Temple question: law of consecration "in connection with"

I don’t have an answer. I’m looking forward to someone else’s view on it.

1) There’s always the possibility that it was oversight.

2) The law of obedience is also missing.

3) I don’t know why any of them have to be made “in connection with” any of the others. A promise is a promise.

4) Time to toss things against the wall to see what sticks:

The law of chastity is a little different from the others in that it has a conditional. Don’t have sex, except…

You make sacrifices to build the kingdom of god. You probably have to refrain from evil speaking of the lord’s anointed to build the kingdom. One could argue that having children builds the kingdom but the law of chastity says nothing of having children, it only focuses on sexual relations.

The law of consecration focuses on the church. Obedience and chastity focus on the individual. The law of sacrifice is about sacrificing for the kingdom. The law of the gospel includes that blurb about church leaders. Just thoughts.

I also wonder why there appears to be a lot of overlap. If we promise to be obedient elements of the law of the gospel feel redundant. If we promise to sacrifice elements of the law of consecration feel redundant.

Ann,…I have an opinion on this one, and it is my own…

The law of Obedience & Sacrifice is shortened down to “Sacrifice” if I am not mistaken (it has been years since I went through). So, if that is the case, then that alone is interesting.

But, if you recall, the law of the Gospel is that we do all things in a certain name, and that there is a way for us to improve. But, with the shifting of the words when we take the final law of Consecration, I wonder if the goal is allegiance to Jesus or allegiance to “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”. I am serious about this wondering. You see, if we consecrate everything with which we have been blessed, or will be blessed, then this to me means not only tangible things, but also intangible. And the actual word of “time” is used there as something we consecrate to the church.

Here is where I am going with this:

We are taught over and over that we are suppose to put God first in our lives, and then our family, and last the church. But, when it comes down to what is actually taught in the temple, I feel like they have reordered the priorities. They are as follows:

1. Church

2. God

3. Family

If you look at the Law of Consecration….the words say you consecrate EVERYTHING to the church, including your time, talents and everything you have been blessed with. What about your spouse? Were you blessed with that person? Well,…you consecrated that person to the church. What about your children?…you were blessed with them? You consecrated them to the church. And, with that, you have also taken the Law of Sacrifice, which is you are willing to sacrifice anything for the church, not just your sins.

In the LDS faith, you keep the LOC by what you don’t do outside of marriage. If you don’t spend any time with your spouse, even if they are not happy about that?….immaterial. As long as you don’t act outside of marriage you are on solid ground: you have kept the LOC. And, what is unfortunate, is I know many situations where the church–as in doing church work–is given as justification for defrauding one’s spouse. But, that doesn’t matter. Why?….because the church comes FIRST.

I think they leave the LOC out because the message of the LOC inside of consecration is not required. You are, after all, being taught where the Marriage exists on the priority list when it really comes down to it…it comes AFTER the church.

Having quickly refreshed my memory on the law of the gospel I would agree with Nibbler.

You make sacrifices to build the kingdom of god. You probably have to refrain from evil speaking of the lord’s anointed to build the kingdom.

If I had to draw connections between the laws I would do so as follows.

Law of sacrifice says we must be willing to sacrifice all for the kingdom of God. Law of Gospel says we should behave ourselves in certain ways and not speak evil of the Lord’s anointed.

But still at this point it is vague and open to interpretation exactly how this is to be done. What is the kingdom of God? Who are the Lord’s anointed? How are we to direct our sacrifice?

The law of consecration seems to answer these questions. It is the church leaders that are the Lord’s anointed. One should sacrifice according to their dictates. The kingdom of God is either the same as the church or a kingdom that the church creates by directing your sacrifices.

I also note that the law speaks of the establishment of Zion. Perhaps this also has reference to the united order where all funds are pooled and everyone receives according to their wants and needs. That certainly seems to be what the D & C refers to as consecration. Strange that we continue to promise this even though consecration didn’t go very well and has been gone for so long. In some ways it is a holdover from a different time.