The lesson this week begins with a note that “The Lord commanded His disciples to write the things they experienced (see 3 Nephi 27:23–24).” Why do the leaders of the church reccommend that we journal or keep records of our own lives? Why did the Lord command in these chapters that the people should write the things they have experienced?
I’ve thought about this. One of the first reasons I can think of is so that you remember your experiences. I’m amazed at the things that I can forget. We can forget that we’ve had touching, inspirational, or spiritual experiences at all if we don’t write them down. Time can dim our memories and we can forget how powerful or striking they may have been at the time. However, if you write things down for yourself, in your own words, it’s hard to argue with a past self.
As we write down the things we’ve experienced, inspirations, and impressions, the experiences and interpretations of our past self can help us in a few ways. If you’re in a worse place, you can be inspired by how valiant, faithful, or steadfast you were in the past, and strive to be like him or her again. After all, it was you. You can’t argue much that you can’t be as good as another version of yourself. You can draw inspiration or strength from a past version of yourself just like you could from any other example. If you’re better off than your past self, you can be proud of your progress and how far you’ve come.
Writing things down helps in other ways too. It clarifies what’s in your mind. There are studies about the benefits of writing as a way to deal with difficulty and as a means to relieve stress. Spiritually, writing down inspiration and impressions helps you to see patterns emerge. Maybe you’ve been worried about something or praying for an answer to a problem. As we write things down we can see the repetition of themes or ideas, which can help us realize we may be being guided more than we thought.
There was quite a bit of contaversy regarding what the people should call the church. Christ's response was simple. “8 And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.” We are to call Christ's teachings his own, and his church his own, and his people his own. I think this is what it means to take upon us the name of Christ. When we label ourselves as Christians or followers of Christ, we are labeling ourselves with his name, and taking his name as our own descriptor, which should mean that we believe, follow, or adhere to his teachings.
Later we’re told in several places not to “spurn the doings of the Lord.” To spurn means to reject with disdain or contempt, so we’re advised not to reject with disdain and contempt the “the activities in which [the Lord] engages” or in other words not to be disdainful about the performance, implementation, activities, actions, undertaking, endeavor, work, ventures, etc of the Lord (and if you believe this is his church) then the activities and efforts of his followers and church.
We read that Christ formed a Church. A church often describes a building, but can also refer to a "particular denomination, belonging to the same city, country, nation . . . or constituting one congregation." A congregation is a group of people assembled to worship. The reading tells us that all the people were converted. It says that there were no contentions or disputations, and all the people dealt justly with each other. There were miracles, respect, prosperity, and peace. They rebuilt great cities and lived in a moral, just, and good society.
Now we’re getting into some interesting things that I want to really focus on. “3 And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.” I want to spend a lot of my time now discussing this. What does it mean to have all things common among them? How did they eradicate poverty? Is this socialism/communism? If not, why not? We’re told that all things were common among them. This sure seems like they shared everything. That sounds like Communism. It also sounds like the Law of Consecration, which is something that really deserves it’s own study. We’ll only talk briefly about those things here.
The Law of Consecration and Communism/Socialism appear the same on the surface. How can two things that appear so similar be so different? They have to be different because President Benson was an extremely vocal advocate against communism, warning it was one of the greatest evils. He didn’t mince words at all. It’s interesting to read some of his past talks through the lens of our current culture. I’m not an expert, but from my understanding Communism and Socialism are just degrees on the same spectrum. My understanding is that it is a forced ideology. The state compels you to give up some of what you have, and redistributes it with the intent of achieving equity. A hallmark of communism is that the workers own the means of production, which basically negates private property (depending on how far along on the scale the state in question is).
Could the primary difference between these ideologies be whether the sharing is forced or voluntary? We believe in private ownership as evidenced by the commandment that we should not steal. How can we steal something from someone else unless there is ownership? We’re also told that we shouldn’t covet what our neighbor has. So at least now, perhaps pre-law of consecration we believe in private ownership.
