Notes for Talk
Berkeley University Ward, 1/28/96
The concept of man-hours. Gordon B. Hinckley once emphasized in a talk how many man-hours (or woman-hours, for that matter) go into church meetings, temple work, etc. I like that concept - with my work and schooling background, when I look at a building, a car, or any other man-made object, I often think of how many man-hours went into the design, construction or manufacturing of the thing by architects, carpenters, masons, miners, machinists, or whomever. As a church we spend millions of man-hours every week in meetings. There are a lot of other things that could be done with those man-hours - some more productive, some less productive. I'm guessing about a hundred man-hours will be spent right now listening to my talk; would that time be better spent if the whole congregation just stood up and walked to the nearest soup kitchen or homeless shelter to help?
The Peace Corps could tell us how many man-hours it takes to build a water supply system for an area with no previous running water. They could also tell us how many man-hours literate people would need in order to teach any illiterate villagers to read and write. Habitat for Humanity could tell us how many man-hours an organization would have to donate to build a home for a low-income family. Some of these are, of course, engineering examples, but think of other fields like health care or music. The possibilities are endless. Then think of the good that could be done with the billion man-hours that go into watching the Superbowl or World Cup (I have to admit, three of those billion hours were mine.) I will make the assumption that we want to do good, and if we take Mill's definition of good as that which results in the most happiness for the greatest number of people, then is sitting in church listening to a speaker actually good? What could I say in a talk that would make the hundred man-hours spent listening to me result in more good than if we all went out and performed some sort of selfless service? I guess that depends on my own preparation, the audience's receptiveness, and the ability we give the spirit to convey things between us. In the end, the only way to make all of the man-hours spent at church worth it is if the talks and lessons actually motivate us to do good or become more Christlike.
Moving on to the actual topics, I'm going to try to cover four separate concepts that I think are interrelated: sin, judgment, testimony, and happiness. I may be jumping around a bit, but I'll try to find a connection between them. Sin and judgment may seem like somewhat harsh topics to speak about, while testimony and happiness are the feel-good topics, but I want to try to pull something positive out of each of the four concepts.
Sin (knowledge and accountability). James said sin is only "to him that 'knoweth' to do good and doeth it not." That makes knowledge a prerequisite of sin; are we better off not knowing, then? If we never knew to do good, we could never sin, and I believe in that case, God would look right past our sins; we would essentially be spotless. But the problem is that knowledge is also a prerequisite of salvation. From the D&C, "it is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance" (131:6.) So the only way I can actually sin is if I "should have known better," as so many parents put it.
So here's an example: To me, drinking alcohol would be a sin, because I've committed to myself and to the Lord to abstain from it. To most others on this planet, it's not necessarily a moral issue, and unless it leads to some other consequential act, couldn't be considered a sin. How about water? Can you think of a case where drinking water would be a sin? Maybe if someone is fasting and they give in to their thirst. But let's take it further. These are generalizations based on an act, but sin is a choice, and not the actual act. Say I'm out with some friends who, as a joke, pour beer in my empty 7-up bottle while I'm not looking. I take a sip, and have essentially transgressed a law that I have accepted, but have I sinned? One definition of sin is something requiring repentance; under that definition, no, I don't believe I would need to repent. In God's eyes, I don't feel that inadvertent act would constitute a sin. Say, on the other hand, my friends try to talk me into drinking a beer, I know I shouldn't, but I give in anyway. And then I find out that as a joke, they put water in the beer bottle instead. Have I sinned by drinking the water? Should I be relieved that it was only water? No - it's too late. The act was not technically a transgression, but I made the choice, and that is where the sin lies. This analogy can also relate to aspects of other laws as well.
