This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
“LDS Church leaders in the 20th century sought to make a clear distinction between Marxist communism and the law of consecration as practiced by the United Order, teaching that the practices differed as related to the topics of free will, private property, and deity… Nevertheless, communal unity and equality are central tenets of the Latter Day Saint doctrine of Zion as described in Moses 7:18, ‘And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.'”
Wikipedia
Social unity and economic equality were end-goals of consecration, yes. But skeptics incorrectly claim this makes the United Order as practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints comparable to Marxism. This is nonsense. Aren’t social unity and elimination of poverty things everybody wants? Aren’t these things end goals for most economic systems? For example, the World Bank and other multilateral institutions seek to “eliminate poverty by promoting economic development in countries and regions that are lagging behind the prosperous nations,” yet they do not promote Marxism or the replacement of Capitalism. We all have the same end goals: world peace, social unity, elimination of poverty–but our approach was totally different than the Marxist approach.
No Communal Unity – Defenders of the faith are very quick to emphasize private ownership as a tenant of the United Order. This is important because Marxism and Socialism rest on public ownership of all property. We never promoted public ownership of property in the church. Property was consecrated by members, and then the church distributed “inheritances” from that to be privately owned by individuals. Private ownership or “inheritance” is by definition opposite communal, where property is shared alike by all members. Wikipedia is false in their claim the United Order involved communal unity. It did not.
Communal Equality? – Communal equality is when “opportunities are available to associate with others, to take up everyday social relations, to develop a style of life, and to meet in public places.” Again, I don’t see how this is something unique to any single economic system. It sounds like this describes any system other than aristocracy. Don’t we live in a system right now in America where we freely associate with other? Isn’t freedom of association guaranteed by our Constitution? Yet we aren’t Marxists. We all believe in allowing opportunies… Well, unless by “to develop a style of life” you mean promote behavior that opposses gospel standards, such as breaking the law of chastity, in which case the church never sought that kind of communal equality.
Not Required To Give Everything
Antimormons incorrectly say people members were forced to give all of their property to the church, and then they had to rent their own property back from the church. This is something large cults do today, and it is reprehensible. That’s not what happened in the church. From very early on in 1831, Saints were commanded to give “of” their property–not “all” their property: “And behold, thou wilt remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken… every man shall be made accountable unto me, a steward over his own property, or that which he has received by consecration, as much as is sufficient for himself and family.” (D&C 42:30-32)
Those who consecrated property only gave to the church that which they didn’t keep and live on themselves. We might think this meant people didn’t give very much, but actually the early Saints consecrated most of what they had for the poor. From what I’ve seen, the problem that led to the United Order’s downfall actually was not that people gave too little. The problem was some members apostatized and then demanded back the residue of property that they had already consecrated to the church. The legal courts ruled that they were entitled to receive the property back, even if it had already been distributed to the poor. Apostates thus reneged on their consecration and kicked out Saints who had moved in and started living there. Leman Copley, for example, sued for his property back and was awarded not only the land but the buildings others had constructed on it. The other Saints were left destitute having sold their land to move there to be with the Saints and given everything to build those homes. This created a huge problem.
A later directive from Joseph Smith in 1833 sought legal clarification so that this couldn’t happen anymore: “The consecrated property is considered the residue kept for the Lord’s storehouse, and it is given for this consideration, for to purchase inheritances for the poor; this, any man has a right to do, agreeable to all laws of our country, to donate, give or consecrate all that he feels disposed to give… You are bound by the law of the Lord to give a deed, securing to him who receives inheritances, or in other words to be his individual property, his private stewardship, and if he is found a transgressor and should be cut off, out of the church, his inheritance is his still… But the property which he consecrated to the poor, for their benefit and inheritance and stewardship, he cannot obtain again by the law of the Lord.” (The Contributor, vol. 6)
This directive again makes it very clear that members were only expected to give “all that he feels disposed to give.” Marxism, of course, was never voluntary and never demanded only a partial amount.
