I have often heard at Church people quote the following scripture:
20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—
21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated (D&C 130).
The subsequent discussion often takes on the following logic:
- There are laws in heaven
- Blessings are associated with those laws
- Obedience to the law releases the blessing
My own opinion is that this logic is flawed and is not what the scripture says. I would suggest the logic should go something like this:
- There are laws in heaven
- Blessings are associated with those laws
- If you receive a blessing (and you may not), it will be because you were obedient.
It is a small difference; however it produces a far different perspective on WHY we do things. The key to me is the phrase, “and when we obtain a blessing from God”. If the first logic was right the scripture might say, “And when we are obedient, we obtain a blessing from God”.
My undergraduate Psychology studies taught me a great many things. One of my favourite was Kohlburg’s stages of moral development. He postulated that there are six stages of moral development that go from basic morals of right and wrong to moral reasoning based upon universal principles. One of the moral dilemmas used by Kohlburg in his research was the following:
A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, “No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife.
Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
Many who haven’t studied Psychology have heard of this dilemma and most can imagine the range of moral issues this raises.
One of the criticisms of his theory is the focus that the stages have on the principle of justice – which is not always the guiding principle of behaviour. Nevertheless, I believe they provide a good (however broad) framework to reflect on our behaviours and why we do things. My feeling is that most people get stuck at stage two and perhaps occasionally try out stage three.
I have listed below some possible responses to each of Kohlburg’s stages relative to attending church and paying tithing (they are not perfect, I know, but they are close).
Stage 1. Obedience and punishment orientation.
I go to church because I will go to hell if I don’t.
I pay tithing so I don’t get burnt
Stage 2. Self interest orientation
I go to church because I get blessings.
I pay tithing because the windows of heaven will be open for me.
Stage 3. Interpersonal accord and conformity.
I go to church because good people do.
We all pay tithing in the church. Its what we all do
Stage 4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
I go to church so that our society can function with good people having good values.
I pay tithing to allow the church to help people.
Stage 5. Social contract orientation
I go to church, and I believe in others going to different churches, or none at all, because it represents what is best for our society. Each person holding differing values, and having respect for one another, contributes to all in society.
Each person pays tithing in different ways and for different reasons. That’s OK.
Stage 6. Universal ethical principles
I go to church because it is absolutely the right thing to do today. Next week it may not be as there may be something else that is fundamentally more important to God than going to church…
I’ll pay tithing, but not when billions are spent on a shopping centre.
Applied to aspects of the gospel, Kohlburgs theory raises some interesting questions.
Why are we obedient?
Do we go through Kohlburg’s stages relative to varying aspects of the gospel?
Are we at different levels of development on different commandments?
Is there a benefit in not operating at the highest level in relation to obedience?
***Extra bonus challenge*** Write your own responses to each stage on a commandment of your choice.
I having difficulty seeing the stages outlined as progressive (ie. one moving on from the next) as opposed to differing perspectives.
I’ll head straight for the bonus, on the WoW since it’s the more straight forward to analyse for me:
I keep the WoW because that’s what church members do(3).
Also, there are alcohol problems in my family history a few generations back, that don’t want to fall prey to (would that be self-interest(2) or social order(4) or social contract(5)).
But I’m not fussed about what other members do or don’t do (5?) – unless they’re my kids ;-).
As you can see, I’m also having trouble identifying a particular category for the simplest commandment.
I like this layout, and agree that ideally we reach stage 6-however, that doesn’t seem to be the goal of the church. We hear talks often about doing what is right, rather than why what we are told is right. We hear leaders remind us “not all that is good is useful” and to remember that while “exception exisit, you are not an exception”. I’m fact, the talk that came is the one I’ll use-1)I will marry in the temple or I will never truly be happy. 2)I will marry in the temple so I can have my family together forever. 3)I will marry in the temple because my community expects that and I wish to be in the community. 4)I will marry in the temple so the community is sure to grow as my children will see the good in a temple marriage. 5)I will marry in the temple, but realize good families are raised outside the church ad well. 6)I will plan on marrYing in the temple, but recognize that doesn’t make a person good or bad, and that my spouse may be a good person if they can’t. I will focus on the type of person I will marry, not the place.
It was OVERUSED on my mission MANY moons ago (1980-2) as a “guilt trip” for success. It DID contradict my observation (like many others based on personal observation, with an admittedly small sample size that rendered it statistically irrelevant) that missionaries that flouted the rules tended to expereince greater mission success, if number of teaching appointments and baptisms were a valid measure. Since there are so MANY factors affecting a particular individuals conversion, methinks it useless to generalize. Probably had to do with better interpersonal skills exhibited by the ‘pagan’ elders that made them better able to gain the audience and confidence of their prospects, but this is, again, a VERY selective observation.
