Approaching Zion - Selected Quotes

[Arenera]

In this day and age, is it feasible to get by on food and clothing?

What about: shelter (house), transportation (car), energy for transportation, media to see what is going on at LDSFF, education, medical, etc...

Excellent question! Here's some answers:

"Well, here we have it: the world we have made and are making is not the world God meant us to have, and the world he made for us in the beginning is the world we must have. With our present limited knowledge we could devise a perfectly practical order of things in which there would be no need for doctors, lawyers, insurance men, dentists, auto mechanics, beauticians, generals, real estate men, prostitutes, garbage men, and used-car salesmen. Their work is justified as an unpleasant necessity, yet there have been successful human societies in which none of those professions existed, any more than dukes, earls, and kings need to exist in our society. Nature around us, such of it as has remained, admonishes us that paradise is a reality. Through modern revelations we have learned that Zion also is a reality. Paradise is the proper environment of Zion. Here we are faced with a clear-cut proposition that recent developments of world history, if nothing else, admonish us we can no longer afford to ignore. The Tenth Article of Faith contains our future: our glory or our condemnation."

Sound harsh? No worse than what Brigham Young said:

"You may take the class called merchants, also the doctors, the priests in the various sects, the lawyers, and every person engaged in any branch of business throughout the world, and as a general thing, they are all taught from their childhood to be more or less dishonest... The great majority of men who have amassed great wealth have done it at the expense of their fellows, on the principle that the doctors, the lawyers, and the merchants acquire theirs. Such men are impositions on the community."

Yikes!

I guess what is being recommended is a shift away from the modern world and a call to live a simpler life. That's true sacrifice, there.

Did the city of Enoch need lawyers? How about car salesmen? Professional merchants with vast stores of personal wealth?

Need to expand on the answers. Why wouldn’t you need doctors, dentists, mechanics?

When we live the Word of Wisdom as God commanded we would not need doctors or dentists.

If we don't drive cars and use mechanics devices, we don't need mechanics.

Adam and Eve did not have doctors, dentists or mechanics. They earned their bread by the sweat of their brow and lived trusting in God, not the arm of flesh.

I agree with the quote from Brigham Young that we are living in the world created by the arm of flesh instead of the one God made for us.

God made all we need, we just don't remember how to use it anymore. Like food and plants for medicine along with the priesthood.

Now, I know people will object to the idea we don't need doctors or dentists. Most of our modern diseases are diseases of lifestyle (I know you know this as well as any Arenera because of your position on the WOW.) Heart Disease, Type II Diabetes, and Cancer. There is an old quote form President Benson, I'll have to look for it again, that says it would take 3 generations to restore health to a family line. The grandmother would have to eat/live healthy, the mother and the daughter, then they could produce healthy children again.

As for dentists. I had a forward thinking dentist tell me to stop using toothpaste. I thought he was crazy. I had sensitive teeth that always looked yellow and I occasionally had cavities. I had to use my sensitive teeth whitening toothpaste, right? I got desperate enough after some health problems that I decided I would do a 30 day test. I would do as he directed and only brush with water first thing in the morning and last thing at night and never within 30 minutes of eating. I haven't had a cavity since. My teeth are not longer sensitive to cold. My teeth are now white. Also, I never have bad breath anymore (except right after eating garlic or onions, lol) Yes, my friends and family noticed a difference. Crazy but true. The cure was the cause!I

Every step I have taken back from the modern world, as directed by the Spirit, has made me healthier.

Still too vague for me. Most people live in large city areas. Everyone (including Mormons) have a different opinion on what to do and what not to do.

[iWriteStuff]

Still too vague for me. Most people live in large city areas. Everyone (including Mormons) have a different opinion on what to do and what not to do.

I don't know a specific enough answer to satisfy you, but here are some of my thoughts on the matter.

1) I don't think Zion will be built in a contemporary "large city area". The one thing most successful Zion societies have in common is that they first leave Babylon, spiritually and temporally, to start anew. The saints were doing that on the Missouri frontier, then again in the Salt Lake Valley.

"Babylon is always reserved for the burning—she is never converted or reformed; though many may leave her for Zion, her fate is to be overthrown, violently, suddenly, unexpectedly, and completely by the direct intervention of God."

"God drives a wedge between Zion and Babylon, an intense mutual antipathy that constantly forces them apart. Says Brigham, "If the wicked come here they do not wish to stay, no matter how well they are treated, and I thank the Lord for it; and I want hard times, so that every person that does not wish to stay, for the sake of his religion, will leave."

What does every civilization leave behind? What is going to be the net product of our civilization? It's garbage, it's junk. You can see that, and it's mounting. It sounds rhetorical: we have to produce things (expand in producing); then we have to increase consumption, so we have to increase desire for things with advertising flim-flam; then we have to consume very fast and discard a great deal, because there is available a new and improved version. So discarding goes on, as Congressman Wright pointed out recently: "The principal exports of the United States today are used packages and scraps."...

