I am now an old man at age 78, when planning for the future has now led me to possibilities I never had to consider until now. While I am still in a reasonable facsimile of mental competence without any concerns about what anybody else thinks about it, I offer the following as a transparent glimpse into my priorities these days. Perhaps it will be helpful to someone "out there" who may be in a similar state of their lives.
The Law of Consecration
There has been a gradual distillation process at work within my soul for many years in my attempts to understand the law of consecration (yes, I am slow). Here are some conclusions: 1) Consecration is the making of a sacred covenant with God to freely give and dedicate oneself and possessions for God’s work here on earth, and it is a fundamental law of the Church dating back to 1831, that has never been rescinded; 2) Attempts by the Prophet Joseph to introduce economic systems among the Saints to implement the law of consecration are not the “real” law of consecration, but should be looked upon as the evolutionary process taking place in the Prophet’s own mind in preparation for the covenant we now make in the full temple endowment ceremony, which was not given until 1842; and 3) The Saints in our day can and should already be living our individual economic lives in such a way that our covenant to consecrate is in full implementation right now instead of waiting to live this covenant at some future date. To do otherwise is to succumb to a pervasive satanic deception.
History of the Law of Consecration
Let me refine the foregoing material with a comparison of the various “programs” introduced by the Prophet Joseph, and illustrate the conclusions I have cited above. The “when,” and the “why,” and the “how” questions about the law of consecration, are answered by personal revelation from the Holy Ghost, and we can know that we are pleasing God in pursuit of our faith here and now. Ironically, it sometimes seems those with the least to give readily understand the principle (if they can overcome their envy of the wealthy), while those with spacious barns to hold their worldly possessions wrest the scriptures and our early history to delay their gifts to the undeserving poor (as they suppose in their self-righteous judgments). Thus, both the poor and the wealthy are challenged in the implementation of this lofty, even supernal and eternal principle of consecration.
The first attempt to implement a communal system for consecration among the Saints was made in 1831, in Kirtland, Ohio. Newly baptized Sidney Rigdon had been involved in other communal experiments that were common in that day, and was no doubt a catalyst influencing Joseph’s inquiries to the Lord regarding the matter. Section 38 of The Doctrine and Covenants really lays the foundation in gospel principles for that which was to follow about a month later in Section 42, the first attempt to put in writing a plan of consecration. It was rigid, requiring that all property be deeded to the bishop and then a stewardship returned as an equal portion to all other stewards. All surplus profits derived were to be reconsecrated each year, then new lines of equality drawn by the bishop. The plan was tried in Kirtland first, then in Jackson County, but it failed, because there was no private ownership of anything. It was doomed to fail because of the Saints’ poverty. They simply consumed more than they produced.
By 1833, the Prophet had modified his views and concluded that private ownership of the stewardship was essential to avoid putting the bishop at odds with the people in determining the size of equal stewardships, and only surplus property was consecrated by deed to the bishop’s storehouse.
Here again, there was a possibility for failure on the part of the steward to declare or disclose what was surplus, but it was made clear to the bishops that they were not to judge in the matter. (See HC, 1:364-65). It was during this period of modification of the law of consecration in 1833 that the enemies of the Saints in Missouri organized against them. These events left the implementation of the program in shambles, some having dedicated property to the Church, others retaining individual ownership, and many merely clinging on to life itself.
Zion’s Camp
As I write this afternoon, I am dressed in my ZION sweatshirt. It’s a gift from Melanie, an acknowledgment by her of my deep dive into this topic of Zion. D&C Section 105 outlines the Lord’s implicit instructions in June 1834, after the failure of Zion’s Camp to return the consecrated property of Jackson County to the Saints and orders that “her law be executed and fulfilled after her redemption” (speaking of the land of Zion). Many have supposed this was the end of consecration in the Church, but, the careful reading of this and other revelations will document that consecration and stewardship were still and always have been required of the Lord by the Saints.
