Gift, Exchange, and Duty

Individual scriptural passages can be a rich, powerful source of knowledge and truth. When two or more passages are put together and we study them in context of one another, we learn even more. Sometimes, however, we must have understanding of other scripture in order to understand another. For example, D&C 130: 20-21 may be one of the most misunderstood passages of scripture we have today. It explains how every blessing we receive is predicated on our obedience to a corresponding commandment. This would be an example of an exchange-based relationship. We get something in return for our payment of obedience. Unfortunately, we often read this scripture to mean that our blessings are dependent on our obedience. Thus, in order to receive blessings, we must obey. Hence, our motivation for obedience becomes the blessings we receive after and contingently. Looking at our society today, this misunderstanding is quite understandable. Our legal system is based on crime and not cruel or unusual punishment. Our economy is run by an understanding of cost and benefit. We understand our world in terms of cause and effect, so why not apply that to things spiritual?

This misunderstanding can lead to frustrating questions, such as “Why do bad things happen to good people?” or “If I obey I’ll have trials. If I disobey, I’ll have trials. I may as well do what I want.” Well, this question gets cleared up when a person realizes the real motivation, the real reason, which God gives to us for the hard work and sacrifice associated with obedience. The scripture doesn’t say “If ye don’t want lung cancer, keep my commandments.” It doesn’t say “If ye don’t want to suffer, keep my commandments.” And it certainly doesn’t say “If ye want blessings, keep my commandments.” If we love God, then we will obey Him, and everything else will follow. This would more closely resemble a gift relationship.

Notwithstanding these elements of gift, are we able to give God a gift? A pure gift is, by definition, given out of the recipient’s interest and need. I have a hard time thinking that God needs something that we have, and our interactions with Him are "gifts." On the other hand, the value of a gift in based on the relationship between the giver and the recipient. The objective good or service is sentimental, not intrinsic; meaning that it would have a completely different value and take on a different meaning if given outside the relationship. But our relationship with God is completely different from any other relationship we have. So in trying to marginalize the tokens (whether gifts or exchanges) of our relationship with God, we’re stuck in a maze of semantics.

What might be closer to those tokens might be deals done out of duty. First of all, a major part of our relationship with God (also defined as ‘religion’) is following His appointed prophet. And multiple prophets have spoken of our duty to God. We even have an award by the same name, which if achieved accompanies an assumption of piety on the part of the recipient. President Monson, in near thematic habit, exhorts us to “Do [our] duty. It is best.”

Moreover, God ultimately does not tolerate imperfection. Gifts and exchange automatically assumes imperfection on the part of one or both of the players, hence the need for the transaction. Duty does not imply an owing tone. We do things because we’re supposed to; because God tells us to, and because we love Him. We don’t offer these tokens to God because we want something in return (exchange) or because we see a need that we can resolve (gift). With a sense of duty are we called to the work; not hired or invited.