With the apparent increasing popular of Socialism today, especially among the rising generations, there is no shortage of people who want to portray early Latter-day Saints as Socialists or want to portray Latter-day Saint scriptural teachings as Socialist. Statements such as, “Democratic socialism is the very essence of Mormon theology and scripture,” and “Bernie is the most Christ-like candidate I have ever seen,” just run off their tongues as they denounce anyone who disagrees with them as greedy and wicked scoundrels, comparing non-Socialists to such Book of Mormon villains as the Gadianton Robbers. And they always reference the Utah era United Order(s) as the primary example of “Mormon socialism” that demonstrates the inherent anti-capitalistic values in Latter-day Saint scripture and history to which they long to return, if only those pesky, old, Republican authoritarians who run everything would just get out of the way!
In order to figure out if these arguments about early Latter-day Saint history and the Law of Consecration and the United Order being forms of Socialism are correct or not, I have turned to one of the most intelligent and insightful Latter-day Saint leaders ever – President J. Reuben Clark.
Joshua Reuben Clark had a long and distinguished history in law before he became a General Authority. Within two years of beginning law school at Columbia University he had been accepted to practice la win New York state. Within three years he had graduated with his law degree. From there he served in a series of noted and highly respected legal positions – including as a solicitor for the U.S. Department of State, Undersecretary of State, and Ambassador to Mexico. It was during his Ambassadorship that Prophet Heber J. Grant called Clark to be a Counselor in the First Presidency. Clark said he couldn’t accept the calling because of his many responsibilities that he couldn’t immediately resign. Instead of calling someone else, Grant held the position open over a year until Clark could formally resign the ambassadorship. Clark was then ordained an Apostle and served in the First Presidency for over a year before being made a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. He would serve as a Counselor in the First Presidency from 1933 until his death in 1961. In other words, Clark was a man of widely respected keen insight, legal understand, and distinctive intellect with a long and decorated history of service in Church leadership. All of these are on display in this General Conference address wherein he explains exactly what the United Order was, what the Law of Consecration is, and why neither is in any way a form of Socialism. He also explains how the modern Latter-day Saint welfare program fulfills the Law of Consecration and is not Socialist.
A final note: I have tried to preserve the original punctuation and formatting as much as possible here. The only things I have added are pictures illustrating concepts, places, and people from President Clark’s address. At the end, after the address, I have added some commentary based on President Clark’s insights and teachings.
******
PRESIDENT J. REUBEN CLARK, JR.
First Counselor in the First Presidency
Brethren:
I have been trying for a week to relieve you of this experience, but Brother McKay, so kind, so sweet, and so merciful, has been perfectly adamant. So, I stand before you here, not to preach, but to counsel with you.
There is a great deal of misapprehension among our people regarding the United Order.
I have not been able to believe that the United Order meant what some people have thought it meant, so within the last months I have spent quite a little time reading the revelations thereon, also reading our history, and at the same time giving some consideration to a dissertation which has been written regarding the Order.
There is a growing—I fear it is growing—sentiment that communism and the United Order are virtually the same thing, communism being merely the forerunner, so to speak, of a reestablishment of the United Order. I am informed that ex-bishops, and indeed, bishops, who belong to communistic organizations, are preaching this doctrine. So I thought that perhaps if I said just a few words to you tonight regarding the way I interpret the revelations that are printed’ about this in the Doctrine and Covenants (if there are other revelations about the Order, I do not know of them), I thought if I said something about it, it might be helpful. I recommend that you, my brethren, read a few of the Sections of the Doctrine and Covenants which cover this matter, beginning with Sections 42 and 51. (See also Sections 70, 78, 82, 83, 85, 90, 92, 96, and 104.) If you will go over these sections, I feel sure that you will find that my explanation of the United Order will be substantially accurate.
Early Deviations
I may say to begin with, that in practice the brethren in Missouri got away, in their attempts to set up the United Order, from the principles set out in the revelations. This is also true of the organizations set up here in Utah after the Saints came to the Valleys. So far as I have seen there has been preserved only one document that purports to be a legal instrument used in connection with the setting up of the United Order, and that document is without date. It is said to have been found among the papers of Bishop Partridge. It was a “lease-lend” document. You may have heard that phrase before. Under this instrument the Church leased to Titus Billings a certain amount of real estate and loaned him a certain amount of personal property. (History of the Church, Vol. I, pp. 365-367.)
