Socialism and the United Order
Elder Marion G. Romney of the Council of the Twelve Apostles
The One Hundred and Thirty-sixth Annual Conference
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint
Saturday Evening Session, General Priesthood
Session
April 9, 1966
As found in the report of discourses for this conference pp. 95 - 101
https://ia600604.us.archive.org/31/items/conferencereport1966a/conferencereport1966a.pdf, viewed 12/172021
I suppose the best way to start a comparison of socialism
and the United Order is with a definition of the terms. Webster defines
socialism as:
Socialism defined
"A political and economic theory of social organization based on collective or governmental ownership and democratic management of the essential means for the production and distribution of goods; also, a policy or practice based on this theory."
(Webster's New International Dictionary, 2nd ed.
unabridged, 1951.)
George
Bernard Shaw, the noted Fabian Socialist, said that:
"Socialism, reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression, means the complete discarding of the institution of private property by transforming it into public property and the division of the resultant income equally and indiscriminately among the entire population."
(Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vol. 20, p.
895.)
George
Douglas Howard Cole, M.A. noted author and university reader in economics at Oxford,
who treats socialism for the Encyclopedia Britannica, says that because of the
shifting sense in which the word has been used, "a short and comprehensive
definition is impossible. We can only say," he concludes, "that
Socialism is essentially a doctrine and a movement aiming at the collective
organization of the community in the interest of the mass of the people by
means of the common ownership and collective control of the means of production
and exchange." (Ibid., p. 888.)
Socialism
arose "out of the economic division in society." During the
nineteenth century its growth was accelerated as a protest against "the
appalling conditions prevailing in the workshops and factories and the
unchristian spirit of the spreading industrial system."
Communism, starting point
The
"Communist Manifesto" drafted by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels for
the Communist League in 1848 is generally regarded as the starting point of
modern socialism. (Ibid., p. 890.)
The
distinction between socialism, as represented by the various Socialist and
Labour parties of Europe and the New World, and Communism, as represented by
the Russians, is one of tactics and strategy rather than of objective. Communism
is indeed only socialism pursued by revolutionary means and making its
revolutionary method a canon of faith. Communists like other socialists, (1)
believe in the collective control and ownership of the vital means of production
and (2) seek to achieve through state action the coordinated control of the
economic forces of society. They (the Communists) differ from other socialists
in believing that this control can be secured, and its use in the interests of
the workers ensured, only by revolutionary action leading to the dictatorship of
the proletariat and the creation of a new proletarian state as the instrument
of change. (Ibid.)
German Socialism
A major rift
between so-called orthodox socialism and communist socialism occurred in 1875 when
the German Social Democratic party set forth its objective of winning
power by taking over control of the bourgeois state, rather than by
overthrowing it. In effect, the German Social Democratic party became a
parliamentary party, aiming at the assumption of political power by constitutional
means.
Fabian Society
In the 1880's
a small group of intellectuals set up in England the Fabian Society, which has
had a major influence on the development of modern orthodox socialism.
Fabianism stands "for the evolutionary conception of socialism . . .
endeavoring by progressive reforms and the nationalization of industries, to
turn the existing state into a `welfare state.'" Somewhat on the order of
the German Social Democrats Fabians aim "at permeating the existing
parties with socialistic ideas [rather] than at creating a definitely
socialistic party." They appeal "to the electorate not as
revolutionaries but as constitutional reformers seeking a peaceful
transformation of the system." (Ibid.)
Forms and policies of socialism
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.)
So much now
for the definition of socialism. I have given you these statements in the words
of socialists and scholars, not my words, so they have had their hearing.
The United Order
Now as to the
United Order, and here I will give the words of the Lord and not my words. The United
Order the Lord's program for eliminating the inequalities among men, is based
upon the underlying concept that the earth and all things therein belong to the
Lord and that men hold earthly possessions as stewards accountable to God.
On January 2,
1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith that the Church was under obligation
to care for the poor. (See D&C 38.) Later he said:
"I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, . . .and all things therein are mine. "And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine. "But it must needs be done in mine own way. . . ." (D&C 104:14-16.)
Consecration and stewardship
On February
9, 1831, the Lord revealed to the Prophet what his way was. (See D&C 42.)
In his way there were two cardinal principles: (1) consecration and (2)
stewardship.
To enter the
United Order, when it was being tried, one consecrated all his possessions to
the Church by a "covenant and a deed which" could not "be
broken." (D&C 42:30.) That is, he completely divested himself of all
of his property by conveying it to the Church.
Having thus
voluntarily divested himself of title to all his property, the consecrator
received from the Church a stewardship by a like conveyance. This stewardship
could be more or less than his original consecration, the object being to make
"every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances
and his wants and needs." (D&C 51:3.)
This
procedure preserved in every man the right to private ownership and management
of his property. At his own option he could alienate it or keep and operate it
and pass it on to his heirs.
The intent
was, however, for him to so operate his property as to produce a living for
himself and his dependents. So long as he remained in the order, he consecrated
to the Church the surplus he produced above the needs and wants of his family.
