Consecration? — temple meaning?

[Anonymous]

I don’t like the idea of consecration, because in the wording where it is a covenant, it feels like I am giving my life away.

I don’t know how to be discrete and yet respectful in discussing this, so if need be, yank the thread. But I am talking about something in the temple.

With regards to consecration, we are talking about time, talents, things blessed with past, present and future, and it requires full commitment. The consecration is not, however, to JC, but to the church. This disturbs me. It also bothers me that there appear to be no borders on the wording,…so it spills into all kinds of extremes I don’t think it was meant to.

For example, I was blessed with agency….right? Well, that now belongs to the church, and they can control. Obviously this is an extreme,..but I share it to make a point. I just find this section of the experience rather disturbing because it is a blank check.

Comments?

[Anonymous]

It is my understanding that the principle of economic consecration was always fraught with problems. Even in the small communities of Utah where it was relatively successful it was eventually abandoned. As we become more and more mainstream and farther and farther from our radical utopian ideal – I find it really hard to believe that this will ever be instituted in the church again.

Consecration as presented in the temple is extreme. Luckily in actual practice it is more of an empty promise. People’s general lives outside the temple are not surrendered to or controlled by the church to anywhere near the extent that the consecration statement taken in isolation might lead us to believe. We are told that even though we promise to live the law of consecration that it is not required at this time.

Finally, I look at history for context. The endowment ceremony was written down by BY in the Utah territory at a time when the church was in a state of perpetual cold war with the U.S. government. In this context the consecration covenant doubles as a oath of loyalty to the church. I look at it as a holdover from that very different time.

[Anonymous]

I have not been to the temple in well over 10 years, although I do hold a recommend. So I don’t remember the exact wording of the covenant you are referring to Rob, and I haven’t really thought about it – I was TBM in those days. Perhaps someone else can clarify, but are we covenanting to give all these things to building the church or building the kingdom? Realizing these are one-in-the-same to TBM types, are the terms used interchangeably in ceremony? Here’s why I ask – to me the terms are not interchangeable. I view the kingdom as being different from the church, just as I see the difference between the church and the gospel. They are related but not the same thing.

I will be going to the temple sometime in the next few months and I’ll try to pay closer attention to that part. Another point about not going in a long tome, though, is that I may have missed some changes – like the changes in the initiatory that I learned about reading the link in Ray’s post in Support. (http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6844” class=”bbcode_url”>http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6844)

I also take into account Pres. Uchtdorf’s statement from last GC. None of us are doing all we can do.

[Anonymous]

I believe we are asked if we are willing to consecrate all things.

We are not required to literally do it.

So, no agency is removed. No property is exchanged.

It is a sacrifice of the heart, symbolizing devotion to God.

Should they ever (and they won’t) require it to become literal…you still have a choice at that point to do it or not. But that is not what we are asked to do.

Do not make it harder on yourself than it needs to be. Do not make it more literal than it is.

Similarly, we read the story in the bible of Abraham going to sacrifice Isaac. His willingness to sacrifice is the lesson to learn. We do not literally require father’s to sacrifice their boys because Jesus was sacrificed. But, we reflect on the sacrifice through symbolic teachings. Such is the law of consecration in the temple.

You are not literally giving up anything other than your heart.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

I believe we are asked if we are willing to consecrate all things.

I don’t remember the words…but I don’t think it uses the word “willing”. Someone else will have to comment. I recognize it as a pledge as it were of allegiance, but it is still concerning.

When growing up, I often marveled that there appeared to be 3 sets of rules:

1) The rules that are written or spoken

2) The rules that are obeyed

3) The rules that are enforced.

I grew up with swirling rules–I had to often discern which set was in play to deal with it in the moments. Now, in the church, we have: “Oh, you are giving your life and everything to the church….but not really, because we don’t enforce it.”

Since this “double speak” exists and is prominent in the church (ie,..the temple appears to have some of this), what other things are “double speak?” I’m just saying. :crazy:

---

I am grateful for the sacramental prayers, especially on the bread, because it uses the word “willing”…which makes is significantly more clear.

[Anonymous]

Rob, I just don’t see any doublespeak.

The church clearly teaches

Quote:

As Saints of God, we must be prepared and willing to live the law of consecration in its fulness. But we do not need to wait for a future day to consecrate our lives to the Lord. As we do all we can to live the law of consecration today, we will be better prepared to live the fulness of the law when the Lord asks us to do so.[Emphasis added]

DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS AND CHURCH HISTORY: GOSPEL DOCTRINE TEACHER’S MANUAL LESSON 14: THE LAW OF CONSECRATION

We are not asked to live the law now. We are asked and covenant to be willing to live it when it is asked of us…which is not now. Right now, it is about preparing our hearts to be willing, which is way different than having no agency or no possessions.

Further…

Quote:

“The submission of one’s will is really the only uniquely personal thing we have to place on God’s altar,” Elder Maxwell said. “The many other things we ‘give’ … are actually the things He has already given or loaned to us. However, when you and I finally submit ourselves, by letting our individual wills be swallowed up in God’s will, then we are really giving something to Him! It is the only possession which is truly ours to give!” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1995, 30; or Ensign, Nov. 1995, 24).