This instrument is not in accordance with the principle laid down in the revelations touching upon the United Order.
The basic principle of all the revelations on the United Order is that everything we have belongs to the Lord; therefore, the Lord may call upon us for any and all of the property which we have, because it belongs to Him. This, I repeat, is the basic principle. (D. &. C. 104:14-17, 54-57) One of the places in which some of the brethren are going astray is this: There is continuous reference in the revelations to equality among the brethren, but I think you will find only one place where that equality is really described, though it is referred to in other revelations. That revelation (D. & C. 51:3) affirms that every man is to be “equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” (See also D. & C. 82:17; 78:5-6.) Obviously, this is not a case of “dead level” equality. It is “equality” that will vary as much as the man’s circumstances, his family, his wants and needs, may vary.
Consecration
In the next place, under the United Order every man was called to consecrate to the Church all of the property which he had; the real estate was to be conveyed to the Church, as I understand the revelations, by what we would call a deed in fee simple. Thus the man’s property became absolutely the property of the Church. (D. &C. 42:30; 72:15) Then the bishop deeded back to the donor by the same kind of deed, that is, in fee simple, and also transferred to him by an equivalent instrument, so far as personal property was concerned, that amount of real and personal property, which, the two being taken together, would be required by the individual for the support of himself and his family “according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” This the man held as his own property. (D. & C. 42:32; 51:4-6; 83:3)
In other words, basic to the United Order was the private ownership of property, every man had his own property from which he might secure that which was necessary for the support of himself and his family. There is nothing in the revelations that would indicate that this property was not freely alienable at the will of the owner. It was not contemplated that the Church should own everything or that we should become in the Church, with reference to our property and otherwise, the same kind of automaton, manikin, that communism makes out of the individual, with the State standing at the head in place of the Church.
Now, that part of a man’s property which was not turned back to him, if he had more than was needed under this rule of “equality” already stated, became the common property of the Church, and that common property was used for the support of the poor of the Church. It is spoken of in the revelations as the “residue” of property. (D. & C. 42:34-36)
Land Portions
Furthermore, it was intended, though apparently it did not work out very well, that the poor coming into Zion, and by Zion I mean, here, Missouri—the poor coming into Zion were to have given to them a “portion” of land, which land was to be either purchased from the Government (and it was planned to purchase large areas from the Government), or purchased from individuals, or received as consecrations from members of the Church. The amount of this “portion” was to be such as would make him equal to others according to his circumstances, his family, his wants and needs.
The land which you received from the bishop by deed, whether it was part of the land which you, yourself, had deeded to the Church, or whether it came as an out-right gift from the Church as just indicated, and the personal property which you received, were all together sometimes called a “portion” (D. & C. 51:4-6). sometimes a “stewardship” (D. & C. 104:11-12), and sometimes an “inheritance.” (D. &C. 83:3)
As just indicated, there were other kinds of inheritances and stewardships than land or mere personal property; for example, the Prophet and others had a stewardship given to them which consisted of the revelations and commandments (D. & C. 70:1-4) ; others had given to them a stewardship involving the printing house (D. & C. 104:29-30); another stewardship was a mercantile establishment. (D. & C. 104: 39-42)
Surplus
I repeat that whatever a steward realized from the portion allotted to him over and above that which was necessary in order to keep his family under the standard provided, as already stated above, was turned over by the steward to the bishop, and this amount of surplus, plus the residues to which I have already referred, went into a bishop’s storehouse (D. & C. 51 : 13 and citations above), and the materials of the storehouse ‘were to be used in creating portions, as above indicated, for caring for the poor (D. & C. 78:3) , the widows and orphans ( D. & C. 83 : 6) , and for the elders of the Church engaged in the ministry, who were to pay for what they received if they could, but if not, their faithful labors should answer their debt to the bishop. (D. & C. 72:11 ff)
Other Institutions
Now, as time went on and the system developed, the Lord created two other institutions besides the storehouse: one was known as the Sacred Treasury, in- to which was put “the avails of the sacred things in the treasury, for sacred and holy purposes.” While it is not clear, it would seem that into this treasury were to be put the surpluses which were derived from the publication of the revelations, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and other similar things, the stewardship of which had been given to Joseph and others. (D. & C. 104:60-66)
The Lord also provided for the creation of “Another Treasury,” and into that other treasury went the general revenues which came to the Church, such as gifts of money and those revenues derived from the improvement of stewardships as distinguished from the residues of the original consecrations and the surpluses which came from the operation of their stewardships. (D. & C. 72:11 ff)
The foregoing is the general outline as it is gathered from the revelations of the law of the United Order which the Lord spoke of as “my law.” (D. & C. 44:6; 51: 15) There are passages in the revelations which, taken from their context and without having in mind the whole system, might be considered as inconsistent with some of the things which I have set out, but all such passages fall into line if the whole program is looked at as contained in all of the revelations.