We also talk about how all of the blessings and things we have are really God’s. So while we own things now, really, we recognize that it is God’s. This is true of our bodies, our possessions, our money. The parable of the talents, though often equated with literal talents, is actually a parable about money that illustrates stewardship. It shows how it is our responsibility to take what we have been given (money, talents, opportunities, privilege) and to magnify it and to make it greater. Stewardship is the obligation to care for and make better the things we're responsible for.
Within the law of Consecration it also appears that there is not necessarily equity (equal outcomes), but rather a base level of equality. We read in Doctrine and Covenants that they were to “appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” So it appears that while everyone’s basic needs may have been met, people’s varying wants and needs were still taken into consideration. Also, I’ve written in the past what it mean to consecrate yourself to something, so we won’t go into that in as much depth here. It was basically to dedicate something to a specific purpose, goal, or service.
If we were to consecrate our money or lives to God, it could mean that we are dedicating our efforts and money to bettering earth, bettering the lives of others, or bettering the world. Personally, I think this is what it means to live the law of consecration and to build the kingdom of God upon the earth. Since people have so many different ideas, opinions, and interests, they would approach the problem of bettering the world in very different ways. They would apply their money to different problems and improve things different ways, but this could still count as living the law of consecration even though everyone's approach would be different. I think this diverse approach would lead to better outcomes than a centralized state trying to micromanage everything because the people would autonomously decide how to dedicate their capital in areas in which they're interested or have expertise. Another possibility is that we may eventually have common ownership of things, and we just aren’t living that way now because it’s a higher law. I don’t think this is the case though, because as we demonstrate success and responsibility in our lives we typically are able to take on more. To me it appears like there is no responsibility or stewardship without ownership.
A second possibility is that we don’t understand the context of the word common here in this context. It can mean that something isn’t unusual, that it is very standard. If “all things were common among them,” it could mean that there weren’t unusual variations. Perhaps there were no rich or poor, as the verse later elaborates. All things were pretty standard. Everyone had a minimum level of comfortable living. If salt and pepper are common household seasonings, then having things common among them could mean that accessibility to housing, food, and educational opportunities were the norm, they were common and standard among all the people. Other synonyms of the word common are ordinary, customary, regular, routine, everyday, standard, typical, predictable, normal, average. It does appear that having all things common among them could merely be referring to equality and descriptors, rather than possessions. They had all things common, and they were not rich or poor, slave or free, but all equal before God and the law. This reminds me of the Constitution, which says "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. . ."
Other meanings of the word are shared by, coming from, or done by more than one. All things being common could mean things were shared, or it could mean that all things came from everyone, or all things were done by everyone. Maybe in this law of consecration world if you wanted to learn something new, you just had to ask and a person would apprentice you and be happy to teach you without charging money. Maybe knowledge would be free.
Some other ways to think about it are to examine the use of the word in some ordinary phrases:
Common good-mutual benefit of all
Common knowledge-known by most people
Common ground-interests or opinions shared by 2 or more
Common garden-ordinary, not unusual or exceptional
Common property-jointly shared
In common-joint use or shared, belonging equally, shared
Either way, regardless of the meaning of the word common, the fact that there were no poor among the people is clear. Some of these things sound like a fairy tale when we look at our cultural and political landscape, but this world of peace, prosperity, where poverty has been eradicated is the world we are trying to realize here on this earth. This world that we read about is the consequence of actually following Christ’s teachings. This is the Kingdom of God on the earth.
“15 And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.
16 And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God.
17 There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.
18 And how blessed were they! For the Lord did bless them in all their doings; yea, even they were blessed and prospered. . .”
The Law of Consecration and Communism/Socialism appear the same on the surface. How can two things that appear so similar be so different? They have to be different because President Benson was an extremely vocal advocate against communism, warning it was one of the greatest evils. He didn’t mince words at all. It’s interesting to read some of his past talks through the lens of our current culture. I’m not an expert, but from my understanding Communism and Socialism are just degrees on the same spectrum. My understanding is that it is a forced ideology. The state compels you to give up some of what you have, and redistributes it with the intent of achieving equity. A hallmark of communism is that the workers own the means of production, which basically negates private property (depending on how far along on the scale the state in question is).
