As I see it, economic theories seem strung out between the coercions of socialism and the corruptions of capitalism (though there are elements of both in both systems). And as an LDS people, we seem more concerned with the coercions than the corruptions. We also seem confused by our own economic utopia of the United Order. Here are some commentaries and a visual analogy, that I believe help clarify how individualism and voluntary “socialism” can co-exist, a synthesis of two apparent opposites.1. The Law and the Administrative Agency
The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 122
The vehicle for implementing the law of consecration is the united order. The basic principle underlying the united order is that everything we have belongs to the Lord; and, therefore, the Lord may call upon us for any and all of our property, because it belongs to Him. The united order was entered by "a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken" (D&C 42:30). Under the united order, idleness has no place, and greed, selfishness, and covetousness are condemned. The united order may therefore operate only with a righteous people. ("A Vision and a Hope for the Youth of Zion," in 1977 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo, Utah: BYU, 1978], p. 74.) (Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988], 122.)
William O. Nelson, “To Prepare a People,” Ensign, Jan. 1979, 19
The law of consecration is a law of the celestial kingdom, requiring that all members of the Church shall consecrate their property (including time, talents, and material wealth) to the Church for the building of the kingdom of God and the establishment of Zion. The legal administrative agency for carrying out the law is the united order. This organization receives consecrated properties, gives stewardships to donors, and regulates the use of surplus commodities. The law of consecration is the commandment; the united order is the revealed economic system.
2. Not to be confused with other “united orders”
William O. Nelson, “To Prepare a People,” Ensign, Jan. 1979, 20
4.The united order should not be confused with various “united orders” that were practiced in Utah. President J. Reuben Clark observed, “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 … in Utah after the Saints came to the valleys.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1942, p. 55)
3. Not communal or communistic in nature
(Roy W. Doxey, comp., Latter-day Prophets and the Doctrine and Covenants [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1978], 2: 178.)
J. Reuben Clark, Jr.: 3-5
One very common misapprehension may be corrected here regarding the United Order. The Church never was, and under existing commandments never will be, a communal society, under the directions thus far given by the Lord. The United Order was not communal nor communistic. It was completely and intensely individualistic, with a consecration of unneeded surpluses for the support of the Church and the poor.
(Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988], 122.)
It has been erroneously concluded by some that the united order is both communal and communistic in theory and practice because the revelations speak of equality. Equality under the united order is not economic and social leveling as advocated by some to day. Equality, as described by the Lord, is "equal[ity] according to [a man's] family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs" (D&C 51:3).
Is the united order a communal system? Emphatically not. It never has been and never will be. It is "intensely individualistic." Does the united order eliminate private ownership of property? No. "The fundamental principle of this system [is] the private ownership of property" (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., CR October 1942, p. 57). ("A Vision and a Hope for the Youth of Zion," in 1977 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo, Utah: BYU, 1978], p. 74.)
4. Basic Principles
(Roy W. Doxey, comp., Latter-day Prophets and the Doctrine and Covenants [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1978], 2: 20.)
John A. Widtsoe: 30-37
Out of the answers to [Joseph Smith's] prayers on the subject [of help for the poor] was revealed an ideal economic system, commonly known as the "United Order." It rejected the weaknesses of the many similar attempts and introduced new, almost revolutionary methods of operation.
Its objective was to provide every man who is willing to work with the necessities and the comforts of life, thus abolishing poverty from the earth. It was to be a cooperative plan but directly opposed to modern communism, since it recognized man as a free agent, respected the rights of private property, and preserved and encouraged individual initiative. The United Order thus established rests upon four basic principles.
First, the earth is the Lord's. Men are only stewards of their possessions. All that man has should be used therefore in accordance with the Lord's expressed will.
Second, all men are children of God—of a divine family. Therefore, the Lord requires that they must help one another as needs arise, provided that he who will not work shall have no claim upon his brother.
Third, every man must be respected as a free agent. He may enter the order at his pleasure. Once in the order, he must be allowed to use, fully, and as he pleases, any properties placed in his hands. He may leave the order at his pleasure.
Fourth, the government of the order is vested in a central agency, sustained by the members of the order, presided over by the bishop, his counselors, and such helpers as may be needed. This central agency would have power to adjust the disputes normally arising among strongly individualized human beings.
The operation of the order under these four heads is extremely simple. Those who join the order would place all their possessions, irrevocably, in a common treasury—the rich man, his wealth; the poor man, his penny. Then each member would receive a sufficient portion, called "an inheritance," from the common treasury, to enable him to continue in his trade, business, or profession as he may desire. The farmer would receive land and implements; the tradesman, tools and materials; the merchant, the necessary capital; the professional man, instruments, books, etc. Members who work for others would receive proportionate interests in the enterprises they serve. No one would be without property—all would have an inheritance.
A person's inheritance would be his personal property, to operate permanently and for his benefit and that of his family. Should he withdraw from the order, his inheritance would go with him, but he would have no claim upon that which he had placed in the common treasury. [Sec. 51:3-6.] At the end of the year, or a set period, the member who had earned more than his business and family needs required would place the surplus in the common treasury. Thus, for example, large fortunes would be administered by the order as a whole rather than by one individual. The member who, despite intelligent diligence, had lost from his operations would have his loss made up by the general treasury for another start, or he might with his consent be placed in some activity better fitting his gifts.
In short, the general treasury would set up every man in his preferred field and would care for and help those unable to profit from their inheritance. The general treasury, holding the surpluses of the members, would also finance the erection of public buildings and make possible all community enterprises decided upon by the order. [Sec. 104:60-77.]
----------------------------
Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1: 364-5.
(The Prophet Joseph's letter to Edward Partridge.)
Items of Instruction Concerning the Consecration of Property.
Brother Edward Partridge, Sir:—I proceed to answer your questions, concerning the consecration of property:—First, it is not right to condescend to very great particulars in taking inventories. The fact is this, a man is bound by the law of the Church, to consecrate to the Bishop, before he can be considered a legal heir to the kingdom of Zion; and this, too, without constraint; and unless he does this, he cannot be acknowledged before the Lord on the Church Book therefore, to condescend to particulars, I will tell you that every man must be his own judge how much he should receive and how much he should suffer to remain in the hands of the Bishop. I speak of those who consecrate more than they need for the support of themselves and their families.
The matter of consecration must be done by the mutual consent [emphasis added by SMS] of both parties; for to give the Bishop power to say how much every man shall have, and he be obliged to comply with the Bishop's judgment, is giving to the Bishop more power than a king has; and upon the other hand, to let every man say how much he needs, and the Bishop be obliged to comply with his judgment, is to throw Zion into confusion, and make a slave of the Bishop. The fact is, there must be a balance or equilibrium of power, between the Bishop and the people, and thus harmony and good will may be preserved among you.
Therefore, those persons consecrating property to the Bishop in Zion, and then receiving an inheritance back, must reasonably show to the Bishop that they need as much as they claim. But in case the two parties cannot come to a mutual agreement, the Bishop is to have nothing to do about receiving such consecrations; and the case must be laid before a council of twelve High Priests, the Bishop not being one of the council, but he is to lay the case before them.
--------------------
Other valuable references:
D&C 42; D&C 51; D&C 104
History of the Church 1:146-7
“Living the Principles of the Law of Consecration” by Pres. Marion G. Romney, Ensign, Feb. 1979, 3
“To Prepare a People” by William O. Nelson, Ensign, Jan. 1979, 18-23
