United Order/law Of Consecration

[BCSpace]

 

I think you're going to see people still doing their own thing with Christ stepping in from time to time if there is a problem.  One will certainly see people living the LoC but as we know, it is one's choice to enter into it.  Because people have misinterpreted the scriptures as christian communalism as LDS doctrine states, I think it likely the LoC under Christ will be one of the few places free market capitalism will be in operation.

 

That may seem true to those who know nothing of the history of Zion's Cooperative Mercantile Institution (ca. 1868-1869), and know only a modern capitalist ZCMI.  One of the reasons why several of the Brethren (including Oliver Cowdery) apostatized from the Church was that they thought that Joseph's economic ideas (Consecration & Stewardship) to be impractical.  According to non-Mormon scholar Kenneth Rexroth, the Mormons had made practical the communal movements of the 1840s, i.e., a low-pressure, small-scale utopian socialist movement which actually worked!!  -- Rexroth, Communalism: From Its Origins to the Twentieth Century (1974), in which he gauged the true nature of old-style Mormonism.  Moreover, similar conclusions were reached by Ephraim E. Ericksen, Psychological and Ethical Aspects of Mormon Group Life (1922/1975), and by Arthur Maass & Raymond L. Anderson in their 1978 MIT Press study . . . and the Desert Shall Rejoice: Conflict, Growth and Justice in Arid Environments; Leonard J. Arrington, Feramorz Y. Fox, and Dean L. May, Building the City of God: Community and Cooperation Among the Mormons (1976/1992).

 

As the late Eugene England pointed out long ago in a book review, “the divine economic order is not democratic capitalism, but theocratic socialism,” and he observed that today’s capitalistic Mormons were in the 19th century “dangerously anticapitalistic utopians.”  -- England in Sunstone Review, II/10 (Oct 1982), 1,25-27; quotes on 27 & 26, respectively; cf. R. L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (2005), 105, 154-155.

 

 

 

I disagree, having quite a bit of knowledge of the particulars myself.  I think the modern prophets and apostles, having the advantage of hindsight with their inspiration, understood why many of those ventures failed as they expanded beyond their doctrinal jurisdictions and rightly interpret it as a way to help the poor that relies instead on a tried and true economic system that matches the plan of salvation.  I think I'd rather put my faith in those who are responsible for actually teaching the doctrine rather than outside observers who had no idea what the context or the principles involved were.

 

Consider the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith himself, someone who certainly ought to know, having restored the doctrine:

 

The Prophet rejected communalism. When he arrived in Kirtland in 1831, he found some of the Saints organized into a communal society called “the family.” He soon had them abandon that for the “more perfect law of the Lord.” (History of the Church, 1:146–47) When asked later, “Do Mormons believe in having all things in common?” he answered no. (History of the Church, 3:28) In Nauvoo, he recorded this entry in his journal: “I preached on the stand about one hour on the 2nd chapter of Acts, designing to show the folly of common stock [holding property in common]. In Nauvoo, everyone is steward over his own.” (History of the Church, 6:37–38)    
 

Ensign, Jan. 1979, To Prepare a People, William O. Nelson

 

The Church has also said:
 

 

The united order should not be confused with various “united orders” that were practiced in Utah. President J. Reuben Clark observed, “In practice the brethren in Missouri got away, in their attempts to set up the United Order, from the principles set out in the revelations. This is also true of the organizations set up … in Utah after the Saints came to the valleys.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1942, p. 55)

 

[mercyngrace]

So Joseph preached on the folly of Acts 2 and 4 Nephi 1:3?

[janderich]

J. Ruben Clark clarified how the United Order functioned by explaining two key principles: equality and private ownership of property (http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles/the-united-order-vs-communism/.

 

Equality

While equality is mentioned many times in the scriptures it is defined as: "every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs" (D&C 51:3). J. Ruben Clark says, "Obviously, this is not a case of 'dead level' equality. It is equality that will vary as much as the man's circumstances his family his wants and needs may vary" (CR 1942).

 

Private Ownership of Property

Under the united order a man was to deed all his property to the church. He then was deeded back a portion (perhaps the same portion, perhaps larger, or smaller). This portion was his property. He was to be the steward of this property and even if he left the church he was to keep the portion deeded to him (D&C 83:3). Nowhere in the revelations does it indicated that a man could not sell, rent, or otherwise do as he would with the portion of the property given him, it was his.