What do the other civilizations leave behind, the ones I call the stable ones? The ones after the manner of the old people. They leave themselves behind. Their next generation takes over and carries on. Time means nothing to them. It's an eternal order of the law. The law of consecration is an eternal order. We will just leave ourselves, the culture, behind, without any loss of product. People will have plenty to do and plenty to think of.

2) I think the notion of not needing a doctor or a dentist so frequently requires an extreme leap of faith, for myself included. However, over the last few years I have come to notice how my family's reliance on doctors has actually caused more harm than good. Without going into too much detail, there was a specific time when I felt spiritually prompted to not rely on doctors to resolve a particular issue we were having. I chose not to listen to that prompting and we paid very dearly for it. I should have put more faith in the Lord and less in the arm of the flesh.

3) Why don't we need auto mechanics or insurance salesmen? Insurance salesmen is a given (I hope), but as far as auto mechanics go, I would think consecrating one's time and talents involves bringing what you have to the table and offering it up for the good of the people. We see this on a small level in church service already - everyone brings a bit of their skills and time to lift others, no matter how minor it may seem. Now think of what that would look like on a full time, much grander scale. We would all still be equal, no matter how important the skill we bring, because we are all bringing our best. Perhaps that's how "no doctors" really plays out in the end - those with healing skills will bring them to the table.

I'll comment more later when I've had time to reflect a bit more. Thanks for making me think.

[iWriteStuff]

Here's a bit more on how Brigham saw the role of individuals with skills being used in a Zion society. I shall call this section,

The Consecration Reformation of 1875:

Things had gone so far by 1875 that another Reformation was in order. President Young at conference spoke on "the great duty that rested upon the Saints to put in operation God's purposes with regard to the United Order, by the consecration of the private wealth to the common good of the people. The underlying principle of the United Order was that there should be no rich and no poor, that men's talents should be used for the common good, and that selfish interests should make way for a more benevolent and generous spirit among the Saints."

In response, "The whole assembly [of the priesthood] voted to renew their covenants, and later the Presidency, the Twelve, the Seventies, and the Presiding Bishop were baptized and entered into a special covenant to observe the rules of the United Order. . . . This movement became general throughout the Church."

What would be the response if the Presidency of the Church called for a return to the United Order and invited members to renew their commitment to it by way of baptism?

[iWriteStuff]

The final chapter of Approaching Zion focuses on the Atonement. I'll lead off with this quote:

The Atonement and the Economy

It is interesting that in the Book of Mormon every teaching of the Atonement includes, as the principal condition of its fulfillment, the observance of certain economic practices. Why should anything as spiritual as the Atonement be so worldly? It is because of the nature of the sacrifice we must make.

If we would have God "apply the atoning blood of Christ" (Mosiah 4:2) to our case, we can also reject it. We can take advantage of it or we can refuse it. The Atonement is either dead to us or it is in full effect. It is the supreme sacrifice made for us, and to receive it we must live up to every promise and covenant related to it—the Day of Atonement was the day of covenants, and the place was the temple.

By very definition we cannot pay a partial tithe—but then tithing is not among the covenants, since it is only a partial sacrifice, or rather, as my grandfather used to say, no sacrifice at all but only a token contribution from our increase. And if we cannot pay a partial tithe, neither can we keep the law of chastity in a casual and convenient way, nor solemnly accept it as St. Augustine did, as to be operative at some future time ("God give me chastity and continency, only not yet!"82). We cannot enjoy optional obedience to the law of God, or place our own limits on the law of sacrifice, or mitigate the charges of righteous conduct connected with the law of the gospel. We cannot be willing to sacrifice only that which is convenient to part with, and then expect a reward. The Atonement is everything; it is not to be had "on the cheap." God is not mocked in these things; we do not make promises and covenants with mental reservations. Unless we live up to every covenant, we are literally in Satan's power—a condition easily recognized by the mist of fraud and deception that has enveloped our whole society.

[iWriteStuff]

Followed by this quote:

Joined with the law of sacrifice is the law of consecration, which has no limiting "if necessary" clause; we agree to it unconditionally here and now. It represents our contribution to our salvation. The same rule applied in Israel. On the tenth day of the seventh month, the Day of Atonement, was held the great assembly of the entire nation, "an holy convocation . . . [to] afflict your souls" (Leviticus 23:27), for the purpose of bringing a special "sin offering of atonement" (Numbers 29:11). The trumpet of the Jubilee was sounded, "proclaiming liberty to all the inhabitants" and announcing the seven-times-seventh year (Leviticus 25:8-10), the Jubilee year when all debts were canceled and no profits were taken (Leviticus 25:14-17). This is the indispensable step to achieving Atonement for the people, since it is debt to each other that keeps men from being one: there can be no Zion of rich and poor. It is a depressing thought that the law of consecration should be the hardest sacrifice for us to make, instead of the easiest. But this is made perfectly clear to us in the story of the rich young man who zealously kept all the commandments but was stopped cold by that one: "But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions," and Jesus sorrowfully let him go—there was no deal, no mitigation of the terms (Matthew 19:22; Luke 18:18-30). "If ye are not one ye are not mine" (D&C 38:27), and you cannot be one in spiritual things unless ye are one in temporal things (D&C 70:14).

