Socialism is Not the United Order

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

 What I am going to give you now is a statement I have prepared in answer to the question, "Is Socialism the United Order?" Some of you may have already heard it. This is the first time I have ever attempted to give a talk a second time. My excuse is that the Brethren have asked me to give this talk here tonight.

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.

----- END ----

The editor previously published a blog post directly related to this topic title Socialism is Anti-Christian

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/
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

Socialism is Anti-Christian

Detail from Image (c) Igor Golovniov and Depositphotos.com

                              This article is an excerpt from Godvernment: Government as God 

This article is related directly to another post titled: Socialism is Not the United Order

Tom Sheppard

9/4/2020

Christian Socialist is an Oxymoron

Some of you may not know what the word oxymoron means, so let me start with that.

Dictionary.com gives this definition of an oxymoron:

A figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”

I will also offer my own definition of Christian here:

A Christian is someone who believes that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Messiah, the Only Begotten Son of God after the flesh, and who is attempting to follow the teachings of Christ as they are found in the scriptures.

Dictionary.com, when using Christian as a noun (as I am here), says that a Christian is:

A person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity. A person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ

When most of us think of the term Christian, we think of someone who cares about the plight of their fellowman.  The story of The Good Samaritan comes quickly to mind. Many people get so immersed in the notion that all Christianity is about doing good to others.  Because of that, they assume that anything that says it is doing good to others is automatically aligned with Christian principles and that anyone who purports to be a "good Christian" will be on board.

Socialism presents a wonderful face of being about helping the downtrodden.  Because of that, many Christians think Socialism is aligned with Christian ideals.  The truth is that Socialism is actually at a polar opposite position of goodness from Christianity.

You don't think so?  Read on, if you dare.  Facts, as they say, are stubborn things.  The facts do not at all support the notion of the goodness of Socialism, in any way. 

We should define socialism.  Again, Dictionary.com is helpful:

1.       a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole

2.       procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3.       (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

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."

(George Bernard Shaw as cited in Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed., Vol. 20, p. 895.)

        In short, socialism drives toward the ultimate end of private ownership of anything and everything.  In practice, it is characterized by using the coercive powers of government to take resources from those who are producing them and redistribute those resources to those who merely consume them.  This coercive redistribution is called taxes.  It is coercive because, if you don't pay your taxes, the government can take your money, your business, your home, and even your freedom.

Don't get me wrong—this isn't an anti-taxation rant, nor am I advocating that we shouldn’t pay our taxes.  I am simply making the point unmistakably clear that taxation is not a voluntary program.  It is the use of force, or threat of force to take what one person owns and give it to someone else.  Interestingly, that coincides with the definition of robbery:

"The felonious taking of the property of another from his or her person or in his or her immediate presence, against his or her will, by violence or intimidation."

The only difference between taxation and robbery is that taxation is the legalized "taking of the property of another ... by violence or intimidation."  You don't think so?  What do you feel when you open your mail and find out that the IRS is auditing you?  I am guessing you feel some fear and intimidation.

Now that we understand the meaning of the words in my title, we can fully understand what I mean to say by stating that "Christian Socialist Is an Oxymoron."  I am saying that you cannot genuinely and totally believe in Jesus Christ AND try to follow his teachings AND embrace the political and economic tenets of socialism.

Please note, I am being very exact in my words here.  When I say you "totally believe in Jesus Christ," it means that you don't pick and choose what to believe from among the things he teaches.  You either believe everything he said, or you believe none of it, because either he was the son of God, or he was a liar.

I believe totally in Jesus Christ, AND I do my best to follow his teachings.  I am nowhere near perfect in this effort, as those closest to me can attest, but I am trying.

I know that there are many folks who will disagree with my bold statement that socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable foes, but it is true.

First, let me give you some of the ammunition that those who disagree will use.  Then, I will show you how they are really firing blanks.

The New Testament and Socialism

In the New Testament, the second chapter of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles appears to describe how the adherents of early Christianity were embracing a form of socialism.

"And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."

Acts 2:44,45

And again in Chapter 4, we read:

"And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

Acts 4:32-35

And from the Book of Mormon, we get this about the Christians who were living in ancient America.  After the resurrected Jesus appeared to them, let them feel the wounds in his hands and feet, and taught them, it appears that they embraced socialism:

"And they taught, and did minister one to another; and they had all things common among them, every man dealing justly, one with another.

