Ephraims Forum

THE LAW OF TITHING

The Law of Consecration

by Nathaniel Baldwin - Completed about August l921

"... The most common and accepted theory on this subject among this people runs about like this: In the beginning of this work the Lord gave the law of consecration, which is greater and more perfect than the law of tithing; but the people were unprepared for it and unable to live it: therefore the Lord in his mercy suspended the higher law and gave as a substitute the lesser law of tithing. ... The law of tithing is considered as a primary school for the people, and when they learn to live it well and are prepared for the higher law, the Lord will give them the law of consecration again, and the law of tithing will be done away, suspended, or swallowed up by this higher law.

"This is the doctrine or theory which is now before us for examination, analysis, and test. ... The main questions for consideration are these: Was the law of consecration taken away, repealed, or superseded for a time by the principle of tithing, or do we as a people simply break, disobey or reject this law? Is not the law of tithing as given by revelation more comprehensive than this modern theory? Is not the law of tithing an addition or compliment of the law of consecration rather than a substitute? ...

"In the church today, there is a great inequality in earthly pos-sessions. ... This condition is not right before the Lord. See D & C 49:20; 38:39; 56:l6; Jacob 2:l7; Alma 28:l3; and there is nothing in this tithing theory that will prevent or correct it. When Alma saw a condition of this kind he sorrowed (Alma 4:l2-l5), but no one seems to be mourning about it today ... D & C 49:20 says, "It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin." ... The law of consecration is the only thing that will correct this sinful condition and if the Lord has repealed this law then he recently must have become tolerant of conditions that he has proclaimed against from the days of Adam. ... many a well-to-do

man who pays tithing has taken his neighbor's home through a mortgage. How will he stand before the judgments of the Lord? ...

So we may understand that if the Lord is willing for us to pass over the law of consecration, he must be willing for us to be covetous, proud, rich and poor, and guilty of these many evils which he has frequently declared will lead men to hell and damnation. ...

"True believers, or those who are really converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ will practice the principles of equality whether they are organized into a united order or not.

"Now, dear reader, when do you think the law of tithing which superseded the law of consecration was given to this church? You may say it was given July 8, l838, D.C. Section ll9. But think a while. Notice the heading of section ll9. This revelation was given in answer to the question, O Lord, show unto thy servants how much thou requirest of the properties of the people for a tithing. This shows positively that they knew that tithing was required before this revelation was given. Then if tithing and consecration were not required at the same time, we would have to go back of the year l838 to find a revelation which instituted tithing in place of consecration. When was it? Section 97, given August 2, l833, calls for tithing to build a house unto the Lord. Then consecration must have been done away at least five years before section ll9 was given. But was this the original call for tithing? No, we can go back two more years to 11 September, l831. D.C. 64:23 says, "It is a day for the tithing of my people," etc. At which of these dates was consecration repealed? When was it repealed? And where? And where is the record of the Lord's word to this effect? If the Lord had made such a tremendous change in his law, we should have his word on the subject and have it properly and faithfully recorded. A record is essential in such matters. Read D.C. l28:9.

"The law of consecration was specifically given February 9, l83l, D.C. Section 42, and emphatically enjoined upon this people repeatedly at times interspersed with the dates above given and after the last word on tithing was received. Then how can you explain that tithing was given as a substitute for the united order: What principle exists, or what line of reasoning can you invent that will justify this theory? Three years after section ll9 was given, George Miller was appointed by revelation to be a bishop like unto Edward Partridge to receive the consecrations of the church (D.C 124:20, 2l, l4). Does this seem consistent with the theory that the law of consecration was repealed and tithing given as a substitute: Six more years passed away and the principles of the law of consecration were mentioned again in a revelation to Brigham Young. See D. C. l36:2, 4, 37, 42, 8, 9, l0, 20 25-27. D.C. 70:9-13, l5:l8, tells us plainly that the law of consecration applies to every member of the church, and applies to the church at all times, in all places, and under all circumstances. (See also D.C. 58:l4-l8, 36: 68:l4; 72:23.

The Lord has repeatedly said that the law of consecration is a permanent and everlasting establishment and order in his church. See D. C. 78:4; 82:20, 21; l04:l.