Atonement is both individual and collective. That is what Zion is—"of one heart and one mind" (Moses 7:18), not only one with each other but with the Lord. So in 3 Nephi 11, after the Lord had contact with every member of the multitude personally, "one by one" (3 Nephi 11:14-15), "when they had all gone forth and had witnessed for themselves, they did cry out with one accord, saying: Hosannah! Blessed be the name of the Most High God! And they did fall down at the feet of Jesus, and did worship him" (3 Nephi 11:16-17). That was a true at-one-ment. Now, the law of consecration is expressly designed "for the establishment of Zion," where "they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them" (Moses 7:18). For that we must consecrate everything we have to the whole, losing nothing, for we are all one. To consecrate means to set apart, sanctify, and relinquish our own personal interest in the manner designated in the Doctrine and Covenants. It is the final decisive law and covenant by which we formally accept the Atonement and merit a share in it.

[BruceRGilbert]

The notion of "property," beyond that which is private . . . such as one's personal clothing and items of hygiene . . . needs be supplanted with the notion of "stewardship" with the understanding that it all belongs to the Lord and is on loan to each of us for the betterment of all of us.

[iWriteStuff]

The notion of "property," beyond that which is private . . . such as one's personal clothing and items of hygiene . . . needs be supplanted with the notion of "stewardship" with the understanding that it all belongs to the Lord and is on loan to each of us for the betterment of all of us.

That is one of the most concise descriptions of consecration I've seen yet!

[Silver]

The notion of "property," beyond that which is private . . . such as one's personal clothing and items of hygiene . . . needs be supplanted with the notion of "stewardship" with the understanding that it all belongs to the Lord and is on loan to each of us for the betterment of all of us.

That is one of the most concise descriptions of consecration I've seen yet!

Then let's use the property "article of faith" listed above as the starting point, as Point A, if you will. How do we get to Point B, i.e., the place where that faith is exercised; where it is put into practice without force or compulsion? I need to learn how to steward and share better.

[BruceRGilbert]

Then let's use the property "article of faith" listed above as the starting point, as Point A, if you will. How do we get to Point B, i.e., the place where that faith is exercised; where it is put into practice without force or compulsion? I need to learn how to steward and share better.

The procession is 1.) Self, then 2.) Family . . . etc. It spreads outward in the "sphere of influence." It has to be "voluntary" based. When a family can identify and separated their "needs" from their "wants" and are willing to begin from the necessities . . . then . . . . Things will be very bleak initially. Transitions will come when families are forced to move in with other families for the sake of survival during hard times. Multi-family dwellings ==> Communes.

If you believe that you are "up to the experience," begin by choosing a family with which to partner to purchase a dwelling whereby you live together and share resources. Pool your money, together, and manage it via a combined "family counsel."

[Silver]

Then let's use the property "article of faith" listed above as the starting point, as Point A, if you will. How do we get to Point B, i.e., the place where that faith is exercised; where it is put into practice without force or compulsion? I need to learn how to steward and share better.

The procession is 1.) Self, then 2.) Family . . . etc. It spreads outward in the "sphere of influence." It has to be "voluntary" based. When a family can identify and separated their "needs" from their "wants" and are willing to begin from the necessities . . . then . . . . Things will be very bleak initially. Transitions will come when families are forced to move in with other families for the sake of survival during hard times. Multi-family dwellings ==> Communes

Does such a system currently exist within Mormondom? If so, where? If not, why not?

I'm also interested in why "families are forced to move in with other families" as you say. Why don't they do this pre-hard times?

[BruceRGilbert]

It will be forced upon us in coming hard times.

You may have missed my addition above, so I will add it, here:

If you believe that you are "up to the experience," begin by choosing a family with which to partner to purchase a dwelling whereby you live together and share resources. Pool your money, together, and manage it via a combined "family counsel."

[Silver]

It will be forced upon us in coming hard times.

You may have missed my addition above, so I will add it, here:

If you believe that you are "up to the experience," begin by choosing a family with which to partner to purchase a dwelling whereby you live together and share resources. Pool your money, together, and manage it via a combined "family counsel."

It is our normalcy bias that prevents most Americans/Canadians from thinking that your proposal above is unusual, or even undesirable. In Japan, for example, there is a large market in homes called 三世代住宅 (san sedai juutaku or three-generation home) where one set of grandparent(s) live with a child, the child's spouse, and their child(ren). Habitable space is limited and so real estate is expensive in Japan. Multi-generational homes are common as a solution. It doesn't require a grand council, just the same sort of patience and love necessary in any home. Those sorts of exigencies exist throughout the world where people don't live with huge mortgages and other personal debt.

We're just spoiled in the West. We think we've been blessed for our righteousness, but we've really been cursed for our profligate spending.

