The United Order: Why It’s Not Socialism in the LDS Church
By Bobby Darvish - darvishintelligence.blogspot.com
As an Iranian-American ex-Muslim, now a Christian conservative, I have found that both my cultural background and personal journey inform my perspectives on faith and economics. Having converted to Christianity and embraced the tenets of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I’ve encountered misconceptions about the Church's history of the United Order—misconceptions that wrongly equate it with socialism. As a conservative capitalist, I believe it's important to clarify why the United Order was not, and is not, socialism.
The Nature of the United Order
The United Order, also known as the United Firm, was an economic system initiated by Joseph Smith in the early 1830s. It was designed as a means for the Saints to support each other through voluntary consecration of personal property and goods, in order to eliminate poverty and ensure that everyone had enough for their needs. The idea comes from scriptures such as Doctrine and Covenants 42, which talks about giving of one’s surplus to the poor.
On the surface, this might sound like socialism—a system often associated with the redistribution of wealth by the state. However, the United Order was fundamentally different. It was based on voluntary participation, driven by religious conviction, and most importantly, it respected private ownership. Individuals consecrated their goods to the community but retained stewardship over their own property, managing it as they saw fit in service to the greater good. This is markedly different from the coercive redistribution seen in socialism.
Voluntary Consecration vs. Coercion
One of the defining aspects of socialism is its reliance on government power to redistribute wealth. Under socialism, wealth is often taken from one group and given to another, regardless of the willingness of individuals. This is a key distinction between socialism and the United Order. The United Order was a covenant made voluntarily between members of the Church. In fact, it was a personal, spiritual commitment rather than a system imposed by a government or a governing body.
Scriptures in the Doctrine and Covenants make it clear that participation in the United Order was meant to be a personal and voluntary decision, reflecting the agency that God grants to all His children. Doctrine and Covenants 104:17-18 states, "For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves." God’s economy, as envisioned in the United Order, was not about forcibly equalizing wealth but about inspiring generosity through free will.
Stewardship and Private Ownership
A key element of the United Order was stewardship, which is significantly different from state ownership in socialism. When Church members consecrated their property, it was not handed over to a central authority to control and redistribute. Instead, individuals were made stewards over specific portions of property, with the expectation that they would manage it responsibly. In Doctrine and Covenants 42:32, it states, “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.”
This concept of stewardship ensured that individuals maintained responsibility for the resources they consecrated. Each person had the right to manage their own stewardship, making decisions about how best to use it to support themselves and others. In socialism, by contrast, private property is often seen as something that should be abolished or severely limited, with the state determining how resources are used. The United Order respected individual freedom and the principle of ownership, even while promoting the idea of sharing one’s surplus.
Church Leaders’ Teachings on Socialism
Many LDS Church leaders have spoken against socialism and its imposition of government control over personal agency. For example, President David O. McKay, a prominent leader in the Church, once said, “Communism and all other similar isms bear witness that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only real bulwark of true freedom and liberty in the world” (Conference Report, April 1966). He emphasized that systems that undermine personal freedom are contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Likewise, Elder Marion G. Romney drew a clear distinction between the United Order and socialism. In an address titled “Is Socialism the United Order?” he said, “The basic principle of all socialism is that the government should own and control all capital. This is the opposite of the United Order” (General Conference, April 1966). He emphasized that the United Order respected private property and individual agency, which are fundamental principles in a free-market capitalist system.
A System of Charity, Not Compulsion
Finally, the United Order is a system of charity, not compulsion. It reflects the Christian ideal that we should care for the poor and needy out of love, not by force. 2 Corinthians 9:7 states, “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.” The United Order was built on this foundation of voluntary charity, and its purpose was to create unity and support within the Church community, not to impose equality through force.
As someone who has come from a background of political and religious transformation, I can appreciate the importance of freedom, both in matters of faith and in economic systems. The United Order reflects the principles of voluntary charity, individual stewardship, and personal responsibility, all of which are fundamental to a free society and a free market. Socialism, by contrast, imposes economic control and limits individual agency—principles that are incompatible with the teachings of the Church and the ideals of Christian conservatism.
In conclusion, the United Order was not socialism. It was a divinely inspired system that honored free will, personal responsibility, and stewardship under the guidance of religious principles. These values, deeply rooted in the gospel, align with the capitalist belief in freedom, responsibility, and individual agency. For me, as a conservative capitalist and a Christian, this distinction is crucial.
Citations:
- Doctrine and Covenants 42, 104
- Conference Report, David O. McKay, April 1966
- General Conference, Marion G. Romney, April 1966
- 2 Corinthians 9:7
No comments:
Post a Comment