Why to Testify of Christ

Much of the second half of Section 84 is instructions regarding missionary work, listing all kinds of pertinent duties and blessings. Even more importantly, it explains why we do it in the first place: If we don't, we're damned.

Verse 61 tells us that the Lord forgives us with this commandment—that you remain steadfast in your minds in solemnity and the spirit of prayer, in bearing testimony to all the world of those things which are communicated unto you. This reminds me of a verse I learned of as a missionary: Nevertheless, ye are blessed, for the testimony which ye have borne is recorded in heaven for the angels to look upon; and they rejoice over you, and your sins are forgiven you (D&C 62:3).

These are very happy verses and don't contain explicit warnings of damnation at disobedience. However, they also reminded me of King Benjamin's final address, in which he warned his people that he that forgiveth not his neighbor's trespasses when he says he repents, the same hath brought himself under condemnation Mosiah 26:31). It seems to me that directly forgiving others would be considered on the same principles as giving them the capacity to seek God's forgiveness. If you don't give your neighbors a chance to repent, why would the Lord give you one?

Of course, that all makes the commandment seem harsher and more selfish than it really is. Bearing testimony of Jesus Christ is not something we simply get out of the way to avoid hellfire; it's indicative of our obedience to the greatest commandment Christ ever gave: ...That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another John 13:34). If we don't share the Gospel with others, we obviously don't love them enough, and therefore aren't truly Christian. On the other hand, if we do love them, we will do everything in our power to ensure that they get to feel, as soon as possible, all of the love of God that we have.

Condemnation

And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation. And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all. And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them...

Doctrine & Covenants 84:54-57

This is not metaphorical story of some distant people. Those children of Zion include us. President Benson mentioned this verse in his famous talk, Flooding the Earth with the Book of Mormon, saying that we are even yet under God's condemnation for having treated it lightly. I know I've felt pretty well condemned for it. Studying consistently has always been very hard for me, so I'm lately trying to read it more regularly and in larger amounts than I ever have, and I'm doing (relatively) well so far.

Though studying the Book of Mormon is a great start, though, it isn't enough to solve the problem. President Benson said that in order to escape condemnation, we must flood the earth with the Book of Mormon. My Google search for President Benson's talk happened to find for me an excellent example of the ideal attitude: there is a man in Indianapolis blogging about his frequent attempts to give out copies of the Book of Mormon. Frequent, in this case, means at least once every few days, and he seems to be remarkably successful.

I suppose it's not really that remarkable, though, when you consider whose book he is giving out. God isn't the sort to get tired of our pathetic efforts and just shake his head as we fail. He will help me to stop taking the Book of Mormon lightly, for both my own sake and the sake of all mankind. (Keeping this blog—especially publicly—is actually a great step toward that end. I never would have made my faith this visible even very recently.)

More on the United Order

In explaining the United Order, the Lord repeatedly mentions the apostates who apostatize after receiving their inheritances(D&C 85:2), or those who have not kept the commandment, but have broken the covenant through covetousness, and with feigned words (D&C 104:4). He makes their spiritual fate clear: It is contrary to the will of God that [they]... should have their names enrolled with the people of God. I began to wonder, though, what was to happen to the property of Church members who defied the Order and were excommunicated.

It turns out that it is really quite simple. In D&C 134:10, the Prophet declared that we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try me on the right of property or life, [or] to take from them this world's goods... They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship. The member's property was legally deeded to them, so the Church couldn't take it away. Thus, the United Order's basis of private property ownership therefore would have protected the members from robbery by the Church, and the Church from false accusations of such by disgruntled apostates.

On an unrelated topic, I find it interesting that in 104:80, when the Lord is commanding the Church to pay off its debts, he says, And inasmuch as you are diligent and humble, and exercise the prayer of faith, behold, I will soften the hearts of those to whom you are in debt, until I shall send means unto you for your deliverance. He didn't promise that he would get the Church's debts canceled, as one might expect. There is no free lunch, even - especially - for the chosen people of God. He loves and helps and forgives, but he doesn't coddle.

Why would the United Order work?

I got sucked onto a rather large tangent while reading Section 78 of the Doctrine and Covenenants today. While I was studying background information on this revelation, my attention got caught on the management of the United Order, the system given in connection with the early revelation of the law of consecration.

The united order was not socialism, as Church leaders such as Marion G. Romney and J. Reuben Clark enthusiastically pointed out. The model seems to actually have been as follows: Participation in the United Order was entirely voluntary. Upon entering the order, the head of a household would give all his means to the church. Then, instead of the church dictating his "needs", he would decide himself what portion his family needed back, "every man according to his wants and his needs, inasmuch as his wants are just" (D&C 82:17). This decision would need to be coordinated with the bishop, who managed locally the affairs of the Order, neither man having the ultimate say. The amount of property being agreed upon, the family would receive a full and legal deed to the property (or "stewardship") delivered to them. The property was theirs to do with as they pleased; they were expected to do their best to multiply it and contribute to the church's storehouses for the furthering of the order and the care of the destitute, but the Church did not at all own their goods or run their business. This is quite contrary to the air of oppressive micromanagement that can easily come with a pure socialist government.

The United Order ultimately broke down due to the selfishness of its participants, but it's still interesting to think about why it lasted as long as it it, and what will eventually make it last forever. It's certainly not the money - at least, not beyond simply knowing that one is amply provided for as long as he works hard. Perhaps, though, that's enough.

I watched a video yesterday - before I even knew what this reading assignment was - of a lecture by motivational speaker and former Al Gore speechwriter Dan Pink. In his lecture and a related essay, Pink briefly discusses how, according to a study at MIT, monetary reward is actually detrimental to the motivation of many tasks. Once you pay your workers enough that money is no worry, Pink claims, your best bet is to stand back and let them be motivated by their passion for their art and desire to contribute to society.

I immediately agreed that this generally described my own motivations. I run on a significant dose of altruism (possibly too much, as college students generally seem wont to have). I'm studying computer science, not because it's a strong market, but because I love developing software and I think I can do something good with it; I'm currently helping design the software platform for a collaborative, non-partisan political effort, and I have another couple of voter-education software projects on the back burner. Furthermore, I eventually want to change my major to choral music education, less for the creative challenge of teaching than because I want to bring kids the joy that I get from singing. I really just want to enjoy a full life, with enough money that I can take good care of my family and spend plenty of time on my bike.

At a regional Church conference today, I heard Elder Jeffrey R. Holland speak on "building up the waste places of Zion." There are still plenty of waste places, and I want to build them. Some are literally geographic locations, but I suspect that most of the more pressing needs are abused populations, inadequate sociopolitical instituions, and other related problems. I want to build these waste places. If I can be certain that I can take care of myself and my family and maintain my bicycles while I do it, I will gladly contribute everything I can, of my own will and out of various of my my own passions, to build them.

I think this is part of what would have made the United Orders work - as far as they did, anyway. I believe that it is, in a way, what will make them work again. People will only be willing to contribute everything they have - first their money, but ultimately their passion for their work itself - if they get to focus entirely on deeper, more personal reasons for their contribution. The deepest, most compelling reason to do anything, of course, is charity. When we truly love the Lord and his children, we will gladly give anything and everything for their sakes, which in turn makes us love them even more powerfully.

I believe Pink's lecture refers to this study, which I haven't yet read, though it's certainly intriguing. A related study that I also intend to read is Karim Lakhani's "Why Hackers Do What They Do" from the book Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software.