[Sarah]

It will be forced upon us in coming hard times.

You may have missed my addition above, so I will add it, here:

If you believe that you are "up to the experience," begin by choosing a family with which to partner to purchase a dwelling whereby you live together and share resources. Pool your money, together, and manage it via a combined "family counsel."

Of all the things I'm dreading about making this transition to a community of sharing and communal living, it is living with extended family that stirs up feelings of fear. I would much rather live with strangers or ward members than with some of my extended family members, because with strangers or friends, there seems to be more of a natural respect and low expectations for one another. I feel like some personalities in my extended family (and every family has them I suspect), feel like they are entitled to take control of other's lives - their space, possessions, food or cooking, children and parenting. Elders feel the need to lecture and criticize. How does a unit practicing the United Order handle incidences of selfishness, greed, and disrespect? I know what the answer is, but it is hard to face. It is going to be like managing our own small family when conflicts arrive. But what is the bounds that is crossed for someone to break this United Order covenant and need to dissolve the marriage so to speak?

[Rand]

I am not entirely sure your description is a description of living the full law of consecration or not. Communal living is not what consecration is necessarily going to look like. As a steward, I have responsibility to manage my resources to meet God's covenant standard. Taking others interests above our own is one part of that. Equally sharing all I have is another thing entirely, that is not Consecration at all. Living a communal system where everything is suppose to be shared is another system than the Law of Consecration. The law of consecration requires you to continue to be steward of your substance and to impart it to the Church to build the Kingdom at the request, or guidance of the Church.
The efforts of living a united order are a different creature, and may not ever be required again, but consecration is a will be required.

[iWriteStuff]

It will be forced upon us in coming hard times.

You may have missed my addition above, so I will add it, here:

If you believe that you are "up to the experience," begin by choosing a family with which to partner to purchase a dwelling whereby you live together and share resources. Pool your money, together, and manage it via a combined "family counsel."

Curious how you think this will work in practice.... perhaps what follows is an overshare.

A little over a year ago we took in my brother in law's family. The wife basically left so we ended up with the brother in law and two kids. There is enough space to go around in my house, but there isn't really enough money. The brother in law's family consumes a lot but contributes nothing. They also don't help out. They essentially eat everything that isn't nailed down, then hide in their rooms playing on their smart phones while the wife and I clean up the mess.

Now, clearly, this is not the law of consecration. I've been blessed to be able to support this financially thus far, but I'm curious how this would play out if we were in a United Order situation. What happens to a partner family that doesn't pull their weight? That either can't or absolutely refuses to? In my situation, I know the brother in law makes a bit less than I do, but doesn't help with groceries, utilities, etc. When a project comes up that needs to be done, he is found sleeping on the couch unwilling to help. I don't mean to share this to complain. I've come to grips with the fact that this is who they are and nothing I can say or do will change it. But I'm curious what the principle of consecration teaches and what impact charity and long-suffering have in a situation like this.

How did Brigham handle freeloaders? More importantly, how do you get others to want to contribute? I've tried the charity approach and now I'm working on the long-suffering approach. Oddly, this started after I had prayed last year to be able to understand and live the law of consecration a bit more... I certainly got the "live together" element, but I feel I'm still a long ways from the "all things in common" and "hearts knit together in unity" element. I think there's got to be a strong degree of willingness from all partners and not just a "Hey, can we shack up at your place for a few years and not contribute?" approach.

Clearly, consecration involves charity but charity alone will not make it work. I think the sequence of the temple ordinances teaches the proper progression - obedience and sacrifice come first.

[Sarah]

I am not entirely sure your description is a description of living the full law of consecration or not. Communal living is not what consecration is necessarily going to look like. As a steward, I have responsibility to manage my resources to meet God's covenant standard. Taking others interests above our own is one part of that. Equally sharing all I have is another thing entirely, that is not Consecration at all. Living a communal system where everything is suppose to be shared is another system than the Law of Consecration. The law of consecration requires you to continue to be steward of your substance and to impart it to the Church to build the Kingdom at the request, or guidance of the Church.
The efforts of living a united order are a different creature, and may not ever be required again, but consecration is a will be required.

I assume you're right and look forward to the day when our stewardships will be well defined, and there won't be a great need for many families being under one roof, or sharing food. It's that 1st year or two of tribulation that I know is going to be hard for me to handle if I'm living with many of my extended family, and we are sharing all our food, and possibly the same roof with who knows how many will need it.

[Sarah]

It will be forced upon us in coming hard times.

You may have missed my addition above, so I will add it, here:

If you believe that you are "up to the experience," begin by choosing a family with which to partner to purchase a dwelling whereby you live together and share resources. Pool your money, together, and manage it via a combined "family counsel."

Curious how you think this will work in practice.... perhaps what follows is an overshare.

A little over a year ago we took in my brother in law's family. The wife basically left so we ended up with the brother in law and two kids. There is enough space to go around in my house, but there isn't really enough money. The brother in law's family consumes a lot but contributes nothing. They also don't help out. They essentially eat everything that isn't nailed down, then hide in their rooms playing on their smart phones while the wife and I clean up the mess.

