The following is an introduction to the series of notes on socialism.
This series began as an investigation into the roots of modern socialism. Many trace its “origins in the French Revolution of 1789 and the changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution.”1 In fact, the term “socialism” is often “attributed to Pierre Leroux in 1834, who called socialism ‘the doctrine which would not give up any of the principles of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity of the French Revolution of 1789.’”2
The Law of Consecration and Socialism Compared
From a religious perspective, socialism is of interest to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because it bears some similarities with various attempts by the Church to implement the “law of consecration”. For example,
The Lord revealed several purposes for the law of consecration: to bring the Church to stand independent of all other institutions (D&C 78:14); to strengthen Zion, adorning her in beautiful garments, as a bride prepared and worthy of the bridegroom (D&C 33:17; 58:11; 65:3; 82:14, 18; etc.); and to prepare the Saints for a place in the Celestial Kingdom (D&C 78:7).
Commenting on this subject, President John Taylor stated that consecration is a celestial law and, when observed, its adherents become a celestial people (JD 17:177-81). Thus, men and women today can become like as those of Enoch’s day, “of one heart and one mind,…with no poor among them” (Moses 7:18). Orson Pratt, an early apostle, observed that if the Lord’s people aspire to the Celestial Kingdom, they must begin to learn the order of life that is there (JD 2:102-103).3
Since Zion designates both a place of gathering4 and an ideal society where “the pure in heart” live in harmony5, it bears many resemblances to utopian societies – real and imagined – of the past.6
Continuing, John A. Widtsoe, an apostle, explained how the law of consecration was implemented in the early Church:
Those who joined such an order were to place all their possessions in a common treasury – the rich their wealth, the poor their pittance. Then each member was to receive a sufficient portion – called an “inheritance” – from the common treasury to enable that person to continue in trade, business, or profession as desired. The farmer would receive land and implements; the tradesman, tools and materials; the merchant, necessary capital; the professional person, instruments, books, and the like. Members working for others would receive proportionate interests in the enterprises they served. No one would be without property. All would have an inheritance. (Widtsoe, pp. 302-303).7
Some have confused these attempts by the Church to implement the law of consecration with socio-economic systems such as socialism and communism. In this regard, Ezra Taft Benson warned:
“Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom” (D&C 105:5). Much has been written about this law and its attempted implementation in the early history of the Church; and much deception has taken root, even among some of our members, because of misinformed opinion or misguided interpretations. Some view it as merely an economic alternative to capitalism or the free enterprise system, others as an outgrowth of early communal experiments in America. Such a view is not only shortsighted but tends to diminish in importance a binding requirement for entrance into the celestial kingdom. The law of consecration is a celestial law, not an economic experiment.8
Though there are a number of similarities between these two systems, there are many important – and subtle differences. These were outlined in a talk by Marion G. Romney in 1966. After reviewing the major socialist factions, he noted:
The differences in forms and policies of socialism occur principally in the manner in which they seek to implement their theories.
They all advocate:
(1) That private ownership of the vital means of production be abolished and that all such property “pass under some form of coordinated public control.”
(2) That the power of the state be used to achieve their aims.
(3) “That with a change in the control of industry will go a change in the motives which operate in the industrial system. . . .” (Ibid.)9
Then, after reviewing the principles of the United Order he noted the similarities and differences between the two systems:
Comparisons and Contrasts
Similarities
The following are similarities: Both
(1) deal with production and distribution of goods;
(2) aim to promote the well-being of men by eliminating their economic inequalities;
(3) envision the elimination of the selfish motives in our private capitalistic industrial system.
Differences
Now the differences:
(1) The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God and acceptance of him as Lord of the earth and the author of the United Order.
Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness.
(2) The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God.
One time the Prophet Joseph Smith asked a question by the brethren about the inventories they were taking. His answer was to the effect, “You don’t need to be concerned about the inventories. Unless a man is willing to consecrate everything he has, he doesn’t come into the United Order.” (Documentary History of the Church, Vol. 7, pp. 412-13.) On the other hand, socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.
(3) In harmony with church belief, as set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants, “that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property” (D&C 134:2), the United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management.
God-given Agency Preserved in United Order
Thus in both implementation and ownership and management of property, the United Order preserves to men their God-given agency, while socialism deprives them of it.
(4) The United Order is non-political.
Socialism is political, both in theory and practice. It is thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption that plagues and finally destroys all political governments that undertake to abridge man’s agency.
(5) A righteous people is a prerequisite to the United Order.
Socialism argues that it as a system will eliminate the evils of the profit motive.
The United Order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as “the pure love of Christ.” (Moro. 7:47.)10
As a result of these key differences, Church authorities often warned of the effects of “creeping socialism”11 and predicted that if American citizens were not vigilant, “we will have a change of government.”12
With that background, what follows is a series of posts on modern socialism which includes the French utopian socialist Saint-Simon’s report that his dead ancestor visited him in a dream and told Saint-Simon that he was destined for greatness; an account of a visit by one of the followers of Robert Owens with Joseph Smith; statements by modern socialist philosophers and thinkers; interesting parallels concerning Joseph of Egypt; a discussion on the problem of “private property” and the redistribution of wealth; and a review of ancient and recent attempts to make pervasive socialized medicine, or what is euphemistically called today health care reform.
Notes and Sources:
Note: Although the Church operates in a number of socialist countries13, its “mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ . . . [and] is neutral in matters of party politics. This applies in all of the many nations in which it is established.”14
- “History of Socialism”. Wikipedia. 9 Jan 2009.
- “Socialism”. Wikipedia. 9 Jan 2009.
- Hirschi, Frank W. “Law of Consecration”. 1992. Encyclopedia of Mormonism. 9 Jan 2009.
- See the post the Redemption of Zion.
- Sorensen, A. Don. “Zion”. 1992. Encyclopedia of Mormonism. 9 Jan 2009.
- Nibley, Hugh W. “The Utopians.” Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. 9 Jan 2009.
- Ibid. As one example, see the post Wilford Woodruff and the Law of Consecration. For additional information see Israelsen, L. Dwight. “United Orders”. 1992. Encyclopedia of Mormonism. 9 Jan 2009.
- Benson, Ezra Taft. ”A Vision and a Hope for the Youth of Zion”. 12 Apr 1977. BYU Speeches. 9 Jan 2009.
- Romney, Marion G. “Is Socialism the United Order?”. April 1966. LDS Conservative. 9 Jan 2009.
- Ibid.
- For example, see “The Welfare State – Creeping Socialism”. Inspired Constitution. 9 Jan 2009.
- Smith, Joseph Fielding. “The Constitution – A Glorious Standard”. April 1950. Inspired Constitution. 9 Jan 2009. See also the post on the United States Constitution.
- As just one example, the Church has approximately 144,000 members, 4 missions and 1 temple in Venezuela which has historically had a Federal Republic type of government. However, as noted in a 10 Jan 2007 USA Today story, President Hugo Chavez promises a socialist Venezuela as he starts new 6 year term.
- “LDS Political Neutrality”. LDS Newsroom. 9 Jan 2009.
Related posts
Continue reading at the original source →