All Wants & Needs – It is also important to point out that portions were distributed to a person “according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” This means that unlike Socialist systems the United Order recognized that every individual’s circumstance was different. Each person has different needs, and not only that, a person’s wants should be fulfilled as well.
Naturally, this left the United Order open to abuse, as people’s “wants and needs” tend to be a nice big mansion and shiny sports car. Indeed, John Whitmer remarked early on that some “thought to glut themselves upon the labors of others.” Selfishness was an ultimate undoing of the United Order–though we must understand it wasn’t the only reason it didn’t work out, and perhaps not even the main reason. In a system where you aren’t required to give everything yet you can receive whatever you think you need, how many people have the righteous character to settle on only what they truly need? The question of incentive shows how the United Order was fundamentally different from Marxist Communism.
Social Unity Through Fundamentally Different Paths
Distributive Justice – Marxism and the United Order experienced different problems. Glutting upon the labors of others doesn’t tend to be a problem in Marxist countries, as people labor under the crack of a whip and receive little economic distribution. Countries that do provide unmerited distribution seem to quickly fall into turmoil. Distribution in the United Order was unmerited as well, and therefore unincentivized, but it is important to remember that this distribution occured based on different motivations than under Marxism.
- Disenfranchisement – Under Marxism, the idea is that poverty exists because one person stole the wealth from another person. They considered the distribution of wealth “justice” for those who had the wealth taken away from them. The United Order does not believe this. The United Order simply considers it an act of charity from one person to consecrate that which they legitimately earned for the benefit of those who for whatever reason have less wealth.
- Class Warfare – Marxists treat distributive justice as a matter of social class. It isn’t individuals preying on the poor, but entire groups of people preying on other groups of people. The United Order does not treat people this way, but considers the shortcomings, circumstances, needs, and wants of people on an individual basis.
So the problem was not that people in the United Order were unincentivized, but that they failed to see the ultimate incentive in the distant future. The basis for a Capitalistic economy is that one person’s advantage is motive for them to trade goods and that variety of desires and assets allows for increase of overall wealth. A caveman who kills a large elephant gives some of the excess meat to a neighboring tribe with the promise that they will give some meat back later when he is running low in the future. This arrangement is looking ahead. If those in the United Order had looked ahead, they would have seen that giving their property to the hands of the poor would have ultimately benefited them in the future as the poor would have become wealthy more quickly and become a shared source for wealth. If the poor who received the distributed property had look ahead, they would have seen that industrious labor would have benefited them more than glutting off others. Simply, people did not look ahead for future incentives and did not have faith in others to look ahead.
As Marion G. Romney pointed out, it is much easier to look ahead if you focus on giving rather than receiving. Marxism is a system that focuses on what people can receive while the United Order focuses on what they give.
| See also: | Gospel Foundation Vs. Social Justice |
Commutative Justice – But again, my impression is that the biggest problem was actually apostates reneging on their agreement and taking back that which they had already given to the poor. This is what really screws up the system. People reneging on their donated property doesn’t tend to be a problem in Marxist countries, as it is impossible to get back what the government has taken. This illustrates the main difference between Marxism and the United Order: Socialism is compulsory and the United Order promotes free will. Church leaders have pointed out that this gets to the root of the difference between God’s plan and Satan’s plan which are diametrically opposed. Marxism relies solely on distributive justice. That’s why distribution is obligatory and why it is performed on a class rather than individual level. If one tribe has all the meat and the other clan has no meat, how could a member of that other clan possibly be well-fed? This is why Marxists think we need to compel distribution on a class level. But the United Order makes distribution secondary to commutative justice, which is a person’s personal and individual moral obligation to treat others the way they would like to be treated. In the scriptures we find all kinds of examples of people breaking from the limits of their class. Abraham diverged from the idolatry of his father and found God in a totally godless society. Lehi forsook his land and sailed to a promised land where his posterity thrived. Joseph Smith did not fall in line with churches that said the heavens were closed. It turns out the mansions of heaven are infinite and applied on an individual basis, not by class. Unfortunately, commutative justice has been completely erased from our literature and thinking, so it is a hard concept to grasp. It’s been literally torn out our dictionary, like a word that we are forbidden to speak, down the memory hole. Our dictionary definition of justice has changed between 1828 and now to completely erase commutative justice.