Could the primary difference between these ideologies be whether the sharing is forced or voluntary? We believe in private ownership as evidenced by the commandment that we should not steal. How can we steal something from someone else unless there is ownership? We’re also told that we shouldn’t covet what our neighbor has. So at least now, perhaps pre-law of consecration we believe in private ownership.
We also talk about how all of the blessings and things we have are really God’s. So while we own things now, really, we recognize that it is God’s. This is true of our bodies, our possessions, our money. The parable of the talents, though often equated with literal talents, is actually a parable about money that illustrates stewardship. It shows how it is our responsibility to take what we have been given (money, talents, opportunities, privilege) and to magnify it and to make it greater. Stewardship is the obligation to care for and make better the things we're responsible for.
Within the law of Consecration it also appears that there is not necessarily equity (equal outcomes), but rather a base level of equality. We read in Doctrine and Covenants that they were to “appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” So it appears that while everyone’s basic needs may have been met, people’s varying wants and needs were still taken into consideration. Also, I’ve written in the past what it mean to consecrate yourself to something, so we won’t go into that in as much depth here. It was basically to dedicate something to a specific purpose, goal, or service.
If we were to consecrate our money or lives to God, it could mean that we are dedicating our efforts and money to bettering earth, bettering the lives of others, or bettering the world. Personally, I think this is what it means to live the law of consecration and to build the kingdom of God upon the earth. Since people have so many different ideas, opinions, and interests, they would approach the problem of bettering the world in very different ways. They would apply their money to different problems and improve things different ways, but this could still count as living the law of consecration even though everyone's approach would be different. I think this diverse approach would lead to better outcomes than a centralized state trying to micromanage everything because the people would autonomously decide how to dedicate their capital in areas in which they're interested or have expertise. Another possibility is that we may eventually have common ownership of things, and we just aren’t living that way now because it’s a higher law. I don’t think this is the case though, because as we demonstrate success and responsibility in our lives we typically are able to take on more. To me it appears like there is no responsibility or stewardship without ownership.
A second possibility is that we don’t understand the context of the word common here in this context. It can mean that something isn’t unusual, that it is very standard. If “all things were common among them,” it could mean that there weren’t unusual variations. Perhaps there were no rich or poor, as the verse later elaborates. All things were pretty standard. Everyone had a minimum level of comfortable living. If salt and pepper are common household seasonings, then having things common among them could mean that accessibility to housing, food, and educational opportunities were the norm, they were common and standard among all the people. Other synonyms of the word common are ordinary, customary, regular, routine, everyday, standard, typical, predictable, normal, average. It does appear that having all things common among them could merely be referring to equality and descriptors, rather than possessions. They had all things common, and they were not rich or poor, slave or free, but all equal before God and the law. This reminds me of the Constitution, which says "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. . ."
Other meanings of the word are shared by, coming from, or done by more than one. All things being common could mean things were shared, or it could mean that all things came from everyone, or all things were done by everyone. Maybe in this law of consecration world if you wanted to learn something new, you just had to ask and a person would apprentice you and be happy to teach you without charging money. Maybe knowledge would be free.
Some other ways to think about it are to examine the use of the word in some ordinary phrases:
Common good-mutual benefit of all
Common knowledge-known by most people
Common ground-interests or opinions shared by 2 or more
Common garden-ordinary, not unusual or exceptional
Common property-jointly shared
In common-joint use or shared, belonging equally, shared
Either way, regardless of the meaning of the word common, the fact that there were no poor among the people is clear. Some of these things sound like a fairy tale when we look at our cultural and political landscape, but this world of peace, prosperity, where poverty has been eradicated is the world we are trying to realize here on this earth. This world that we read about is the consequence of actually following Christ’s teachings. This is the Kingdom of God on the earth.
“15 And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.
16 And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God.
17 There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God.
18 And how blessed were they! For the Lord did bless them in all their doings; yea, even they were blessed and prospered. . .”
No comments:
Post a Comment