Let us suppose that the tithing theory is correct or in other words, that consecration and tithing are distinct and independent laws, and that while one of these laws is in force, the other is null. Then we have the Lord dealing with His people as follows: On February 9, l83l (D.C. Section 42), He gave the law of consecration. He emphasized this law in sections 5l, 52, 56, 57 and 58; section 58 being given August l, l83l. On 11 September, l83l, He must have changed his mind, for He said (D.C. 64:23-25), it is a day for the tithing of my people, etc. In November of this same year He must have changed His

mind again or forgotten that He had substituted the lesser law, for He said (Section 70) that no member of the church was exempt from the law of consecration and that this law applied to the church at all times and in all places and in all circumstances. See also D.C. 72:23. He further emphasized the law of consecration in sections 78, 82, 83, 84, 85 and 88; and tells us that it is the preparation and the foundation for obtaining salvation, and that it is a permanent and everlasting establishment in the church. Then again He changed His mind and called for tithing. See D.C. 97:l0-l2, given August 2, l833. He soon forgot about it, however, and commanded the united order in terms stronger than ever, and said again that it was to be an everlasting order, and that He was not to be mocked in these things. See section l04 given April 23, l834. See also the quotations from sections l0l, l05, and ll7. Then He changed His mind again and gave specific instructions on tithing (Section ll9, given July 8, l838), and said it should be a standing law forever, and should apply to Zion (Jackson County) and to all the stakes of Zion. But He must have changed His mind again, for in section l24 given January l9, l84l, He mentioned stewardship and directed that George Miller should be a bishop to receive consecrations, etc. See also the quotations from section l36. Do you believe that the Lord has changed His laws about in this manner? Suppose He has done so. We should always obey His last word. See Revelation in l886, verse 2. Then even with these extravagant suppositions we still find ourselves under the law of consecration and violators of the same.

The Lord took away the united order as He takes away salvation from the sinner. He took it away by the free agency of the people. Read Revelation in l886, verses 8 and 9. He did it by delivering them over to the hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds, etc.

D&C 85:3 clearly shows that consecration is essential in the proper payment of tithing. The law of tithing positively requires the surplus. (See D & C ll9:5-7)

Verses l to 5 of section ll9 definitely show that the surplus is a part of tithing and is the first requirement of the law. According to the dictionary, tithing and tenth are synonymous terms, but they are not so used in the revelations. Section ll9 says it is for the laying of the foundation of Zion, etc., but this is exactly what the united order is for. (See D & C 78:l3-l5) D & C l05:l-5 says that Zion cannot be built up except by the law of consecration, but Section ll9 shows that Zion can be built up and become most holy by the law of tithing. Therefore, the law of tithing must be the equivalent of the law of consecration.

Brigham Young urged the people to go into the united order and said if they did not accept and live this law, they would not be acceptable to the Lord, and that is exactly what the Doctrine and Covenants says. Yet on account of his love of wealth, which Joseph said was the one danger that would beset him, he would not embrace the principle himself. Through his wonderful ability as a financier, even in those pioneer days, he became a millionaire. Others followed his example rather than his precept, and the united order was a failure.

President John Taylor in l879. Journal of Discourses 2l:34. The lord has told us that those who would not comply with the requirements connected with this order should have their names erased from the book of law of God. These words are to us, Latter-Day Saints; they are true and are binding upon us. The principle itself will not be rooted out, for God will see that it is accomplished.

A real and true conversion to the gospel is accompanied by mutual love which will naturally break down inequality among the true believers. We scramble and vie with each other in taking possession of things which belong to the Lord and then we keep them from his other children. No earthly father is pleased with such a condition among his children; neither is our heavenly Father.

You know that one of the best ways to get the good will of a mother is to be kind to her children. The Scripture shows that the Lord loves His children more than a woman loves her babe. Then if you want to "get on the good side" of the Lord, just be good to His children.

A big heart is worth more than all the world. That is what gave the Savior His exalted position.

In our present condition of selfishness and love of worldly things, we are not prepared to build up Zion nor to inherit the celestial kingdom. What can we do individually to prepare ourselves? We cannot live the united order now, for that requires the community and needs to be directed by the Lord's prophet who should also set the example.

If we could but realize that when we say a kind word or do a good deed to any of our fellow creatures, we do it to our God, who has all power to reward us or condemn us, would we not be more anxious to grasp those golden opportunities that come before us day by day?