So sin is a choice, but then righteousness must also be a choice. I will never receive eternal rewards for blindly following commandments that I don't make a conscious decision to follow. For example, I will probably never be blessed for obeying the commandment not to murder, because given my upbringing, I wouldn't even have the capacity to choose to. I will also never be blessed for being a member of the church, since I didn't make the decision to be raised in the church. I will be blessed, however, if I decide to be a good member rather than a lame member, since that is a decision I have to make every day. Other people's decisions (such as my ancestors who decided to join the church) may make my life easier or help give me opportunities that I otherwise might not have had, but I cannot receive eternal blessings for other people's decisions.
Missionaries teach people new commandments that may have been previously unknown. Sometimes when people learn about these "new" commandments, they feel terribly about who they were in the past. In a way, regret can be good, but only if it motivates people to do better. In my opinion, looking back on sin is actually a beautiful thing. Because by doing this, it shows that you've changed, essentially progressed. But people tend to dwell on it as something negative. But how many people ever get the chance to recognize a change like that? Anybody who does is really lucky. There is no reason for someone to feel depressed about that if they truly didn't know at the time that it was wrong - it should actually be just the opposite, it should be a wonderful feeling to be able to compare who they are today with who they were and see progress. As his people covenanted to lay down their weapons after their conversion, the king of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis thanked God that they had "been convinced of [their] sins" and that God had "taken away the guilt from [their] hearts." (Alma 24:9-10)
I look at the fool I was in high school, and I used to feel guilty about that sometimes, thinking I could have been a better representative of a Christian, a Mormon, or even a member of my own family. But it's actually something really wonderful to be able to say you've changed. I hope I can always do that. I'm fairly happy with who I am today, but if five years from now I look back on how I am now, and see myself now as a sinner because I've progressed farther, that would be really great. I would hope that that would continue the rest of my life. Like Alma the Younger said, after talking about how difficult the repentance process was, he was no longer "harrowed up" by the memory of his sins. He still had the memory, and I'm sure was motivated by some degree of regret, but he said, "my soul was filled with joy." (Alma 36:20) I assume Alma was raised in a good family - his father was obviously a good guy - so he probably "should have known better," like any of us who were raised in gospel-centered homes. This puts him in a different situation than people who only recently learned of commandments. But even for him it was a wonderful thing for him to be able to recognize what a sinner he had been.
Returning to knowledge and accountability, it's kind of scary to get light or knowledge, because it always brings accountability and we can never go back to ignorance from there, regardless of whether we chose to seek out that light or if we just happened upon it through another person or through our family. It's irreversible, but it's a blessing to gain this knowledge, because it brings with it the opportunity to progress. The scriptures say that "where much is given, much is required, and he who sins against the greater light receives the greater condemnation," (D&C 82:3) and that "redemption comes to all that have no law." (Mor. 8:22) As Christ hung on the cross, He asked God to forgive the soldiers who crucified him without even requiring them to repent, because they "knew not what they did." (Luke 23:34) One further illustration of this point: the Nephites were very self-righteous just before the coming of Christ - they saw the Lamanites as wicked because of their acts. But Nephi, the son of Helaman, warned his people that it would be better for the Lamanites than for them, because the Lamanites had not "sinned against that great knowledge which ye have received, therefore the Lord shall be merciful unto them." (Hel. 7:24) Could we compare ourselves today with the Nephites of those days? Do we judge Non-mormons or Non-christians as they judged the Lamanites? It's a scary thought, but I think we need to be careful of the same type of self-righteous or judgmental attitudes today.
So knowledge brings accountability and is a prerequisite of sin. Anytime we receive knowledge, then, we can't keep living the way we previously had lived and expect God to be happy with us. Each time we are blessed with more light, we must change our lives, or be accountable under a new set of laws.