This surplus went into a storehouse from which stewardships were given to
others and from which the needs of the poor were supplied.
These divine
principles are very simple and easily understood. A comparison of them with the
underlying principles of socialism reveal similarities and basic differences.
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.)
Socialism not United Order
No, brethren,
socialism is not the United Order. However, notwithstanding my abhorrence of
it, I am persuaded that socialism is the wave of the present and of the
foreseeable future. It has already taken over or is contending for control in
most nations.
"At the end of the year [1964] parties affiliated with the [Socialist] International were in control of the governments of Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Israel, and the Malagasy Republic. They had representatives in coalition cabinets in Austria, Belgium, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, and Switzerland, constituted the chief opposition in France, India, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand and West Germany; and were significant political forces in numerous other countries. Many parties dominant in governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America announced that their aim was a socialist society." (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1965 Book of the Year, p. 736.)
United States has adopted much socialism
We here in
the United States, in converting our government into a social welfare state,
have ourselves adopted much of socialism. Specifically, we have to an alarming
degree adopted the use of the power of the state in the control and
distribution of the fruits of industry. We are on notice according to the words
of the President, that we are going much further, for he is quoted as saying:
"We're going to take all the money we think is unnecessarily being spent and take it from the `haves' and give it to the `have nots.'" (1964 Congressional Record, p. 6142, Remarks of the President to a Group of Leaders of Organizations of Senior Citizens in the Fish Room, March 24, 1964.)
Socialism takes: United Order gives
That is the
spirit of socialism: We're going to take. The spirit of the United Order is:
We're going to give.
We have also
gone a long way on the road to public ownership and management of the vital means
of production. In both of these areas the free agency of Americans has been
greatly abridged. Some argue that we have voluntarily surrendered this power to
government. Be this as it may, the fact remains that the loss of freedom with
the consent of the enslaved, or even at their request, is nonetheless slavery.
As to the
fruits of socialism,
we all have our own opinions. I myself have watched its growth in our own
country and observed it in operation in many other lands. But I have yet to see
or hear of its freeing the hearts of men of selfishness and greed or of its
bringing peace, plenty, or freedom. These things it will never bring, nor will
it do away with idleness and promote "industry, thrift and
self-respect," for it is founded, in theory and in practice, on force, the
principle of the evil one.
As to the
fruits of the United Order I suggest you read Moses 7:16-18 and 4 Nephi 2-3, 15-16. If we had time
we could review the history, what little we know, of Zion in the days of Enoch and
about what happened among the Nephites under those principles of the United
Order in the first two centuries following the time of the Savior.
What can we do?
Now what can
we do about it?
As I recently
reminded my wife of the moratorium on the United Order, which the Lord placed in
1834 (D&C 105:34), that socialism is taking over in the nations and that
its expressed aims will surely fail, she spiritedly put to me the question:
"Well, then, what would you suggest, that we just sit on our hands in
despair and do nothing?" Perhaps similar questions have occurred to you. The
answer is, "No, by no means!" We have much to do, and fortunately for
us the Lord has definitely prescribed the course we should follow with respect
to socialism and the United Order.
Constitution God-inspired
He has told
us that in preparation for the restoration of the gospel, he himself
established the Constitution of the United States, and he has plainly told us
why he established it. I hope I can get this point over to you. He said he
established the Constitution to preserve to men their free agency, because the
whole gospel of Jesus Christ presupposes man's untrammeled exercise of free
agency. Man is in the earth to be tested. The issue as to whether he succeeds or
fails will be determined by how he uses his agency. His whole future, through
all eternity, is at stake. Abridge man's agency, and the whole purpose of his
mortality is thwarted. Without it, the Lord says, there is no existence. (See
D&C 93:30.) The Lord so valued our agency that he designed and dictated
"the laws and constitution" required to guarantee it. This he
explained in the revelation in which he instructed the Prophet Joseph Smith to
appeal for help,
Just and holy principles
"According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
"That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
"And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose. . . ." (D&C 101:77-78, 80.)
Sustain Constitutional law
Previously he
had said:
"And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
"And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind and is justifiable before me.
"Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land [the test of its constitutionality in the words of the Lord here is whether it preserves man's agency];
"And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this cometh of evil.
"I, the Lord God, make you free therefore ye are free indeed; and the law [that is, constitutional law] also maketh you free.
"Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.
"Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil." (D&C 98:4-10.)
These
scriptures declare the Constitution to be a divine document. They tell us that "according
to just and holy principles," the Constitution and the law of the land
which supports the "principle of freedom in maintaining rights and
privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before" God; that,
"as pertaining to [the] law of man whatsoever is more or less than this,
cometh of evil." They remind us that the Lord has made us free and that
laws that are constitutional will also make us free.
"When the wicked rule, the people mourn"
Right at this
point, almost as if he were warning us against what is happening today, the
Lord said: "Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn."
Then, that we might know with certainty what we should do about it, he
concluded: "Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for
diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold. . . ."