P.S. Since completing the above article, the writer's attention has been called to the fact that in it, due consideration for the payment of the tenth is not given.

There is a growing - I fear it is growing - sentiment that communism and the United Order are virtually the same thing, communism being merely the forerunner, so to speak, of a re-establishment of the United Order. I am informed that ex-bishops, and indeed, bishops, who belong to communistic organizations, are preaching this doctrine. I recommend that you, my brethren read a few of the Sections of the Doc-trine and Covenants which cover this matter, beginning with Sections 42 and 51. (See also Sections 70, 78, 82, 83, 85, 90, 92, 96 and l04.)

Early Deviations

I may say to begin with, that in practice the brethren in Missouri got away, in their attempts to set up the United Order, from the principles set out in the revelations. This is also true of the organizations set up here in Utah after the Saints came to the Valleys.

The basic principle of all the revelations on the United Order is that everything we have belongs to the Lord; therefore, the Lord may call upon us for any and all of the property which we have, because it belongs to Him. This, I repeat, is the basic principle. (D & C l04:l4-l7, 54-57)

One of the places in which some of the brethren are going astray is this: There is continuous reference in the revelations to equality among the brethren. D & C 5l:3 affirms that every man is to be "equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs." (See also D & C 82:l7; 78:5-6) Obviously, this is not a case of "dead level" equality. It is "equality" that will vary as much as the man's circumstances, his family, his wants and needs may vary.

Consecration

In the next place, under the United Order every man was called to consecrate to the Church all of the property which he had; the real estate was to be conveyed to the Church, as I understand the revelations, by what we would call a deed in fee simple. Thus the man's

property became absolutely the property of the Church. (D & C 42:30; 72:l5) Then the bishop deeded back to the donor by the same kind of

deed, that is, in fee simple, and also transferred to him by an equivalent instrument, so far as personal property was concerned, that

amount of real and personal property, which the two being taken together, would be required by the individual for the support of himself

and his family "according to his family, according to his circum-stances and his wants and needs." This the man held as his own property. (D & C 42:32; 5l:4-6; 83:3)

In other words, basic to the United Order was the private ownership of property, every man had his own property from which he might secure that which was necessary for the support of himself and his family. There is nothing in the revelations that would indicate that this property was not freely alienable at the will of the owner. It was not contemplated that the Church should own everything or that we should become in the Church, with reference to our property and otherwise, the same kind of automaton, manikin, that communism makes out of the individual, with the State standing at the head in place of the Church.

Surplus

I repeat that whatever a steward realized from the portion allotted to him over and above that which was necessary in order to keep his family under the standard provided as already stated, was turned over by the steward to the bishop, and this amount of surplus, plus the residues to which I have already referred, went into a bishop's storehouse.

As time went on and the system developed, the Lord created two other institutions besides the storehouse; one was known as the Sacred Treasury. The Lord also provided for the creation of "Another Treasury," and into that other treasury went the general revenues which came to the Church, such as gifts of money and those revenues derived from the improvement of stewardships.

Private Ownership Fundamental

The fundamental principle of this system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title. The United Order is an individualistic system, not a communal system.

The Welfare Plan And The United Order

The United Order was primarily designed to build up a system under which there should be no abjectly poor, and this is the purpose, also, of the Welfare Plan.

As I have already indicated, the surplus properties which came to the Church under the Law of Consecration, under the United Order, became the "common property" of the Church. (D & C 82:l8)

Thus you will see, brethren, that in many of its great essentials, we have, as the Welfare Plan has now developed, the broad essentials of the United Order. Furthermore, having in mind the assistance which is being given from time to time and in various wards to help set people up in business or in farming, we have a plan which is not essentially unlike that which was in the United Order when the poor were given portions from the common fund.

The Constitution

I suppose you brethren will all know, but I will recall it to your attention, that the Constitution of the United States is the basic law for all of the Americas or Zion, as it has been defined by the Lord.

You brethren from Canada know that your great British North America Act, in its fundamental principles, is based upon our Constitution, and you know that in the courts of Canada, the reports of our Supreme Court, and our Federal courts generally, are just as

PRIVATE OWNERSHIP UNDER THE UNITED ORDER