Distributive justice fails because you cannot perform exact reparation for injury through distribution or the social contract, no matter what the dictionary says. No amount of distribution will make up for human shortcomings, incentivize the lazy to labor, or heal social strife. Distribution does not heal injury. Commutative justice on a very basic level means you have a responsibility to be civil and do good to those around you beyond the expectation of receiving rewards for your communal sacrifice or being compelled to behave this way. That is the only real basis for civil society, like the priest at the beginning of Les Miserable who pursuades Jean Valjean to turn his life around with the gift of silver candlesticks. A charitable system of distribution based on commutative justice can bring incentive to both the wealthy and the poor. I believe this is what the United Order was aiming for. “And let every man deal honestly, and be alike among this people, and receive alike, that ye may be one, even as I have commanded you.” (D&C 51:9)
Honest dealing on a personal individual labor is described as the basis for the end-goal of the entire society being united. The United Order did not provide the kind of communal unity and equality that Wikipedia describes, but what the United Order did promote was social unity through individual charity. By making it a religious standard and organizing it through a theocratic structure, this virtue of charity was systemized to more effectively promote social health. It takes the model of individual repentance and uses the atonement of Jesus Christ to affect society as a whole.
So when I see the ridiculously simplistic and naive comparison of Marxism and the United Order, I have to wonder what role this misunderstanding plays in their apostasy from the church. Do they seriously think it is comparable? Just look at the two sides. Look at how Marxists act and how members of the church act. Look at the difference in their societies. Read a couple Marxist books and see if they compare. Does the Communist Manifesto sound like the scriptures? They don’t compare at all! Marxist literature is 90% fluff that sounds smart with big words but really is meaningless, and the other 10% is hate-driven compulsion of economic distribution.
If the gospel is like Marxism, then why do the same Antimormons who love Socialism act so opposed to it? I think this goes back to the problem if projection. Antimormons tend to project the consequences of their behavior and the negative results of their ideology onto us. So when they tell us our testimony is just based on mimetic repetition of what we hear other say, this is really what Antimormons practice. Likewise, when they tell us we believe in a law of consecration that provides no incentive for economic growth, this is really what Antimormons believe.
Exclusionary? – Skeptics seem to think both systems must be the same because they both address economic inequality. Famous atheist Sam Harris said the problem with Communism isn’t that it attacks religion but that it is too much like a religious cult. How is that? What, because they both seek to eliminate poverty and build social unity? I suppose it is because they both seek congruent ideological belief among the people, and diversity of belief is to be celebrated. Well, Brigham Young’s vision of theocracy celebrated diversity of religious belief, but I get the impression the United Order is meant for a homogeneous spiritual culture. The instructions are very clear that nonmembers are not to be part of it. I don’t see how it could operate based on commutative justice if there weren’t a congruency of spiritual faith. But I don’t see anything wrong with that. I would like to see Sam Harriss or any other skeptic demonstrate how a successful system that isn’t built on congruency of belief. How could people trade and socialize without any sort of common belief? Furthermore, when I look at skeptic and Antimormon forums, I see greater congruency of belief than anywhere else. Otherwise, why do so many people get expelled from their forums?
As we can see from the example of the apostates who ruined the United Order by reneging on their donations and screwing over poor immigrants, people who drop out of the spiritual order to not retain the personal virtues that are necessary to keep the system running. Why didn’t Leman Copley charitably allow the poor immigrants to stay on the land even though he no longer believed the same things they did? Why did his charity for the poor immigrants end the moment he left the church? There are plenty of atheists and skeptics today who practice charity and commutative justice, but it seems like there needs to at least be a theocratic structure in place for this to become the basis for a social structure. This reneging brought the whole thing down, time and time again, and that is why it is so important that a clash of spiritual beliefs not sow discord.
See Also: Socialism and the United Order Compared