D&C 82:8-18

182:8-10 - The Lord now gives “unto you a new commandment, that you may understand my will concerning you; or, in other words, I give unto you directions how you may act before me, that it may turn to you for your salvation.” He will give us the commandments or “directions” and by doing what he says, it will work for our salvation. I think that this comes back to the whole commandments as blessings vs commandments as sacrifices concept. If we see commandments as restrictions or something that we are making sacrifices by doing, then it will be hard for us to make the connection between keeping commandments and it being for our eternal welfare. This is a pivotal moment in our spiritual progression because it completely transforms our choices into feelings of protection and empowerment, whereas before the choices before were probably made because of or at least with a twinge of guilt, which isn’t what the Lord wants for us, and isn’t conducive to our spiritual growth. The Lord gives us a little bit of insight into his own personality, because instead of being dictatorial about it, he puts himself under an obligation as well saying, “I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.” The IM teaches, “this verse shows a part of God’s basic nature: the way He deals with His children and the reason they can trust Him. Elder James E. Talmage said: ‘Mormonism’ has taught me that God holds himself accountable to law even as he expects us to do> He has set us the example in obedience to law. I know that to say this would have been heresy a few decades ago. But we have the divine word for it: ‘I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.’ He operates by law and not by arbitrariness or caprice.’” There’s a few points that I want to make about this verse. First is that he says that he is required to gives us the blessings promised when we are obedient. This makes sense as the laws of justice wouldn’t allow him to promise something and then not deliver on that when we uphold our end of the bargain. If that was the case, then why even make people. If there is no punishment then there is no law, but if there is no reward there is no law either, no matter how subtle that context is. For instance, if we never kill anyone, we (hypothetically) are promised a life free from a prison sentence for murder, as Joseph in Egypt proved, we don’t live in a perfect world, and it’s still possible. But we have to remember that the laws of justice that govern the universe are perfect and the standard that God is held to requires him to comply with this law perfectly. With that said, we will be blessed perfectly for keeping the commandments, but we have to remember that it will be in the Lord’s timing, not ours. Imagine if we paid our tithing and the next day we got a check in the mail for as much money as we needed, or the next day got offered a better position at work. Imagine if we always told the truth and didn’t get into trouble for our mistakes because other people “respected our honesty.” If that was the case then everyone would keep the commandments because the rewards would be instantaneous, who wouldn’t pay tithing if all our financial problems automatically went away right afterward? But the point of this life isn’t to learn how to keep the commandments so that we can be rewarded, the purpose of this life is to learn to keep the commandments because we trust that God will be true to his word, even if it isn’t in this life, we have to learn to keep the commandments out of faith, not reward. So we might look at this verse and say, “wait, I am worthy of and trying to get married in the temple, but it looks like I might get married again, that’s not being bound by what he says.” But I love what Elder Holland that “some blessings come soon, some come late, and some don’t come until heaven. But for those who embrace the gospel of Jesus Christ, they come.” This is what we need to keep in mind when we think about what this verse means. The second point that I want to make with this verse is that when we “do not what I say, ye have no promise.” This isn’t to make excuses for sinning, especially deliberately, but this is from my own personal experience. The Lord knows all things, he knows what we’ll do and he knows exactly what we need exactly when we need it in order to be persuaded in the direction of righteousness. Looking at it from that point of view, and remembering that God loves us more than we can know regardless of what we’re doing, we are valuable in his eyes and none of us are lost causes. With that in mind, the Lord doesn’t say “if you don’t do what I say you’ll be punished,” he says “ye have no promise.” To me this is significant because as I reflect on my own life I can see the hand of God very strongly even, and sometimes especially, when I was being disobedient. I was not promised protection, but I got it, I was not promised guidance or divine intervention, but it was there. It’s not all of nothing with God. When we are righteous, sometimes we are allowed to suffer, and when we are disobedient, sometimes he protects us, he does what he has to do in order to both allow us our agency and be personally involved in our lives as well.