Private Ownership Fundamental
The fundamental principle of this system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or inheritance, or stewardship, ‘with an absolute title, which he could alienate, or hypothecate, or otherwise treat as his own. The Church did not own all of the property, and the life under the United Order was not a communal life, as the Prophet Joseph, himself, said, (History of the Church, Volume III, p. 28). The United Order is an individualistic system, not a communal system.
The Welfare Plan and the United Order
We have all said that the Welfare Plan is not the United Order and was not intended to be. However, I should like to suggest to you that perhaps, after all, when the Welfare Plan gets thoroughly into operation—it is not so yet—we shall not be so very far from carrying out the great fundamentals of the United Order.
In the first place I repeat again, the United Order recognized and was built upon the principle of private ownership of property; all that a man had and lived upon under the United Order, was his own. Quite obviously, the fundamental principle of our system today is the ownership of private property.
In the next place, 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. After all, the United Order was primarily designed to build up a system under which there should be no abjectly poor, and this is the purpose, also, of the Welfare Plan.
In this connection it should be observed that it is clear from these earlier revelations, as well as from our history, that the Lord had very early to tell the people about the wickedness of idleness, and the wickedness of greed, because the brethren who had were not giving properly, and those who had not were evidently intending to live without work on the things which ‘were to be received from those who had property. (D. & C. 56:16-20)
Storehouses and Projects
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 store- house under the Welfare Plan, used for the same purpose.
As I have already indicated, the surplus properties which came to the Church under the Law of Consecration, under the United Order, became the “common property” of the Church (D. & C. 82:18) and ‘were handled under the United Order for the benefit of the poor. We have now under the Welfare Plan all over the Church, ward land projects. In some cases the lands are owned by the ‘wards, in others they are leased by the ‘wards or lent to them by private individuals. This land is being farmed for the benefit of the poor, by the poor where you can get the poor to work it.
We have in place of the two treasuries, the “Sacred Treasury” and “Another Treasury,” the general funds of the Church.
Thus you will see, brethren, that in many of its great essentials, we have, as the Welfare Plan has now developed, the broad essentials of the United Order. Furthermore, having in mind the assistance which is being given from time to time and in various wards 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.
Now, brethren, the Church has made tremendous advances in the Welfare Plan. We shall have to make still greater advances. As the Message of the First Presidency said this morning, we are being told by Government officials that we face what we used to call “hard times.” If the Welfare Plan is fully operative, we shall be able to care for every destitute Latter-day Saint wherever he may be
******
Commentary
Some may seize upon President Clark’s usage of the word Communism at the start of his address to argue that he isn’t talking about Socialism. Such an argument erroneously ignores that most Americans during this era and since have used the terms Communism and Socialism interchangeably. For example, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was often called Communist even though its doctrine and name declared itself Socialist. This usage of the words as synonyms for one another originates in the way that Karl Marx himself, the man whose thought forms the basis for Socialist thought, used the terms.
In the section “Early Deviations,” explains that what the church was doing in Missouri and in Utah, the very programs modern Socialists claim justify their beliefs and actions, were actually incorrect and do not align with the scriptures. This insight is worth its weight in gold. This is probably why they both also failed, they were not in accordance with God’s will and therefore He did not bless or protect them. That those “Socialist” programs were in fact a violation of Latter-day Saint scripture and doctrine means modern Socialism is as well. It deprives the “Mormon Socialists” of the only leg they had to stand on. To further point out that the true doctrine allows for various levels of wealth, and therefore economic classes, just further drives this truth home. The Law of Consecration is not Socialist.