 |
| President Gordon B. Hinckley |
See for example the Sixth Lecture on Faith, published for the first time in Kirtland in 1835, especially, verses 7-8. Go to the temple and listen carefully to the instructions given in relation to the last covenant. There is no reference to suspending the observance of the law of consecration until some undefined future day of fulfillment. Here and now is the requirement. In General Priesthood Meeting on March 31, 2001, President Gordon B. Hinckley announced the establishment of the “Perpetual Education Fund” designed as a way for the saints to consecrate for the benefit of the impoverished returned missionaries among us so they could be educated in their lands of origin for the benefit of their people. He said, “I believe the Lord does not wish to see His people condemned to live in poverty. I believe He would have the faithful enjoy the good things of the earth. He would have us do these things to help them. And He will bless us as we do so. For the success of this undertaking I humbly pray, while soliciting your interest, your faith, your prayers, your concerns on its behalf.” [See May 2001 Ensign, 51]. In my opinion, this is evidence the observation of the law of consecration is an individual covenant based upon an invitation to make free will offerings, rather than a Church mandated program to compel compliance as in the past.
Other experiments with consecration continued in Kirtland in the form of the “Literary Firm,” and the “United Firm,” a full account of which can be obtained in Lyndon Cook’s excellent compilation titled, Joseph Smith and the Law of Consecration, (Grandin Book Company: Provo, Utah), 1985.
It is interesting how often we read over the few verses of Section 119, and completely miss their significance. Given in 1838, rather than the introduction of a “lesser law,” the law of tithing is one further modification and refinement on the ongoing theme of consecration, and is to “be a standing law unto the Church forever.” (See D&C 119:4). Think what the condition of the Church might be today if we observed the law of tithing by consecrating all our surplus property and then donating a tenth of our annual increase thereafter! We would be equal in all things, and it would all be a voluntary and cooperative society. Instead, however, we see social classes among us that are completely repugnant to the Lord, and one of the earmarks of Israel in apostasy. (See, for example, 3 Nephi 11:15).
The next step in Joseph’s continuing education concerning consecration came in 1842, when he introduced the full endowment to his brethren in Nauvoo. He said on that occasion:
“I spent the day in the upper part of the store… instructing them in the principles and order of the Priesthood, attending to washings, anointings, endowments, and the communication of keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on to the highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood, setting forth the order pertaining to the Ancient of Days, and all those plans and principles by which any one is enabled to secure the fullness of those blessings which have been prepared for the Church of the Firstborn, and come up and abide in the presence of the Eloheim in the eternal worlds…” (TPJS, 237).
What did he communicate concerning consecration? It is the crowning covenant, the last covenant we make with God in the temple endowment. The crowning key to exaltation is consecration. To obtain all that the Father has, we must give all that we possess. It is one of the simplest statements God ever gave man, and even the least and weakest Saint is capable, of comprehending what is required. Voluntary compliance, however, is always subject to overcoming the natural man.
In 1831, Joseph must have believed that rigidity and management control by the bishop was the key to implementing consecration among the Saints. By his death in 1844, he had concluded that individual expressions of faith and consecration entered into by temple covenant were more desirable. He had moved from the letter to the spirit of the law, but in both extremes, the total commitment of the member was required — that much has never changed.
Today I go to the temples frequently, as you may have observed. The verbal covenant expressed in the temple endowment is a higher commitment to consecration than the first written deeds and covenants of 1831. To think we will someday return to a “Law of Moses”-style program of consecration seems unlikely to me, though anything is possible with living prophets among us to interpret the will of the Lord for the Church. We must always allow for whatever revisions the living Oracles may make. However, we do not seem to be far from living the full law of consecration right now. All that is necessary, then as now, is the willingness of the Latter-day Saints to truly love the Lord and our neighbor enough to consecrate without holding back anything. One can only speculate on the macroglobal conditions that might have to be thrust upon the world to bring about such a universal change of heart, but what of our micropersonal commitment to living the law of consecration?
I believe a father and mother who keep their temple covenants in today’s society, dominated as it is by divorce, infidelity, and every moral degradation foreseen by the ancient prophets, are well along the path toward truly living the law of consecration. They give all they have by wearing out their souls in service to the Lord and in sacrifice for their children.