 

If J. Ruben Clark is correct, I believe the UO becomes a very different system from communalism or communism.

[Vance]

So Joseph preached on the folly of Acts 2 and 4 Nephi 1:3?

Nah,  he preached on the folly of MISINTERPRETING/MISUNDERSTANDING Acts 2 and 4 Nephi 1:3.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Vance

[Darren10]

Nah,  he preached on the folly of MISINTERPRETING/MISUNDERSTANDING Acts 2 and 4 Nephi 1:3.

 

That's my understanding too, Vance. When asked if Mormons had all things in common in the modern sense of it, Joseph Smith could rightfully say no. He could als orightfully correct the world's understanding of Acts 2 and 4 Nephi 1.

[Darren10]

When I taught the Law of Concentration and United Order as practiced in the states before the Mormon exodus westward in Gospel Doctrine class, I came out with a distinct impression that these laws were directly related to the LDS temple and its covenants. These laws were not about "helping the poor" or giving everything away to the Church or anything else but it was about glorifying God and the Lamb by entering into covenant with them and from there people went out to help the poor and render all they have to the Church. Without the temple and its covenants, the Law of Concentration ad united Order would be merely worldy forms of wealth distribution which historically have been disastrous. With the temple covenants the se laws served as a means to guide all covenant recipients to fulfill their covenants with God.  

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

When I taught the Law of Concentration and United Order as practiced in the states before the Mormon exodus westward in Gospel Doctrine class, I came out with a distinct impression that these laws were directly related to the LDS temple and its covenants. These laws were not about "helping the poor" or giving everything away to the Church or anything else but it was about glorifying God and the Lamb by entering into covenant with them and from there people went out to help the poor and render all they have to the Church. Without the temple and its covenants, the Law of Concentration ad united Order would be merely worldy forms of wealth distribution which historically have been disastrous. With the temple covenants the se laws served as a means to guide all covenant recipients to fulfill their covenants with God.  

That is exactly what it is. It is not some program were we give everything to the government and then they dole it out.

 

I was thinking about this this morning. I and I was thinking about a recent program in the US that was enacted this year. And requires under law that you do certain things or face a penalty. In essence it is socialism. And that is in part why socialism and communism fail. Is because if forces under law that you do things not of your own will. You are compeled to do something because if you don't you will face a fine or go to jail. I mean after all that is God's law right?

 

Now I agree with BCSpace that free market capitalism is the only system that allows people to fully chose what they want to do. And in that I agree that this system with some modifcations of some sorts is more than likely what we will see in the future. We are not all going to be compelled to become Mormons because if we don't we will go to jail.

[thesometimesaint]

Without the ability to redistribute money there is little point to any form of government, or government itself.

[Kenngo1969]

That is exactly what it is. It is not some program were we give everything to the government and then they dole it out.

 

I was thinking about this this morning. I and I was thinking about a recent program in the US that was enacted this year. And requires under law that you do certain things or face a penalty. In essence it is socialism. And that is in part why socialism and communism fail. Is because if forces under law that you do things not of your own will. You are compeled to do something because if you don't you will face a fine or go to jail. I mean after all that is God's law right?...

I have as many problems with the law to which you make a veiled reference, above, as anyone.  However, the nature of law in general is that it "forces" people to do (or to not do) things which they, of themselves, might not choose to do (or to refrain from doing).  Or, at least, it says that if one fails to do something a law prescribes, or if one does something a law proscribes, these are the consequences.  However, if you're implying that the law in question abridges personal freedoms and/or allows government intrusion in a way or to an extent that no law before it has, I agree with that.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[volgadon]

In essence it is socialism.

 

 

Socialism =/= coercion any more than capitalism = coercion.

[BCSpace]

Socialism =/= coercion any more than capitalism = coercion.

 

Incorrect.  Socialism requires government control and regulation to function and since Socialism has it's hands in virtually all aspects of an economy, controlling price and production etc., it is essentially a tyranny.  

On the other hand, Free Market Capitalism values self-determination and the free use one's private property which is why it is a perfect temporal match for the plan of salvation.  Like the plan of salvation, it is a completely neutral system, any good or evil resulting comes only from the individual, very unlike Socialism which promotes unrighteous dominion.