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.