Consider a husband and father who toils in the workplace day after day to provide the essentials of life for his wife and children, every nickel devoted to their well-being. Consider a wife and mother on duty at the crossroads of her home nurturing her children with their endless lists of physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual needs, every waking moment consecrated to preparing a new generation of faithful and worthwhile saints. All their labor is done with an eye single to God’s glory, and the anticipation of an eventual crowning of their efforts by those cherished words of acceptance, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.”
How, then, do we live the law of consecration today? Not by waiting for some “program” to appear on the horizon, but by daily becoming a covenant father, mother, or child through the power of the atonement of Jesus Christ. It is truly a work that demands all that you possess, your time, talents, everything with which the Lord has blessed you or with which he may bless you. It is a consecrated gift we give to God in return for all he promises. If I had to pick one verse of scripture to summarize the law of consecration it would be these words,
“And now, my beloved brethren, I would that ye should come unto Christ, who is the Holy One of Israel, and partake of his salvation, and the power of his redemption. Yea, come unto him, and offer your whole souls as an offering unto him, and continue in fasting and praying, and endure to the end; and as the Lord liveth ye will be saved.” (Omni 1:26).
 |
| Helen and Brent Goates |
That passage defined my parents. It was so with them, and it can likewise be true of all the mothers and fathers in Zion in these last days.
 |
| Her Time Had Come |
Now let me be bold and restate that Patsy was always at my side as we were studying Zion together. We were infused with the idealism represented in the doctrines I have outlined above. Others might characterize our conclusions as "too altruistic," or "impossible to achieve," but I have persisted in creating Zion in my own family even if I do not live long enough to see the Second Coming. I memorialized our vision for our family property in Book 2 of the Story Worth series (chapter 15), I’ve been publishing, so I will simply refer you family members to that volume.
Out of her lips came these words: “So, this [the refinance of the mortgage] really was the miracle I had been praying for. When this idea was first presented to us, I thought we could never let Rich and Shauna make that kind of sacrifice and take on that burden. They would be taking on all the financial burden of the mortgage, with only the knowledge that our family would continue to have the home as a gathering place shared by all. But as Rich expressed that they had received a witness from the spirit that this was a good option to bless all our lives indefinitely and to also free us from some of our stress, I felt assured that it was certainly the answer to my prayers for a miracle. He has acted in the spirit of stewardship rather than ownership. I want everyone to ponder that difference because it is significant.”
Inherent in the concept of stewardship is the law of consecration. Hers was always and forever an INVITATION to each of us to climb higher to the consecrated life of discipleship embodied in these words of President Russell M. Nelson: 1) That we are each a child of God, 2) A child of the covenant, and 3) A disciple of Jesus Christ.
Let us be united in the belief that this is all voluntary with no coercion whatsoever, otherwise we defeat the lofty principles involved in consecration as defined above. Rich and Shauna had that vision along with us when they put themselves forward and took an enormous risk by putting Rich on the mortgage, on the title to the home, and as the personal representative for medical decisions in an advanced care power of attorney.
In meeting with Andrew and Steve last night in preparation for our meeting with the estate planning attorney, I was completely satisfied of Andrew’s sincere and genuine concerns about Rich’s potential exposure, that I had never considered before. As I have stated before many times, I am not one to cower in the face of the “list of horribles” over which I have no control, but as a doctor he must and he does take into account every possible negative outcome he might encounter as a surgeon. He apologized to me and Steve last night that his diagnostic process has at times been seen as adversarial, but nevertheless his sincerity in pursuing the best structure available to us is likewise consecrated and well-intentioned in the highest way possible. What may have seemed adversarial to each of us throughout this latest “uprising” will now only be viewed in the rearview mirror as a necessary and very meaningful step forward into our shared vision.
I believe in all of us as chosen and magnificent spirits of our Father in Heaven. He did not send us into this chaotic mortal world to fail or to be divided in animosity, distrust, or accusatory adversity. That was, and continues to be, Satan’s aim.
Instead, I am opting for the belief that we will land in the right place after all the solutions are fully explored and digested with the help of our estate planner.
It’s my new favorite word: PRONOIA, the polar opposite of “paranoia.”