I’d say that obedience comes with its own built-in blessing: that of personal integrity. Ergo, methinks that the Lord’s sheep know His voice and their salvation is NOT dependent upon how well the young men and young ladies from the LDS Church relate to them in the course of missionaries. It’s been MY contention for many years that convert baptisms are but a by-product of efforts by the full-time missionaries (since the “every member a missionary” concept has been stressed in the some 36 years that I’ve been in the Church, WHO really has primary responsibility?), that the primary purpose of a full-time mission is to groom our young men and women for further Church service and to aid them in building their own personal testimonies. That is, every full-time missionary who goes out ought to be adivsed that the soul he/she saves might just be his/her own!
I find myself bumping back and forth between levels 5 and 6 and in the past have been in all the other levels. Wasn’t there an Oaks talk out there about reasons we obey? I used to be 3 & 4 until I met enough other christians and non-christians that do more good in the world than most mormons I know, and I decided there was a lot I could learn from them…..
IMO, the premise is false.
God (or whomever of His agents) does not observe us and then “bless” us for our obedience. The concept/principle/truth of Agency holds that we (and only we) can change our nature, our character, our righteousness. A fortune cookie I once opened explains the truth succinctly, “In nature there are neither punishments nor rewards, only consequences.”
The teaching and emphasis on obedience to commandments, rules, laws, etc. are highly useful and generally operate for the good of our character–though we certainly must internalize such good characteristics and not simply obey (for we are “agents unto ourselves”). But, the “principle” of obedience (and the technically invalid scriptures such as the one you quote) are only a means to an end: our becoming (making ourselves) righteous. The “Book of Life” (to be opened at “The Judgment”) is written in our character, the intent of our hearts, etc.
Good post-thanks
I’ll play. Here is an example with men shaving at BYU.
Stage 1. Obedience and punishment orientation.
– I’ll shave because I’ll get in trouble with the honor code if I don’t.
Stage 2. Self interest orientation
– If I don’t shave, no girls will want to date me.
Stage 3. Interpersonal accord and conformity.
– I’ll shave so that those who think it’s important won’t be upset by my whiskers.
Stage 4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
– I’ll shave because the authorities have asked me to shave.
Stage 5. Social contract orientation
– I’ll shave because being clean shaven sends a signal in society that I am a safe, unaggressive person. (Ted Bundy’s logic for sure)
Stage 6. Universal ethical principles
– While shaving at BYU is fine, requiring people to shave who have made a religious covenant not to shave is unconscionable. There is nothing inherently superior about a clean-shaven face.
I think your example on #6 is wrong, though, for several reasons. “I’ll pay tithing, but not when billions are spent on a shopping centre.” To me, this isn’t a universal ethical principle. It’s wanting to control how your charitable donations are spent and specifically objecting to community reinvestment projects as a worthwhile endeavor. You may specifically object to gentrification, although again, you didn’t state that, and I’m not sure the mall fit that bill (the downtown Philadelphia project probably fits that description more aptly). You can certainly object to the location of investment (are there other areas more deserving). Those are financial investment decisions. (Nobody “buys” a mall after all; it’s supposed to have a return or why would you do it? It’s not a charitable endeavor ultimately. It returns a gain over the invested amount, so it may be a means to an end, but it’s not the end in and of itself.) So I don’t see your example as a universal ethical question so much as one of control of how your donations are spent and/or invested. It’s a question of trust, a proper question to ask about any of our charitable endeavors, but not necessarily a universal ethical one.
To make it personal, if your friend Steve says he need $100 to invest in his business, but you think Steve is unlikely to succeed, you probably don’t want to give him the $100. If you think he’s going to be tempted to spend it some other way, you won’t want to give it to him.
Some great comments. fbisti – I read and re read your comment. I wonder if we are not more in agreement than you suggest. Mention of consequences is certainly analogous to being blessed. I’m not partial to one use of the word or other. Being blessed is just the language we use…
hawkgrrrl – love the beard comments…makes me want to grow one just to go through the stages!! Good discussion on the level 6 tithing. First, let me say that finding a level 6 example in relation to the gospel is rather difficult…by definition it calls for the application of universal principles which you and I and billions of others may disagree with. My rationale for the mall comment (a little tongue in cheek) was that it could be held that the role of a church like ours is primarily to help the poor and needy. There are lots of ways to do this, however spending so much money on a shopping centre in SLC to the exclusion of all other areas of the world could be seen to be contrary to helping the poor – even if it makes a truckload of money. For many, including me, such a means does not justify the end. Taken to the extreme….if beer stocks were seen to be a good investment, should the church buy them and give the money to the poor?? any investment, which this mall is, carries with it a level of risk. It might fail, it might succeed. Is that a risk that needs to be the church’s to take on – or do we simply try and make people’s lives better through direct service and action.
On your steve analogy – not sure I see the connection. We are told by the church that tithing is used for certain purposes. Businesses are part of that, naturally. But it’s like giving Steve $100 to pay for his rent, electricity, petrol for his car to do his job and then he buys a couple of lottery tickets – or buys shares in a company – The odds might be good but he might not win…or the price of the share might go up or it might go down…
On a side note – and perhaps for another post if the church ever discloses its financial affairs, is the (IMO) disproportionate level of spending by the church in different areas of the world. I have spent lots of time in the USA and the quality of the buildings etc is far superior to that here in Australia. Probably by a factor of 3:1. The chapel I meet in looks like it did in 1970. So the church spending a truckload in SLC on a mall perhaps also takes away from fixing up our chapel as well as other worthwhile projects.