And it came to pass that they did do all things even as Jesus had commanded them."

3 Nephi 26:19,20

And this:

"And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another.

And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift."

4 Nephi 1:2,3

      In our own times, sometime in 1838 (note that the Communist Manifesto was written in 1848), Joseph Smith, Jr., the first president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, introduced to the Saints something called "The United Order."

For brevity, I will summarize here what happened in The United Order.  Members of the church who desired to enter this order handed over all their worldly goods to their bishop (their religious leader).  The bishop then put these into a “storehouse” to be used by the Saints.  Then, the bishop gave to each member in the order from the storehouse according to his or her needs and abilities.  To be clear, he deeded these things back to them for their use.  Then, they were expected to pay a tithe (10 percent) on the gains they made from what he deeded to them.

According to LDS teachings, this United Order is what was being referred to in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles.  I accept that, and will address this as fact.  I will, from this point forward, refer to the United Order as what Christians practiced in this context.

From all of this, it appears that all devout Christians should be signing away their worldly goods to their church and then living off of what the church gives back to them.  Proponents of socialism use these evidences to support their stance that Christ was saying we should give up private ownership and give to the poor so that we will have "no poor among [us]."

Before we buy in to this view, let's look a little deeper at the differences between socialism and the United Order.  Let's start by looking at what happened to one specific man and his wife when they sought to join the United Order while keeping back some of their property for their own discretionary use.

Acts Chapter 5 tells us the cautionary story of Ananias and his wife Saphira. 

But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?  Whiles it remained, was it not thine own?  And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?  Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart?  Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.

And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much?  And she said, Yea, for so much.

Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?  Behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.

Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

Acts Chapter 5:1-10

The key point I want to make from this is not about how dangerous it is to lie to God.  Rather, I want to emphasize what Peter said, "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own?  And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?"  The rights of this couple to have private property were not looked down on by Peter; they were affirmed by him, and, their entry into the United Order was voluntary.  No one was being forced to sell their goods and join the Order. 

So, the first essential difference between Christianity and socialism is that Christianity is entirely voluntary.  And, within the broad ground of Christian practice, providing assistance to the poor is considered a Christian duty, but the fulfillment of that duty, as every Christian knows, is between the individual and God, and the accounting comes at the Final Judgment.

In contrast, socialism is a compulsory system from start to finish.  Socialism uses the gun to ensure that everyone within their reach gives up their private property, whether they embrace socialism or not.  Further, their objective is not to eliminate poverty, but to destroy prosperity.

Now, some of my good Christian LDS friends, and even some family, mistakenly believe that socialism and the United Order are the same girl, just wearing a more chaste dress.  For them, and everyone else, I offer this link to a talk that was given in a General Conference of the Church, at the express request of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The talk is titled, "Socialism and the United Order Compared."  The talk was given in April 1966 by Marion G. Romney, who was, at that time, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Allow me to quote a couple of key passages here:

"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.

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; the 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."

The President of the United States (POTUS) that Romney was quoting was Lyndon Baines Johnson, the man who initiated "the war on poverty," and it was the means for waging this war that he was referring to in this quote.

Please note that President Johnson is saying that un-elected U.S. Government bureaucrats will decide how much money we need by deeming part of our spending unnecessary.  They will then "take" and "give" according to their judgment, and whatever policies their superiors have put in place dictate that judgment.

To put this in perspective, consider the money you need to go visit your ailing parent, child, sibling, or friend.  A government worker can say, "That trip is unnecessary.  Your child/parent/sibling/friend will live or die regardless of your visit.  I am taking the money you saved for that trip away from you.  I will take a portion of the money to pay for my time, and then, I will give the remainder to someone who believes that they deserve this money more than you."

Words Matter

Now, there are some who will say that this is just semantics, or that we are arguing over tomato or tomatoe.  That is a glib lie, and I will illustrate the lie very easily.

Picture this: You see a man taking money out of his wallet and handing it over to a homeless person.

That seems like a lovely picture; doesn't it?  It warms the heart.

