Yea, by the power of his voice doth the whole earth shake;
12 Yea, by the power of his voice, do the foundations rock, even to the very center.
13 Yea, and if he say unto the earth—Move—it is moved.
14 Yea, if he say unto the earth—Thou shalt go back, that it lengthen out the day for many hours—it is done;
(Helaman12:7-14)

4 O how foolish, and how vain, and how evil, and devilish, and how quick to do iniquity, and how slow to do good, are the children of men; yea, how quick to hearken unto the words of the evil one, and to set their hearts upon the vain things of the world!
5 Yea, how quick to be lifted up in pride; yea, how quick to boast, and do all manner of that which is iniquity; and how slow are they to remember the Lord their God, and to give ear unto his counsels, yea, how slow to walk in wisdom’s paths!
6 Behold, they do not desire that the Lord their God, who hath created them, should rule and reign over them; notwithstanding his great goodness and his mercy towards them, they do set at naught his counsels, and they will not that he should be their guide.
(Helaman 12: 4-6)

Image courtesy of http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://departments.oxy.edu/chemistry/testing/metalcomplex.gif&imgrefurl=http://
departments.oxy.edu/chemistry/&usg=__ZKAlMMtBBjIHgvzzbLXdIQCPiYM=&h=326&w=350&sz=27&hl=en&start=13&sig2=m
D2FGy1W_ijshlXlsXoCBQ&um=1&tbnid=ZY7xJER4mDpJ6M:&tbnh=112&tbnw=120&ei=AfJHScGxCp3aNL_F7Sk&prev=/
images%3Fq%3Dchemistry%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26sa%3DN