Now, clearly, this is not the law of consecration. I've been blessed to be able to support this financially thus far, but I'm curious how this would play out if we were in a United Order situation. What happens to a partner family that doesn't pull their weight? That either can't or absolutely refuses to? In my situation, I know the brother in law makes a bit less than I do, but doesn't help with groceries, utilities, etc. When a project comes up that needs to be done, he is found sleeping on the couch unwilling to help. I don't mean to share this to complain. I've come to grips with the fact that this is who they are and nothing I can say or do will change it. But I'm curious what the principle of consecration teaches and what impact charity and long-suffering have in a situation like this.

How did Brigham handle freeloaders? More importantly, how do you get others to want to contribute? I've tried the charity approach and now I'm working on the long-suffering approach. Oddly, this started after I had prayed last year to be able to understand and live the law of consecration a bit more... I certainly got the "live together" element, but I feel I'm still a long ways from the "all things in common" and "hearts knit together in unity" element. I think there's got to be a strong degree of willingness from all partners and not just a "Hey, can we shack up at your place for a few years and not contribute?" approach.

Clearly, consecration involves charity but charity alone will not make it work. I think the sequence of the temple ordinances teaches the proper progression - obedience and sacrifice come first.

Very good point about there needing to be a progression of living certain laws before living the Law of Consecration. I went through a similar situation as yourself and also went through the charity and long-suffering phase, and then I went through the setting rules or boundaries phase. This is when you realize that you have to have law and order, and clarification on what is okay and what is not. You and your wife are the owners or stewards of your house and food, and so you make the rules. I think that when we are living in a family situation, it's easy to see why parents need rules and boundaries to guide their children's behavior, but adults need boundaries too. If you sense that your extended family is receiving with a sense of entitlement, and is not learning to sacrifice and give unselfishly, it is your right and duty to withhold giving in any which way you think necessary to correct their selfish behavior. This is not an unloving thing to do, but is actually a loving thing, because right now you are only encouraging their selfish behavior. If you withhold out of a feeling of revenge or bitterness or anger, then you are in the wrong, but like the scripture says, you rebuke but follow it up with an increase of love to reassure your family that you are acting not because you are selfishly motivated, but because there needs to be some fairness or justice within your home. This stage of learning how to form and enforce law, is one of the hardest things about parenthood, but God also enforces laws for his adult children too.

[Arenera]

It will be forced upon us in coming hard times.

You may have missed my addition above, so I will add it, here:

If you believe that you are "up to the experience," begin by choosing a family with which to partner to purchase a dwelling whereby you live together and share resources. Pool your money, together, and manage it via a combined "family counsel."

Curious how you think this will work in practice.... perhaps what follows is an overshare.

A little over a year ago we took in my brother in law's family. The wife basically left so we ended up with the brother in law and two kids. There is enough space to go around in my house, but there isn't really enough money. The brother in law's family consumes a lot but contributes nothing. They also don't help out. They essentially eat everything that isn't nailed down, then hide in their rooms playing on their smart phones while the wife and I clean up the mess.

Now, clearly, this is not the law of consecration. I've been blessed to be able to support this financially thus far, but I'm curious how this would play out if we were in a United Order situation. What happens to a partner family that doesn't pull their weight? That either can't or absolutely refuses to? In my situation, I know the brother in law makes a bit less than I do, but doesn't help with groceries, utilities, etc. When a project comes up that needs to be done, he is found sleeping on the couch unwilling to help. I don't mean to share this to complain. I've come to grips with the fact that this is who they are and nothing I can say or do will change it. But I'm curious what the principle of consecration teaches and what impact charity and long-suffering have in a situation like this.

How did Brigham handle freeloaders? More importantly, how do you get others to want to contribute? I've tried the charity approach and now I'm working on the long-suffering approach. Oddly, this started after I had prayed last year to be able to understand and live the law of consecration a bit more... I certainly got the "live together" element, but I feel I'm still a long ways from the "all things in common" and "hearts knit together in unity" element. I think there's got to be a strong degree of willingness from all partners and not just a "Hey, can we shack up at your place for a few years and not contribute?" approach.

Clearly, consecration involves charity but charity alone will not make it work. I think the sequence of the temple ordinances teaches the proper progression - obedience and sacrifice come first.

Consecration is sharing all we have, including our time, and our lives if necessary. You are providing a hand out. Your BIL and kids are certainly not consecrating. You should council with your BIL and his kids, and they should understand or they need to get out.

Zion is pure in heart, and that includes the poor.