Now, let's complete the picture.  There is another man in the picture, who is pointing a gun at the first man.

What's the difference? Tomato or tomatoe?

The first picture is what we call charity.  It is a voluntary act of sacrifice by one party to aid another.  We call it being a good Christian, giving back, and being charitable.  We universally consider it a virtue.

The second picture is what we call robbery.  It is the forcible redistribution of property and it is universally considered a crime, unless we give it the imprimatur of government and call it taxes and welfare.

Some might argue that when Marion G. Romney decried the differences between the United Order and socialism, he was going astray from the intentions of Joseph Smith, who was the source of the original revelation on that program.  Let's see what Brother Joseph had to say about property rights.  In 1835, he stated: 

"We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

We believe 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, and the protection of life."

Doctrine and Covenants, Section 134:1-2

       So, Joseph Smith asserted that the right and control of property ranks right up there with protecting freedom of conscience and protection of life as primary duties of governments to their constituents.

How is as Important as What

Some will read this and still wave their hands in dismissal and say, "The end of the matter is to help the poor as Jesus said we should.  What does it matter if we do it through governmental or private means, as long as the end objective is met?"

This line of reasoning is that the end will justify the means—a premise espoused by Ovid and imitated by Nicolo Machiavelli.

While the world may buy in to this reasoning, Christians should know better.  You cannot simply make the world be filled with righteous people by killing all the folks you think are sinners.  That is what led to the Spanish Inquisition, a notorious chapter in the history of churches.  It has also led to numerous wars that were initiated with the public objective of ridding the world of the unbelievers.  Even Islam—probably the most successful at spreading religion by force—has suffered the ill effects of using bad means while attempting to gain good ends.

When the armies of Islam swept across North Africa and eastward across Persia and into India, the story was always the same in every conquered town.  "People of the Book"—Christians and Jews, or infidels—were separated from everyone else, who were labeled Pagans.

The Pagans were given the choice: accept Allah as god and Muhammad as his prophet, or be killed on the spot.  Those with the courage of their convictions were killed.  Everyone else joined up, whether or not they actually believed.  The result was a Caliphate that was filled with Muslims who believed whatever they wanted and did whatever they wanted, as long as they manifested the outward signs of belief.

Of course the infidels were given a choice, too.  They could accept Allah and Mohammed, or they could be forced to pay for the privilege of remaining alive, every single year.

Forced conversion, whether it be Islam, Christianity, or any other religion, does not produce converts.  It ends up with a church or religion that is torn apart by sects and division as members go their own ways based on their own ideas of what being a good member means.  In Islam, we see this today in the violence between Sunni and Shi'a.  In Christianity it was seen most clearly in Northern Ireland, where Protestants were pitted against Catholics.

The ultimate purpose of religions is to get us to believe and behave in a moral manner because we believe it is in our own long-term (eternal) best interests.  When anyone attempts to enforce moral beliefs on others, the force destroys the morality.  When government, and the coercive power of taxation, are used to achieve moral ends, morality is destroyed—not enshrined—because belief and willing action are both irrelevant and rendered null.

Belief and willing action are the heart and soul of true religion.  They are the heart and soul of what Jesus Christ and his Apostles teach.

Not only is socialism at odds with Christianity; it is at odds with every religion that embraces the notion that each individual must freely choose to accept or reject God on the grounds established by that religion.

Conclusions

If we apply Socialism to the parable of The Good Samaritan, the Good Samaritan would have either robbed other travelers or tried to get a tax collector to give him the money to take care of the poor guy he found beaten beside the road.  That is about as far from what Christ was teaching as you can get.

Christians have a moral obligation to help the poor and needy.  Forcing people to give to the poor and needy is immoral and results in very bad ends instead of the good ends that are being sought.

Government as the means of administering charity is the same thing as trying to force people to do something good.  It is both inefficient and evil.  It will have very bad outcomes for everyone involved.

Because the use of force to get people to believe and behave in a moral manner is in total conflict with the teachings of Jesus Christ, no one can legitimately call themselves a Christian and say they support socialism.

Food for thought!

See Tom's political views on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/TomSheppardPoliticalViews/ 
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 GodClick on the image below to buy your copy today

Godvernment is available in both paperback and ebook format through Amazon.