Talk:Law of consecration
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Law of consecration article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Communism
editOf course the Law of Consecration isn't communism. Communism, at least in it's ideal state, does not have prophets or any form of nobility class. What I would like to see is an argument for why that law does not resemble Feudalism, where a rich and religiously empowered nobility lets serfs farm their land and give their profits to the kings and dukes and whatnot.
United Order & Private Property
editIt is incorrect to say that within the United Order that there was private property held by individuals, although this was the case in some United Orders it was not in all of them. Others stressed private responsibility and stewardship over community or Church held property. J. Reuben Clark was not a historian and did not live in an era when such United Orders existed. He may be used as an example of modern Mormon views on Consecration, but is not a credible authority on the history of the United Order. --Tobey (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- That would be better discussed at Talk:United Order than here. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Feudalism
editMuch more like feudalism than communism, IMHO. Said: Rursus (☻) 09:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Feudalism would require a nobility or an equivalent. In the Church there is no paid clergy (thus, no nobility). Leadership is not afforded grand homes, food, etc. If you are equating nobility to the entity of the Church itself, then you possibly may be correct. However, all funds are used to provide for the welfare of the members, particularly the poor, the widows, etc. I have never read or heard of anything similar in the world history of feudalism. --StormRider 11:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Different meaning
editIt is worth noting that the term "Law of Consecration" still means essentially what it used to (discussion about actual ownership aside). The paragraph in question states that the meaning of the term "Law of Consecration" has changed and then goes on to (correctly, as it is used by the church) explain the term "Consecration".
The Law of Consecration still stands but it is not being followed (and its necessity God has rescinded) as it was deemed too difficult for members to practice in a predominantly capitalist world. In fact it is suggested that the law was only put in place to document it rather than to try to implement it wholesale.