[iWriteStuff]

Very good point about there needing to be a progression of living certain laws before living the Law of Consecration. I went through a similar situation as yourself and also went through the charity and long-suffering phase, and then I went through the setting rules or boundaries phase. This is when you realize that you have to have law and order, and clarification on what is okay and what is not. You and your wife are the owners or stewards of your house and food, and so you make the rules. I think that when we are living in a family situation, it's easy to see why parents need rules and boundaries to guide their children's behavior, but adults need boundaries too. If you sense that your extended family is receiving with a sense of entitlement, and is not learning to sacrifice and give unselfishly, it is your right and duty to withhold giving in any which way you think necessary to correct their selfish behavior. This is not an unloving thing to do, but is actually a loving thing, because right now you are only encouraging their selfish behavior. If you withhold out of a feeling of revenge or bitterness or anger, then you are in the wrong, but like the scripture says, you rebuke but follow it up with an increase of love to reassure your family that you are acting not because you are selfishly motivated, but because there needs to be some fairness or justice within your home. This stage of learning how to form and enforce law, is one of the hardest things about parenthood, but God also enforces laws for his adult children too.

Good points, all. I think the toughest part about it is they are family, honestly. We cannot simply cast them out of the house and not damage a family relationship with links to all the other siblings and parents. On the same hand, we have absolutely no power or authority to parent their kids. My kids have a very different rule structure and standard of expectations. We also raise them to be responsible for their actions. The in law kids are basically free range. There would have even been 3 kids, except the eldest decided to drop out of high school and sell drugs. He's not allowed in my house. But anyway, we see behavior in their kids that we would not tolerate in our own and yet I cannot intervene because they are his kids. I am simply not allowed to interfere with the way they are raised.

We have also started to cut back on certain things in order conserve our resources. We don't withhold anything from them, but we no longer go out of our way to provide them the things they seem to want. For example, instead of buying Doritos and soda for them to ravenously consume, we provide the essentials only (milk, juice, fruit, and things that must be prepared rather than simply consumed). They eat better food than they ever have, but they also don't eat more than is necessary (ie: no more late night raids on my pantry since any food there actually requires time to prepare now). I don't do this out of anger - it's a matter of survival.

I'd like to reiterate that I know this is not consecration. As Arenara says, it is a handout. It is not meant to be permanent, nor is it really building Zion. It is us trying to extend charity and give the kids a safe environment and provide an opportunity for the father to get back on his feet. I don't know how long it will last or what the outcome will be. It certainly isn't easy.

But it also makes me wonder how to compare the United Order with the Dis-unified Order that I currently see in my house. I think it takes a covenant, commitment, and a lot of sacrifice to live a United Order lifestyle. You have to care more about others than you do about accumulating worldly possessions. That's a rare quality in itself. Then you have to be willing to sacrifice. We say we are willing in the temple ordinance, but how many of us contemplate how difficult that really is? For my part, I can say it is extremely difficult - especially when it goes unappreciated.

[iWriteStuff]

Zion is pure in heart, and that includes the poor.

I agree! Rich or poor, all must have the same motivation and the same heart.

Speaking of the poor,

"Modern revelation has some interesting things to say about idlers: "Let every man be diligent in all things. And the idler shall not have place in the church" (D&C 75:29). We are all to work in the kingdom and for the kingdom. "And the inhabitants of Zion also shall remember their labors, inasmuch as they are appointed to labor, . . . for the idler shall be had in remembrance before the Lord" (D&C 68:30). Note that it is not the withholding of lunch but the observant eye of the Lord that admonishes the idler. This refers to all of us as laborers in Zion, and "the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish" (2 Nephi 26:31). That is the theme here: "Now, I, the Lord, am not well pleased with the inhabitants of Zion, for there are idlers among them; . . . they also seek not earnestly the riches of eternity, but their eyes are full of greediness" (D&C 68:31).

"An idler in the Lord's book is one who is not working for the building up of the kingdom of God on earth and the establishment of Zion, no matter how hard he may be working to satisfy his own greed. Latter-day Saints prefer to ignore that distinction as they repeat a favorite maxim of their own invention, that the idler shall not eat the bread or wear the clothing of the laborer. And what an ingenious argument they make of it! The director of a Latter-day Saint Institute was recently astounded when this writer pointed out to him that the ancient teaching that the idler shall not eat the bread of the laborer has always meant that the idle rich shall not eat the bread of the laboring poor, as they always have. "To serve the classes that are living on them," Brigham Young reports from England, "the poor, the laboring men and women are toiling, working their lives out to earn that which will keep a little life in them [lunch is what they get out of it, and no more]. Is this equality? No! What is going to be done? The Latter-day Saints will never accomplish their mission until this inequality shall cease on the earth." But the institute director was amazed, because he had always been taught that the idle poor should not eat the bread of the laboring rich, because it is perfectly obvious that a poor man has not worked as hard as a rich man. With the same lucid logic my Latter-day Saint students tell me that there were no poor in the Zion of Enoch because only the well-to-do were admitted to the city."

[Arenera]

Zion is pure in heart, and that includes the poor.

I agree! Rich or poor, all must have the same motivation and the same heart.