On to judgment and happiness. It is sometimes very easy to judge others, especially if we consider the commandments to be eternal, unalterable, irrevocable laws that we see other people breaking. That brings us back to the concept that we sometimes perceive sin to be the acts people perform as opposed to the choices they make based on what they've been given. I believe that many of the people we think are breaking laws may not be accountable to the degree we here in this room would be. And if sin is only sin when we have accepted something inside, how can we ever tell if another person is sinning? Or is it even any of our business? We never know exactly what's inside of another person's conscience, so we can never really judge. But sometimes we are expected to, and we may feel guilty about it. The trend in our society is to avoid calling anything evil, because that's discrimination. Distinguishing between right and wrong becomes judging, making a religion that stands fast to "old-fashioned" rules like ours "politically incorrect." A judgmental attitude is a dangerous thing, but I think there's a way to avoid the apparent contradiction or inner hypocrisy. I don't know what's going on inside of another person, but I do know that living the commandments of God can effect inner happiness.
So I can't tell if a person is sinning in the eyes of God, but I know when a person could be happier by basing living a Christ-centered life. With that knowledge, it would actually be a sin for us to allow others to remain unhappy when we could make a difference. That's the only thing I can judge. What gives me the right to judge what would make someone else happy? One thing I know is that God wants us to be happy and that he gives us laws to enable us to choose happiness through our actions. The reward is inner peace. All I have to go on is the happiness and inner peace God sends my way when I do what I believe to be right, and the confusion, depression, or apathy that comes from ignoring it. It might even be considered a sin to be unhappy myself, since unhappiness is in a way ingratitude. Some degree of judgment, on the other hand, is always ok or even necessary, since we know that the spirit of Christ is given "every man," and that the spirit "giveth light to every man" that he may "know good from evil." (D&C 84:46, Mor. 7:16) It's just given in different degrees that are hard for us to classify, and that's not our job.
Maybe a sports analogy would be helpful here. I'm really a terrible basketball player - but say I want to feel better about how I play rather than develop my skills, and I sneak into a YBA league for 12-year olds. I hope I could hold my own, and maybe I'd even be the league's high scorer. Would that, however, change me into a good basketball player? No, to get there, I'd have to work on my skills so that I could compete on the level where I should be. All I'm trying to say is that we fool ourselves when we try to make ourselves feel better by comparing our outward actions against people who may not have been given as much in terms of the gospel, or of whom God doesn't expect the same level of commitment to its principles. Only God knows what level we're on and what scale we should be measuring up to. So only He can judge, and the reason He can is because only He knows what we believe inside. I wondered as a kid sometimes why God couldn't allow us just a little privacy and ignore our thoughts for just a while. I think that's precisely the reason he has to know all of our thoughts. It's the only way He could judge us with a perfect justice.
Anytime I start comparing myself to others, I need to realize that there are many other people I might be inclined to condemn, who could do a much better job than me if they had been given all of the opportunities and knowledge that somehow came my way. And maybe, given someone else's circumstances, I might be having a hard enough time just believing in God, much less trying to live by commandments nobody had told me about. (As Martin Gore says in a classic eighties tune, "try walking in my shoes" before casting judgment on him.)
I also think God is more concerned about our qualities than our qualifications. I've been working a lot on resumes lately, trying to inflate qualifications that might land me a job. That goes by the false assumption that just because I did certain things, whether it's jobs or courses or whatever, that I necessarily learned all that supposedly goes along with it, and beyond that, that I am now the person that my qualifications make me out to be. If I actually put down who I am on my resume and wrote down only the things that really are most meaningful to me in life, I wonder how far I'd get in the job hunt. Luckily, I don't think God wants a resume from us. Yes, he cares about our actions and what we have done. But I think He cares much more about who we are and what we have become. I don't think He is so much concerned about who we were or what we've done the past, as long as He knows that, faced with the same decision today, we would have the courage to choose the right. That goes back to the whole issue about dwelling on past transgressions. I think He cares more about the qualities that we have developed through our decisions, whether they have been good or bad. On the same line, there are a lot of people who have accumulated quite the Mormon resume, kind of a recipe that automatically classifies someone as a "good" Mormon. Whether that includes graduating from seminary, going on a mission, temple marriage, or whatever. I think the reason these things are given us as suggestions, commandments, or whatever they may be, is that they generally help us develop the inner qualities or characteristics that we seek. But that won't always be the case, and I don't believe God looks at people based on whether they've gone on a mission, graduated from seminary, or held any particular calling. Those things may be totally independent of their qualities and character, which is really what God looks at.
