I agree that the main reason to answer this question is because we promise to keep the law, so it’s vital to find out what all we promise to do.

I started to look up the quote from the Kimball biography last night and then got distracted by a child and subsequently forgot. I like Kimball’s answer as well as his humility.

“One time Ed [Kimball] asked whether the covenant of consecration made in the temple meant that one should contribute all surplus to the Church or to charitable causes, rather than build up savings for security or as an inheritance. Spencer did not answer for others, but said, ‘I haven’t the strength to be able to do that.’

‘Perhaps all theat means is that you’re not perfect.’

‘Oh, I thought I was,’ said Spencer dryly.

‘If one were perfect,’ Ed pursued, ‘would he give all his surplus, or would he build up his capital, holding it in readiness for any use, when called on?’

Spencer agreed that for himself consecration meant at least the latter, but he did not undertake to answer the basic question for anyone else.” (p. 57)

And Rick is correct. What we refer to as the United Order (under JS) was a company legally known as the United Firm, which was created in 1832, over a year after D&C 42 (Feb. 9, 1831) was given outlining consecration and stewardship. The earliest manuscripts of D&C 42 discuss the bishop handling consecrations and stewardships, although I suspect that Partridge had business partners. The United Firm was formed to bring a variety of the church’s businesses (including stores in Kirtland and in Missouri) under one organization, but by early 1834 the Firm had fallen into debt, leading JS to disband it (see D&C 104). It was also in 1834 that the High Council was first formed, and one of its duties to was aid the bishop in handling consecrations and stewardships. As rick mentions, when the revelations were revised and published in 1835, every mention of the United Firm was changed to read united order, or simply order. BY later used the name United Order for one of his communal enterprises, which has contributed to further confusion. While rick is right to say that the united order did not exist during JS’s lifetime, the functions that we associate with it (consecration, stewardships, and church enterprise) did.

In a rare mishap, I typed a long response which got lost before I posted it and I can’t reproduce it right now.

Your summary of my stance on the law of consecration and the united order is fair. I think that for as long as the ceremony is clear about me getting my definition from the D&C there is very little wiggle room, since the D&C is clear about consecration being a system with the deeding of property, the surpluses, etc. Of course the church could come up with a different implementation and ask me to live the law of consecration as defined in their new system.

All the other covenants don’t seem to require group involvement.

I think this is a significant point. I view exaltation as being a collaborative enterprise. At the very least it is a joint venture between spouses, but we have plenty of hints that it is ultimately a celestial society we are trying to achieve.

I think I just like the idea of making a covenant I can currently keep better than making a covenant I can’t keep until the second coming.

Yea, you are not alone (see problem statement in post). As I said in the post, I think it is reasonable (and even required) that we try to apply as many of the principles of consecration as we can in our current situation. I am personally not bothered by making a covenant which is not fully implementable at this time. I just finished Spencer Kimball’s second biography “Lengthen Your Stride” which mentioned someone asking him about how to live the law of consecration. He took a stance that reminded me of my own (I’ll have to dig up his comment when I get home).

Anyway, that’s all off topic. Back to consecration. Is it fair to say that you are not saying that the Law of Consecration = the United Order, but that the Law of Consecration = unity as a community, which may or may not be setup exactly as the United Order was, and which we are not currently living, and probably won’t until the second coming? If so, maybe we could blend our ideas, and say that the LofC requires us to become unified with God so that we will be ready to live as a unified community at the second coming. In that case, could we be living the LofC individually, but not as a group? Or is it even possible to live the LofC individually? All the other covenants don’t seem to require group involvement.

I think I just like the idea of making a covenant I can currently keep better than making a covenant I can’t keep until the second coming.

You make a fair point. We do have that verse in which Jesus tells us he has never given a law which is temporal (D&C 29:34). However, we really need to evaluate this case in the same way we evaluate all other problems of this sort. Is it fair to say that the law of chastity doesn’t really have anything to do with who you have sex with because it is really about the atonement? Of course you are right that the law of consecration is given for spiritual reasons, not because God wants to do an economic experiment. I tried to touch on a few of these reasons in the post when I talked about what God is trying to teach us when he requires us to become a Zion society.

I find it interesting that the definition of the law of consecration is based on economics. I thought all the covenents in the temple had the atonement as the underlying theme. I wouldn’t think the law of consecration is about the United Order or tithing or fast offerings any more than the princple of sacrifice is about killing animals. These things are just there to point us towards Christ and His sacrifice.

The law of consecration always reminds me of the type of unity discussed in 3 Nephi 11, especially verses 27 through 36. At any rate, I believe the law of consecration can be lived independent of the United Order, and ultimately has very little to do with tithing and fast offerings, either.