It’s really not about possessions or money.

But for now…the church has defined it as covenanting to live the Law of Tithing and to be willing to serve in callings. That is all one must do to declare they are keeping the temple covenant.

The rest is up to you and God on the consecration of your heart.

[Anonymous]

Heber, I had a big response, but its tedious.

The word “doublespeak” is a little harsh. But, having meanings that are somehow “understood” when they are not taught clearly?…that is what I am referring to.

Let me say this much: my recollection of the endowment, specifically that section–the law of consecration–wasn’t in some future tense, it was hear and now. I also don’t recall anyone in the temple, or during the ceremony telling me that: “Hey,..but we really don’t live it now…we just live other things, like tithing now. It is just preparatory.”

This was not taught to me in the temple. And, it wasn’t taught to me in Sunday School either, because you DID NOT TALK ABOUT THE TEMPLE! So, I was just left to wonder. I saw that no one was living it as taught, so my understanding at that point in my life was we say a lot of things in the church that don’t really man what they say.

All of your points are well taken, but I think the church could and should do a better job of making things clear, instead of leaving it up to people with few resources (which was me at the time) to just walk around and feel like the church was full of words with no meaning.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

I believe we are asked if we are willing to consecrate all things.

We are not required to literally do it.

So, no agency is removed. No property is exchanged.

It is a sacrifice of the heart, symbolizing devotion to God.

Should they ever (and they won’t) require it to become literal…you still have a choice at that point to do it or not. But that is not what we are asked to do.

Do not make it harder on yourself than it needs to be. Do not make it more literal than it is.

Similarly, we read the story in the bible of Abraham going to sacrifice Isaac. His willingness to sacrifice is the lesson to learn. We do not literally require father’s to sacrifice their boys because Jesus was sacrificed. But, we reflect on the sacrifice through symbolic teachings. Such is the law of consecration in the temple.

You are not literally giving up anything other than your heart.

I agree with much of what you say, but my one real hangup right now is that I am willing to consecrate everything to God, but not a church. The last time I attended the temple I couldn’t say “yes” to that.

[Anonymous]

The interesting thing is that the covenant has a caveat that allows plenty of personal interpretation. I know it isn’t meant to do that, but it does.

The actual wording is to consecrate everything to the Church, but it then adds “for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion”.

Given the wording, if that which is being given is not being used for that/those purposes, it need not be given. It is like paying taxes to build roads but having the money be used for defense spending. If the wording was similar, there would be a solid legal argument to not have to pay those taxes.

Finally, I see that qualifier as two distinct things: 1) building the kingdom of God on Earth; 2) establishing Zion. If they are seen as one thing, establishing Zion is a necessary part of building the kingdom of God. Without Zion, there is no kingdom of God. Therefore, without that happening, there is no covenant involved – since covenant is defined as a two-way promise.

Finally, my oldest daughter said the following after going through the endowment for the first time:

Quote:

We focus so much on building the kingdom of God that we forget to establish Zion.

I think that is profound.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I will be going to the temple sometime in the next few months and I’ll try to pay closer attention to that part. Another point about not going in a long tome, though, is that I may have missed some changes – like the changes in the initiatory that I learned about reading the link in Ray’s post in Support. (http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6844” class=”bbcode_url”>http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6844)

I’ve been to the temple many times in the last 10 years but still haven’t experienced the changes to the initiatory. I’ve done that ordinance exactly once. I feel like it’s the “forgotten” ordinance of the temple when it comes to vicarious work.

My thoughts on the subject echo Roy’s. This is another one of those things about the temple where the wording doesn’t match the real world implementation. I also see the wiggle room that the language affords us that Ray points out. If I don’t feel like an activity that someone has asked me to participate in builds up of the kingdom of God on the earth or establishes Zion then I’m not obligated to do it.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

My thoughts on the subject echo Roy’s. This is another one of those things about the temple where the wording doesn’t match the real world implementation. I also see the wiggle room that the language affords us that Ray points out. If I don’t feel like an activity that someone has asked me to participate in builds up of the kingdom of God on the earth or establishes Zion then I’m not obligated to do it.

I really do see this as well, and then there is the whole idea of what the word “consecration” actually means. I have always understood it to mean “an attitude of sublime and total devotion to a cause” (that is my own definition). In my own mind, however, I’ve had to draw boundaries. There are things I will not give away–I feel fiercely defensive over these things:

[Anonymous]

I define consecrate as “to make sacred” sometimes “to set apart.” I agree with your definition as well though.

Do I make myself sacred, my time sacred, my talents sacred, etc. Sure, it’s probably nowhere near the intended definition but that’s the beauty of communication, the same thing means different things to different people and that’s where personal revelation can come into play.

Agency is another word that muddies the water. If someone asks me to do something and I feel compelled to do it did I surrender my agency or did I exercise my agency and agree with their request?

[Author]

Posts