We should, however, always take advantage of any opportunities that would help us develop Christ-like attributes. I need to be careful in trying to separate the outward physical acts from the inner spiritual state, because what we ultimately seek is the complete harmony between our own bodies and spirits and between our spirits and God's will. Many of the outward signs of our faith, such as ordinances and services, are meant to symbolize inner beliefs. Can you imagine God judging us based on our "work experience" in callings? I can't. It's much easier to imagine Him asking us about what charitable acts we have done. But even this is difficult to imagine, because I don't believe He will ask so much about the specific times I acted charitable, but rather He will ask where my heart was in the process and whether I've become a charitable person. The final product of our actions is who we are, and that is what matters most.
Some final words about testimony. There is no commandment anywhere that we must know that the church is true or that any aspect of the gospel is true. It's good if we get to that point, but God doesn't expect it of everyone. We're told that one of the gifts of the spirit is a knowledge of things, that to some it is "given to know," (D&C 46:13) whether or not they earned it through their own faith. I believe the only way to actually earn it is to have faith first - we can be blessed for that faith, but not for the knowledge that comes consequently. A lot of people feel guilty for not knowing that the church is true, when the "good" Mormons they know can all stand up and say that in a testimony meeting. Christ warned us of this attitude, though, when he said that even the devils know that Jesus is the Christ. But does that knowledge do them any good? On the contrary, it is that knowledge that condemns them. I'm not trying to compare anyone to devils, I'm just trying to say that I don't believe we will be judged on how much we know - we will be judged according to what we know, essentially what we do with the knowledge we do have. I think the parable of the talents applies here.
Christ told the Nephites who saw Him and knew He was the Christ that they were blessed for it. But then He said "more blessed are they who shall believe in your words." (3 Ne. 12:2) We're also told that to some a knowledge of things is given, and "to others it is given to believe" those who know, and they are also granted eternal life (D&C 46:14.) So it's good to know, but belief is all that is required and actually brings more blessings. Sometimes it takes time and patience, but it's inevitable for faith to lead to knowledge given time and successful trials, and it's rare that real knowledge comes without faith. The members of the church under Alma the Elder were told that "because of their unbelief, they could not understand." (Mos. 26:3) Their knowledge was blocked by unbelief. There are a lot of things I don't understand, and maybe some of that is due to a lack of faith. I hope, however, that it's just time - that God will give me a knowledge of the things I believe in whenever I'm ready to accept the accountability that must accompany the new knowledge. A desire to learn must generally precede acquiring new knowledge, and I hope that we can always seek for this knowledge, and not be discouraged by things that don't make sense yet. And I stress the yet, because there are many things I now understand that used to confuse me, and I know that the confusion I feel about some things now is only temporary, so long as I keep trying. There are many things I wonder about that I have to take on faith, but it's comforting to know that if we keep that faith, "the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God." (D&C 88:50) For some reason I think that entails a whole lot of learning, comprehension, and eventually a knowledge of "all things," or the chance to "know the mysteries of God . . . in full." (Alma 12:10) There are a lot of things I believe in, and there are a few things that I know. I know that there is more to this life than meets the eye. I know that there is a God and a purpose for this life. I know that living according to the gospel of Christ brings happiness and inner peace. Christ is our redeemer. Life is beautiful, people are beautiful, and this world is beautiful. The laws and ordinances of the gospel are eternal and universal. A just God, though, will not expect people to live by commandments they don't know or ordinances they have had no opportunity to receive. The atonement of Christ accounts for any imbalance between ignorance and the demands of eternal laws; temple work takes care of any lack of opportunity. It is the atonement, in the end, that allows us all the chance to return to our father, if we do the best we know how.
ps. I hope that something in here made it worth the "man-hours" it took to read it.