In its context this instruction, according to my interpretation, can only mean that we should seek diligently for and support men to represent us in government who are "wise" enough to understand freedom—as provided for in the Constitution and as implemented in the United Order—and who are honest enough and good enough to fight to preserve it.
". . . under no other government in the world could the Church have been established," said President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., and he continued:
". . . if we are to live as a Church, and progress, and have the right to worship as we are worshipping here today, we must have the great guarantees that are set up by our Constitution. There is no other way in which we can secure these guarantees." (Conference Report, October 1942, pp. 58-59.)
Now, not
forgetting our duty to eschew socialism and support the just and holy
principles of the Constitution, as directed by the Lord, I shall conclude these
remarks with a few comments concerning what we should do about the United
Order.
What to do about United Order
The final
words of the Lord in suspending the order were: "And let those
commandments which I have given concerning Zion and her law be executed and
fulfilled, after her redemption." (D&C 105:34.)
Further
implementation of the order must therefore await the redemption of Zion. Here
Zion means Jackson County, Missouri. When Zion is redeemed, as it most
certainly shall be, it will be redeemed under a government and by a people
strictly observing those "just and holy principles" of the
Constitution that accord to men their God-given moral agency, including the
right to private property. If, in the meantime, socialism takes over in
America, it will have to be displaced, if need be, by the power of God, because
the United Order can never function under socialism or "the welfare
state," for the good and sufficient reason that the principles upon which
socialism and the United Order are conceived and operated are inimical.
In the
meantime, while we await the redemption of Zion and the earth and the
establishment of the United Order, we as bearers of the priesthood should live
strictly by the principles of the United Order insofar as they are embodied in
present church practices, such as the fast offering, tithing, and the welfare
activities. Through these practices we could as individuals, if we were of a
mind to do so, implement in our own lives all the basic principles of the
United Order.
As you will
recall, the principles underlying the United Order are consecration and stewardships
and then the contribution of surpluses into the bishop's storehouse. When the
law of tithing was instituted four years after the United Order experiment was
suspended, the Lord required the people to put "all their surplus property
. . . into the hands of the bishop" (D&C 119:1); thereafter they were
to "pay one-tenth of all their interest annually. . . ." (D&C
119:4.) This law, still in force, implements to a degree at least the United
Order principle of stewardships, for it leaves in the hands of each person the
ownership and management of the property from which he produces the needs of
himself and family. Furthermore to use again the words of President Clark:
". . . in lieu of residues and surpluses which were accumulated and built up under the United Order, we, today, have our fast offerings, our Welfare donations, and our tithing all of which may be devoted to the care of the poor, as well as for the carrying on of the activities and business of the Church."
What
prohibits us from giving as much in fast offerings as we would have given in
surpluses under the United Order? Nothing but our own limitations.
Furthermore,
we had under the United Order a bishop's storehouse in which were collected the
materials from which to supply the needs and the wants of the poor. We have a
bishop's storehouse under the Welfare Plan, used for the same purpose. . . . "We
have now under the Welfare Plan all over the Church, . . . land projects . . .
farmed for the benefit of the poor. . . .
"Thus . . . in many of its great essentials, we have, [in] the Welfare Plan . . . the broad essentials of the United Order. Furthermore, having in mind the assistance which is being given from time to time . . . to help set people up in business or in farming, we have a plan which is not essentially unlike that which was in the United Order when the poor were given portions from the common fund."
It is thus
apparent that when the principles of tithing and the fast are properly observed
and the Welfare Plan gets fully developed and wholly into operation, "we
shall not be so very far from carrying out the great fundamentals of the United
Order." (Conference Report, October 1942, pp. 51-58.)
The only
limitation on you and me is within ourselves.
A Prayer:
And now in
line with these remarks for three things I pray:
(1)
That
the Lord will somehow quicken our understanding of the differences between socialism
and the United Order and give us a vivid awareness of the awful portent of
those differences.
(2)
That
we will develop the understanding, the desire, and the courage born of the
Spirit, to eschew socialism and to support and sustain, in the manner revealed
and as interpreted by the Lord, those just and holy principles embodied in the
Constitution of the United States for the protection of all flesh, in the
exercise of their God-given agency.
(3)
That
through faithful observance of the principles of tithing, the fast, and the
welfare program, we will prepare ourselves to redeem Zion and ultimately live
the United Order, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Follow Tom on Twitter: @ThomasKSheppard
Tom Sheppard is a business consultant and coach to small business owners and individuals. He is a recognized author with dozens of titles in business and fiction to his credit. One of his endeavors is to help those who want to see their own book in print. He does this through his trademarked Book Whispering Process (TM).
The author is not an official spokesperson for any organization or person mentioned herein.
(c) Copyright 2020 A+ Results LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Your comments are welcome... Please observe some ground rules. No profanity, vulgarity, or personal attacks. Profanity, vulgarity and personal attacks not only betray a lack of vocabulary and imagination, they also are the hallmarks of bigotry, and bigotry is the hallmark of someone who is fundamentally insecure in their views. Facts are always welcome.
If you believe Government is NOT the answer to all our problems, you will want to read
Godvernment: Government as God
Godvernment: Government as God