82:11-14 - This is where we talked about, probably several weeks ago, about the names of the people mentioned being changed for their protection at the time, and then in the 1981 edition, the names being changed back. DJR gives both editions of the verse, I’m going to put the old version in here just because I’d imagine it’s not super easy to find. It says, “Therefore, verily I say unto you, that it is expedient for my servants Alam and Ahashdah, Mahalaleel and Pelagoram, and my servant Gazelam, and Horal and Oilvah, and Shalemanasseh and Mehmson, to be bound together by a bond and covenant that cannot be broken by transgression, except judgment shall immediately follow, in your several stewardships.” Pretty interesting reading, looking at it from this perspective, I could see how that could be a little bit bizarre if you didn’t know the background. I wonder how this covenant being broken when some of these men were excommunicated? The IM says, “The men names were of the order of Enoch or the united order. As leaders in the Church, they were to be examples to all others, showing how the law of consecration was to be lived. The ‘bond and covenant’ to which they were binding themselves was that of the law of consecration. They were to make a solemn covenant with the Lord to keep the laws and rules of that order. The penalty for breaking that oath and covenant was severe.” The purpose of this covenant is “to manage the affairs of the poor, and all things pertaining to the bishopric both in the land of Zion and in the land of Kirtland… For Zion must increase in beauty, and in holiness; her borders must be enlarged; her stakes must be strengthened; yea, verily I say unto you, Zion must arise and put on her beautiful garments.” Personification of Zion is a pretty interesting concept. The IM quotes President Harold B. Lee as teaching, “Zion, as used here, undoubtedly had reference to the Church. At that time there was but a small body of Church members just beginning to emerge as an organization, after having experienced harsh treatment from enemies outside the Church… To be worthy of such a sacred designation as Zion, the Church must think of itself as a bride adorned for her husband, as John the Revelator recorded when he saw in vision the Holy City where the righteous dwelled, adorned as a bride for the Lamb of God as her husband. Here is portrayed the relationship the lord desires in his people in order to be acceptable to our Lord and Master even as a wife would adorn herself in beautiful garments for her husband. The rule by which the people of God must live in order to be worthy of acceptance in the sight of God is indicated (in this verse). This people must increase in beauty before the world; have an inward loveliness which may be observed by mankind as a reflection in holiness and in those inherent qualities of sanctity. The borders of Zion, where the righteous and pure in heart may dwell, must now begin to be enlarged. The stakes of Zion must be strengthened. All this so that Zion may arise and shine by becoming increasingly diligent in carrying out the plan of salvation throughout the world.” This is a complicate concept, especially for me as a single woman, a divorced woman at that, so I’m not going to mess with it very much. Maybe it just means that the gospel and it’s people are to be subjects of beauty, and all must be cared for in order to achieve that.

82:15- - Verse 16 is comforting yet interesting, the Lord says, “Behold, here is wisdom also in me for your good.” Consecration might be daunting for a lot of people, so for the Lord to say, “this is going to end up being very good for you,” is nice to hear. The Lord says that they are to be equal, “every man according to his wants and his needs, inasmuch as his wants are just- and all this for the benefit of the church of the living God, that every man may improve upon his talent, that every man may gain other talents.” I think that without a full understanding of the law of consecration, it’s difficult to understand how consecration and a person’s talents go together. I actually had this conversation with my brother just a few days ago, and it was quite interesting. We were talking about the United States government vs the USSR back in the 60’s during the cold war and what was really involved and what exactly happened and the purposes and things like that. During this discussion my brother posed the question, “what would you do if you didn’t need to worry about money?” With the law of consecration, people do their jobs, take what they need, give the rest to the Bishop’s storehouse, so that everyone has enough. So for instance, if we have a community of 100 people and 50 are farmer, they supply enough food for all the people, themselves and the other 50. Then of the other 50, 5 provide the water, 5 are plumbers, 5 are construction workers, 2 are doctors, 3 are nurses, 5 operate restaurants, 5 are dentists, 5 are artists, 5 are musicians, and 5 are city administrators. Everyone works their share, but not so much that they are workaholics. There is no cost of living that people have to worry about. Where I live is very expensive and in most families both parents work and the father has a second part-time job on the side, simply because it’s so expensive that you can’t pay rent any other way. There wouldn’t be any of that, you do your duty and then the rest is taken care of. So the question connecting talents and consecration is, “what would you do if you didn’t have to worry about money?” But the other part of this equation is what the Lord says next, “every man seeking the interest of his neighbor, and doing all things with an eye single to the glory of God.” It has to be done this way, where other people’s quality of life is at least as important as your own. I’ve always believed, since I was a child, and I still feel this way, is that if everyone in the world were to liquidate everything they had and distribute that quality of life equally between all the inhabitants of the earth, and it meant that instead of living in a modern home, that I had to live in a dirt hut, but that everyone who was homeless got to have a dirt hut now too, I’m ok with that. If those desperate people who didn’t even have clean water to drink could have that a food and clothing and shelter but it cost me my lifestyle, then I would call it a good trade. This of course was before I knew about the whole money/power struggle and that if we actually did liquidate everything and distributed it evenly, justly, then everyone could live in a mansion with a pool, so what does that say about us as human beings?