In the sections, “Consecration” to “Private Ownership Fundamental,” President Clark has made various points that absolutely demolish the comparison between the Law of Consecration and Socialism, thus demolishing the justifications of modern “Mormon Socialists.”
First, he points out that in the Law of Consecration a person’s wants were (and are) as important as their needs. Humans wants are infinitely varied in both object and levels of desire. Giving people what they want inevitably leads to some people having more valuable goods than others and from that to the kind of economic and social “inequalities” that Socialists abhor. This is (one of the many reasons) why Socialist societies always denounce luxuries as “capitalist waste” and sneer at people using those luxuries as greedy and corrupt. Well, they need some way to justify the interminable poverty that Socialism has always created. There is no better way to do that than to say that anything better is evil.
Secondly, in these sections President Clark explained that the Law of Consecration was based on the voluntary entrance into and cooperation of the members of the Church. There was no force, no seizing the means of production, no compulsion as there is in a Socialist system. No one was punished or excommunicated for not living the Law of Consecration The church did not dictate what you had to give up, you decided after satisfying your wants and needs. Yes, you met with your bishop to discuss what to give up, but the final decision was always your own. Socialism is the exact opposite. As Frederick Engels, who along with Karl Marx was one of the Fathers of Socialism, explained that Socialism must ultimately always be imposed “by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon – authoritarian means” and that once in power, Socialists must “rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists.” Socialism is founded on naivete and maintained by violence, oppression, and terroristic rule – authoritarianism in its purest form.
Thirdly, in these sections President Clark shows that the basis of the Law of Consecration was and is private property. This is absolutely antithetical to Socialist doctrines which demand that no one be allowed to own any form of production – whether that be land or a factory. Anything that enriches one above the collective – whether that be your factory or your Etsy account – will be seized by those in power in the name of the masses and your wealth stolen to be distributed to others. Even the old argument from Socialists that they would abolish private property and not personal property is rendered silly in the modern technological age of 3-D printers, computers, and internet businesses.
Finally, in these sections President Clark explains that the only way you can get the idea that the Law of Consecration is Socialistic is by wresting the scriptures – quoting verses in an isolated manner, taking them out of context, and twisting their meaning to make it sound like Socialist doctrine. In their full context the Law of Consecration isn’t Socialist, as the foregoing points demonstrate. Thinking that it (or the system as touched upon in the Bible and Book of Mormon) is Socialist comes from reading modern language and word usage into the past. It is misreading historical texts through modern eyes and ideas.
In his last two sections about the creation of function of the Church Welfare Plan, President Clark corrects some serious errors about the law of tithing. Too often we speak of tithing as an inferior law given because the Saints were/are too greedy to live the Law of Consecration. President Clark shows here that this is not the case. Tithing is the vehicle by which the modern Welfare Plan is possible and that Plan carries out all the fundamentals of both the Law of Consecration and the United Order. In the modern day tithing just makes more sense anyway. Both the Missouri attempts to live the Law of Consecration and the Utah United Order(s) were backwards attempts to maintain a vanishing agrarian lifestyle in the face of mass industrialization.
The two efforts failed because technology and Capitalism made goods cheaper and more available to everyone, increasing their standards of living and vanquishing poverty, while the Missouri and Utah Orders trapped everyone in a kind of pre-Industrial serfdom. Today, money is much more useful than the surplus wealth goods – TVs. computers, video gaming consoles, etc. – that we would be giving the poor if we were trying to live the Missouri order today or the expensive and poorly made substitutes we would be wasting our resources to make if we were living the Utah United Order now. Obviously this wouldn’t work as the poor do not need any of those things.
In other words, Capitalism has increased our ability to live the Law of Consecration more effectively in the modern day by providing money to the masses, which the Church gets in the form of tithes and offerings and can use far more effectively than it ever did the other models. This is something else Socialism would only disrupt and destroy.
Note: President Clark’s address can be found on pgs. 56 – 58 of the October 1942 General Conference Report.