United Order And The Deeding Of Private Property - Is There Historical Evidence The Property Was Ever Deeded Back?

[Bikeemikey]

Over the last couple of weeks there have been a fair number of references to the United Order, as well as the usual back and forth about socialist vs. individualism as the root of the system.

As far as I can tell the United Order was the general system that was enacted a number of different times over the early church history, with the Law of Consecration being a specific implementation of the United Order under Joseph Smith.

Here is my first question: it is constantly asserted that property was formally deeded back to those that joined the United Order... are there historical deeds to this effect? Or are the references to deeded back simply referring to a "spiritual deeding" back of a stewardship over the property?

Membership in the United Order was voluntary, although during a period in the 1830s it was a requirement of continued church membership. Participants would deed (consecrate) all their property to the United Order, which would in turn deed back an "inheritance" (or "stewardship") which allowed members to control the property; private property was not eradicated but was rather a fundamental principle of this system.^[2] At the end of each year, any excess that the family produced from their stewardship was voluntarily given back to the Order. The Order in each community was operated by the local Bishop.

This is a quote from wikipedia... it uses the phrase deed back then refers to control over not ownership over the property received, then goes on to state private property as a fundamental principle of the system. Did those engaging in the United Order actually have formal legal ownership, or was it something else?

My second question: It appears that there was a period of time under Brigham Young where the United Order was practiced with out the deeding back of received property back to the participants. I do not know much about this period and was hoping someone would be able to share a little light on this period of the United Order and how it may possibly be understood through the "fundamental principle of the system" (private property).

Here is another quote from wikipedia about the period of United Order under Brigham Young.

It was not until 1874 that Young initiated the United Order of Enoch, beginning in St. George, Utah on February 9, 1874. There were a number of differences between the United Order of Enoch and United Order communities established years earlier by Joseph Smith. Under Young's leadership, producers would generally deed their property to the Order, and all members of the order would share the cooperative's net income, often divided into shares based on the amount of property originally contributed. Sometimes, the members of the Order would receive wages for their work on the communal property.

I would be interested in any actual historical records that have tracked the deeds relating to the property and whether the idea of private ownership was a formal legal private ownership as we would understand today, or something else.

Also any insight into how to interpret or understand the practice of the United Order under Brigham Young where land was deeded in but did not appear to be deeded back out?

Cheers.

[cinepro]

I'm pretty sure the phrase "United Order" only refers to the Utah experiments in communal living under Brigham Young in the 1870s.

Anyhow, I recommend this article for some of the history (and it discusses "deeding" in the system):

All Things Are the Lord's

[Bikeemikey]

I'm pretty sure the phrase "United Order" only refers to the Utah experiments in communal living under Brigham Young in the 1870s.

Anyhow, I recommend this article for some of the history (and it discusses "deeding" in the system):

All Things Are the Lord's

Thanks so much.

[Bikeemikey]

I'm pretty sure the phrase "United Order" only refers to the Utah experiments in communal living under Brigham Young in the 1870s.

Anyhow, I recommend this article for some of the history (and it discusses "deeding" in the system):

All Things Are the Lord's

After reading your link I must confess I am even more confused about the role of private property in the Law of Consecration. It appears that agency was clearly a central component of the Law. However, people were not legally deeded back their property. It appears they got a note from the Church that gave them rights to use the land unless they sinned, at which point the property was partially revoked? Any thoughts here? Is this just saying they would not have rights to the surplus but could keep their deeded property?

D&C 51: 3-5

http://www.lds.org/s.../dc/51?lang=eng

]

3 Wherefore, let my servant Edward Partridge, and those whom he has chosen, in whom I am well pleased, appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.

4 And let my servant Edward Partridge, when he shall appoint a man his portion, give unto him a writing that shall secure unto him his portion, that he shall hold it, even this right and this inheritance in the church, until he transgresses and is not accounted worthy by the voice of the church, according to the laws and covenants of the church, to belong to the church.

5 And if he shall transgress and is not accounted worthy to belong to the church, he shall not have power to claim that portion which he has consecrated unto the bishop for the poor and needy of my church; therefore, he shall not retain the gift, but shall only have claim on that portion that is deeded unto him.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[cinepro]

There's also this:

Early Mormonism closely identified Zion with an economic system called the law of consecration and stewardship. Under that system, each member consecrated or deeded all of his or her possessions to the bishop of the church by an irrevocable deed, then received back a limited estate in certain "steward" property (D&C 42:30-36). Basic theological principles lay behind this law: possessions belonged to [p.62] the Lord; and spiritual commitment required the individual to give priority to the Kingdom of God over materialistic desires. But implementing these ideals in a legally enforceable arrangement proved more problematic; the law would not accommodate Zion.

Leonard J. Arrington, Feramorz Y. Fox, and Dean L. May (1976) have carefully traced the evolution of the law of consecration and the various attempts to implement it. Several of their observations bear on this legal analysis. They stress the critical significance Joseph Smith gave to the law of consecration and stewardship in the realization of Zion:

It was to provide the model upon which all human society would be organized when the Savior returned to the latter-day Zion in Missouri. It would build unity among a people fragmented by their individualistic search for economic well-being. It would impose order upon the chaos of a society suffering from an excess of liberty. An ideal community of the Saints would be prepared to administer Christ's millennial reign ....Order, unity, and community were the supreme values of the Prophet's ideal society. (Arrington, Fox, and May 1976, 2-3)

The first effort to implement this law had been made by a group of converts who settled near Kirtland, Ohio, in May 1831. When dissatisfied wealthy members thwarted the effort by successfully suing in the civil courts for the return of their consecrated property, Smith directed the group to try again in Jackson County, Missouri, where they arrived in July 1831.

But legal problems reappeared in Missouri. Bishop Edward Partridge sought to make the "steward" interest tentative rather than vested. Each steward would be entitled to a right of use only, subject to cancellation by the bishop. A conditional title policy would have allowed the bishop to make future reapportionments of "steward" property if the number of newly arriving converts necessitated a reduction in the size of the "inheritance" awarded earlier stewards. It would also discourage the unfaithful member who might join the Saints solely to obtain an inheritance and then immediately withdraw. The policy would also strengthen the bishop's ability to enforce work standards, social behavior, and personal morality. Arrington, Fox, and May suggest that the conditional-title policy ensured that "the wealth of the community would never be lost to apostates, 'trouble-makers', or idlers." Of course, it also deprecated traditional notions of property rights. Not surprisingly, the "lease-and-loan" agreement initially adopted failed to hold up when "some apostates successfully sued in the courts for the return of their consecrated properties" (Arrington, Fox, and May, 23, 25).

[p.63] As a result, "church authorities finally came to agree that a steward should hold legal rights to 'the Lord's property' placed in his charge," a modification Orson Pratt characterized "as an unavoidable concession to the property laws of 'Babylon'" (Arrington, Fox, and May, 26, 434 n. 41). The early revelation on consecration in the Book of Commandments was modified to conform with the laws of the land (Arrington, Fox, and May, 433-34 n. 39). The "laws of Babylon" thus constrained the implementation of the law of consecration.

Zion in the Courts:

A Legal History of the Church of Jesus

Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830â??1900

Edwin Brown Firmage and Richard Collin Mangrum

University of Illinois Press,Urbana and Chicago

p.63

Edited July 9, 2013 by cinepro

[Bikeemikey]

There's also this:

That is really interesting. Thanks again for the quotes.

[volgadon]

The Arrington, Fox, and May book is superb.

[Bikeemikey]

The Arrington, Fox, and May book is superb.

Thanks, ill grab it on amazon tomorrow.