Speaking of the poor,

"Modern revelation has some interesting things to say about idlers: "Let every man be diligent in all things. And the idler shall not have place in the church" (D&C 75:29). We are all to work in the kingdom and for the kingdom. "And the inhabitants of Zion also shall remember their labors, inasmuch as they are appointed to labor, . . . for the idler shall be had in remembrance before the Lord" (D&C 68:30). Note that it is not the withholding of lunch but the observant eye of the Lord that admonishes the idler. This refers to all of us as laborers in Zion, and "the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish" (2 Nephi 26:31). That is the theme here: "Now, I, the Lord, am not well pleased with the inhabitants of Zion, for there are idlers among them; . . . they also seek not earnestly the riches of eternity, but their eyes are full of greediness" (D&C 68:31).

"An idler in the Lord's book is one who is not working for the building up of the kingdom of God on earth and the establishment of Zion, no matter how hard he may be working to satisfy his own greed. Latter-day Saints prefer to ignore that distinction as they repeat a favorite maxim of their own invention, that the idler shall not eat the bread or wear the clothing of the laborer. And what an ingenious argument they make of it! The director of a Latter-day Saint Institute was recently astounded when this writer pointed out to him that the ancient teaching that the idler shall not eat the bread of the laborer has always meant that the idle rich shall not eat the bread of the laboring poor, as they always have. "To serve the classes that are living on them," Brigham Young reports from England, "the poor, the laboring men and women are toiling, working their lives out to earn that which will keep a little life in them [lunch is what they get out of it, and no more]. Is this equality? No! What is going to be done? The Latter-day Saints will never accomplish their mission until this inequality shall cease on the earth." But the institute director was amazed, because he had always been taught that the idle poor should not eat the bread of the laboring rich, because it is perfectly obvious that a poor man has not worked as hard as a rich man. With the same lucid logic my Latter-day Saint students tell me that there were no poor in the Zion of Enoch because only the well-to-do were admitted to the city."

I think we see some of that today in our wards where some people won't accept or do callings.

[iWriteStuff]

I think we see some of that today in our wards where some people won't accept or do callings.

Yeah that's a mentality I simply don't understand.... If they called me to be Ward Gym Sweeper, I'd gladly show up and do it. The calling you receive isn't always as glamorous as you think you "deserve", but it is always a necessary calling and an opportunity to serve others. We all have a part to play.

[simpleton]

It will be forced upon us in coming hard times.

You may have missed my addition above, so I will add it, here:

If you believe that you are "up to the experience," begin by choosing a family with which to partner to purchase a dwelling whereby you live together and share resources. Pool your money, together, and manage it via a combined "family counsel."

Curious how you think this will work in practice.... perhaps what follows is an overshare.

A little over a year ago we took in my brother in law's family. The wife basically left so we ended up with the brother in law and two kids. There is enough space to go around in my house, but there isn't really enough money. The brother in law's family consumes a lot but contributes nothing. They also don't help out. They essentially eat everything that isn't nailed down, then hide in their rooms playing on their smart phones while the wife and I clean up the mess.

Now, clearly, this is not the law of consecration. I've been blessed to be able to support this financially thus far, but I'm curious how this would play out if we were in a United Order situation. What happens to a partner family that doesn't pull their weight? That either can't or absolutely refuses to? In my situation, I know the brother in law makes a bit less than I do, but doesn't help with groceries, utilities, etc. When a project comes up that needs to be done, he is found sleeping on the couch unwilling to help. I don't mean to share this to complain. I've come to grips with the fact that this is who they are and nothing I can say or do will change it. But I'm curious what the principle of consecration teaches and what impact charity and long-suffering have in a situation like this.

How did Brigham handle freeloaders? More importantly, how do you get others to want to contribute? I've tried the charity approach and now I'm working on the long-suffering approach. Oddly, this started after I had prayed last year to be able to understand and live the law of consecration a bit more... I certainly got the "live together" element, but I feel I'm still a long ways from the "all things in common" and "hearts knit together in unity" element. I think there's got to be a strong degree of willingness from all partners and not just a "Hey, can we shack up at your place for a few years and not contribute?" approach.

Clearly, consecration involves charity but charity alone will not make it work. I think the sequence of the temple ordinances teaches the proper progression - obedience and sacrifice come first.

In the above situation I think that your charity is being abused ,although I suppose if your heart is right you will be blessed. But (IMO) he should be brought before the bishop If he is capable of working and is not contributing to the best of his ability. I think that you are doing him a disservice. Hiding in their rooms playing on "smart" phones actually dumbs down a person. Now of course all we are seeing is your side of the story . But still, I like Hugh Nibleys theme in Approaching Zion, " work we must but lunch is free". Your inlaw has it even seemingly better , but very detrimental, "no work, no contribution, no responsibility, but still, free lunch". In our house if the kids do not do their duties and jobs and responsibilities they do not eat until it is performed. ( within reason of course) Now I am not trying to tell you how to run your household but I see absolutely no problem with God at all for you to require him and his children to contribute to the common welfare of your household. If you read about one of the most successful United Orders in all of the Great Basin which was Orderville, They covenanted to physically work and dedicate their time to the general good of the whole, did not allow idleness, and if caught were brought up before the Bishop. Of course that is if it became habitual.
Again " work we MUST but lunch is free".