Sorry. Lots of words there. Take home….helping poor = eternal principle. Investing in a shopping centre to help poor = not an eternal principle.
LDS_Aussie: “if beer stocks were seen to be a good investment, should the church buy them and give the money to the poor??” Without a doubt, the church has invested in mutual funds that include such things. I would guarantee it. If the return is good, their financial advisors will see to it. 😉
The Steve analogy just means that when you choose where to invest in charities, some of them are more trustworthy than others. Some are wiser than others. Some are more effective than others. If you say that the church’s mall decision was a 4 on a scale of 10, with embezzlement being a 1 and digging wells in Africa being an 8, well, it’s all just where you invest your charitable dollars. But the assessments of whether it’s a good or bad invement are still somewhat subjective due to lack of opacity and a value judgment as well. For example, digging wells in Africa sounds great, but what if you are inadvertently funding warlords. Bad decision of course.
(Hawk, thanks for the opportunity for fun in responding:)
[I’ll play. Here is an example with men shaving at BYU.]
Let’s make it clear that it’s FACIAL hair we’re talking about, LoL…
[Stage 1. Obedience and punishment orientation. I’ll shave because I’ll get in trouble with the honor code if I don’t.] Other than general adherence to grooming standards, I fail to see how this is a ‘honor’ issue.
[Stage 2. Self interest orientation – If I don’t shave, no girls will want to date me.] Ball-Loon-ey! As J. Eric “Duckman” ranted (often): “You women SAY you want a nice fella, but you only give it up for the jerks!”
[Stage 3. Interpersonal accord and conformity. I’ll shave so that those who think it’s important won’t be upset by my whiskers.] Seems kinda subsumed into (1) above. Also worrying about what ‘they’ think.
[Stage 4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
– I’ll shave because the authorities have asked me to shave.] Obedience out of respect, and not necessarily agreement with the principle. That ain’t always bad, as long as the one(s) you ‘idolize’ merit said fealty.
[Stage 5. Social contract orientation – I’ll shave because being clean shaven sends a signal in society that I am a safe, unaggressive person. (Ted Bundy’s logic for sure)] And NOT just the late Mr. Bundy – I recall two of the elders in my Italian-speaking MTC district were called to the NYC mission as Italian speakers (a lot of bi-lingual companionships there). Within a few months, I get a pic of one of them, with fairly long hair (certainly longer than LDS missionaries normally sported and a moustache!). His explanation was that at the time (1980), short hair and ‘clean cut’ was locally taken for being gay! Wellwhaddayayknow…
[Stage 6. Universal ethical principles
– While shaving at BYU is fine, requiring people to shave who have made a religious covenant not to shave is unconscionable. There is nothing inherently superior about a clean-shaven face.] Ask a Sikh. Or WHY, pray tell, do we ALWAYS depict our Savior rather hirsute of face? Well, it’s b/c it was the cultural norm of His day! Likewise, the Brethren equate being clean-shaven with being conservative and ‘compliant’ (much like the IBM ‘uniform of a conservative blue or grey suit, white shirt, conservative tie, and black shoes, polished to a high shine, at least back in the Eighties). I used to sport a goatee, but I shaved it simply b/c I got complaints from my beloved Snips that my beard tickles. Ah, motivation…
LDS_Ausssi, that scripture “there is a law irrevocably decreed…” is probably my least favorite scripture and I think it does more harm than good. D&C 130 is listed as “items of instruction” from Joseph Smith. It is in the same section as Joseph Smith’s strange recounting of a conversation with God about when the 2nd Coming should arrive, supposedly when and if he reaches the age of 85 years old.
Because the scripture is so pithy and memorable, it has helped rationalize the church’s solidly works and checklist orientation. You try to bring a little grace into the picture by adding “if” we receive a blessing, but I don’t know if this is warranted. Joseph Smith presents us with a mechanistic universe where every action has an equal and opposite reaction. He is applying Newtonian theory to religion. After all, Joseph Smith didn’t even really believe in Spirit or mystery. He said all spirit is matter, if more fine, but still measurable. All truth can be circumscribed into a whole.
Joseph Smith presents the Law of the Harvest in this scripture which is fine, of course the Law of the Harvest is real. The problem is that he said “ALL” blessings are predicated upon it, and “ANY” blessing will be because of obedience to the particular law it is predicated upon.
But there are other forces in the universe, both good and ill, chaotic and constructive, and those forces exert enormous influence on our fates. Yes, we are creatures to act, but we are also creatures who are acted upon. No man is either, or. We are both. We are blessed and cursed on many counts for reasons having absolutely nothing to do with our obedience to laws.