[Michelle]

It will be forced upon us in coming hard times.

You may have missed my addition above, so I will add it, here:

If you believe that you are "up to the experience," begin by choosing a family with which to partner to purchase a dwelling whereby you live together and share resources. Pool your money, together, and manage it via a combined "family counsel."

Curious how you think this will work in practice.... perhaps what follows is an overshare.

A little over a year ago we took in my brother in law's family. The wife basically left so we ended up with the brother in law and two kids. There is enough space to go around in my house, but there isn't really enough money. The brother in law's family consumes a lot but contributes nothing. They also don't help out. They essentially eat everything that isn't nailed down, then hide in their rooms playing on their smart phones while the wife and I clean up the mess.

Now, clearly, this is not the law of consecration. I've been blessed to be able to support this financially thus far, but I'm curious how this would play out if we were in a United Order situation. What happens to a partner family that doesn't pull their weight? That either can't or absolutely refuses to? In my situation, I know the brother in law makes a bit less than I do, but doesn't help with groceries, utilities, etc. When a project comes up that needs to be done, he is found sleeping on the couch unwilling to help. I don't mean to share this to complain. I've come to grips with the fact that this is who they are and nothing I can say or do will change it. But I'm curious what the principle of consecration teaches and what impact charity and long-suffering have in a situation like this.

How did Brigham handle freeloaders? More importantly, how do you get others to want to contribute? I've tried the charity approach and now I'm working on the long-suffering approach. Oddly, this started after I had prayed last year to be able to understand and live the law of consecration a bit more... I certainly got the "live together" element, but I feel I'm still a long ways from the "all things in common" and "hearts knit together in unity" element. I think there's got to be a strong degree of willingness from all partners and not just a "Hey, can we shack up at your place for a few years and not contribute?" approach.

Clearly, consecration involves charity but charity alone will not make it work. I think the sequence of the temple ordinances teaches the proper progression - obedience and sacrifice come first.

In the above situation I think that your charity is being abused ,although I suppose if your heart is right you will be blessed. But (IMO) he should be brought before the bishop If he is capable of working and is not contributing to the best of his ability. I think that you are doing him a disservice. Hiding in their rooms playing on "smart" phones actually dumbs down a person. Now of course all we are seeing is your side of the story . But still, I like Hugh Nibleys theme in Approaching Zion, " work we must but lunch is free". Your inlaw has it even seemingly better , but very detrimental, "no work, no contribution, no responsibility, but still, free lunch". In our house if the kids do not do their duties and jobs and responsibilities they do not eat until it is performed. ( within reason of coarse) Now I am not trying to tell you how to run your household but I see absolutely no problem with God at all for you to require him and his children to contribute to the common welfare of your household. If you read about one of the most successful United Orders in all of the Great Basin which was Orderville, They covenanted to physically work and dedicate their time to the general good of the whole, did not allow idleness, and if caught were brought up before the Bishop. Of course that is if it became habitual.
Again " work we MUST but lunch is free".

We were having trouble with kids not helping out. Eating and running off to play without cleaning up and wasting a lot of food. We explained that with so many people, we just can't survive with only a few doing the work and the rest playing. Dishes must be done so we can eat the next meal. Laundry must be washed so there are close to wear. Bathrooms must be cleaned so we don't get sick. Things like that, that are true and necessary for survival and everybody contributes to the mess.

We finally started telling our kids who are old enough "If you don't work, you don't eat." I don't do it every meal, but when things start to get slack. If they haven't done a chore yet that day, I just ask them "What are you going to do right now to earn you meal?" It might be something simple like picking up the living room, or loading the dishwasher, but real life demands that we learn to work. Truly the pilgrims had it right, "if you don't work, you don't eat."

Edit: LOL! I just noticed I spelled clothes "close." That's what I get for posting at 2 am while up with the baby.

[gclayjr]

In the above situation I think that your charity is being abused ,although I suppose if your heart is right you will be blessed. But (IMO) he should be brought before the bishop If he is capable of working and is not contributing to the best of his ability. I think that you are doing him a disservice. Hiding in their rooms playing on "smart" phones actually dumbs down a person. Now of course all we are seeing is your side of the story

I agree that iWriteStuff's heart is in the right place. It is his brother-in-law and family. One thing I have learned in my life with the problems in my own family is that it isn't all black and white, and and you can't control others. Only influence them. If he decides, that best thing for his brother-in-law and his kids is to throw them out, if done after praying and fasting, I wouldn't condemn him. This is certainly something that he might want to seek the sage and fatherly counsel of his bishop for. I doubt that he can "Send his brother-in-Law" to a bishop, like sending a kid to his room. But if he thinks that would work, great.

While priciples are eternal and true, the best way to apply them to specific situations are not so obvious.

Regards,

George Clay