Joseph Smith's United Order: A Non-Communalistic Interpretation
Kent W. Huff
Theological Thinktank
2020
nidottu
Socialism was never a part of Mormon doctrine, but internal and external proponents of socialism have nonetheless been able convince many members (and outsiders), through perpetuating myths and legends, that it has been or is a part of church doctrine. The Mormon Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) was organized in 1830 and immediately began moving westward from New York to Kirtland, Ohio, and Independence, Missouri, and, later, from about 1838 to 1845, to Nauvoo, Illinois. The next move was to Utah beginning in 1847. Numerous cooperative efforts were necessary at each stage to help the poorer and weaker members of the Church move along with the others. Some of its first converts had been members of communal societies before their contacts with the Mormons. Also, the enemies of the Church found an untrue but effective epithet against "those sheep-stealing Mormons" by calling their new organization "common stock" communalism or socialism, a damning charge in the political atmosphere of the time.Joseph Smith went to great efforts to speak and write against this falsehood, declaring that it had nothing to do with the church. His successor Brigham Young continued the practice of denouncing this false claim, declaring that such a doctrine could destroy the church, especially in its precarious Utah setting. Nonetheless, it appears that the external enemies of the church and some of its politically leftwing members have, by sheer weight of repetition, made it part of the unofficial lore of the church.The term "united order" came from the "united firm," one name for the early church business partnerships. The term "united order" also comes from the Brigham Young era of the church's history, and needs to be further explained in that unique context, as is done in the subsequent book, Brigham Youngs United Order. With no powers of self-government granted the Mormons for the first 22 years of their time in Utah, some unusual and creative temporary substitutes were invented.The official history of the church makes it clear that various practical methods were used to solve problems as they arose, many involving cooperation, as one might expect of any tight-knit religious body, but none required any doctrinaire overriding of the principle of private ownership of property, as the centralizing socialists would like to see. For one thing, that would be severely inconsistent with the constitution of the United States.In the first 8 years of the church's existence, it was not legally possible to organize it as a corporation as it is today. As an unsatisfactory but necessary stop-gap measure, a common-law business partnership was organized to carry on church business of all kinds. (The partners also constituted a temporary Quorum of the Twelve for ecclesiastical purposes.) In the normal accounting practices of partnerships, all partners are assumed to be agents of all the others, and also to share equally in the both the liabilities and profits of the business, including being personally liable for all the partnership's debts. There is thus no escape from full liability, but the use of silent (unknown) partners can give those unknown partners a small amount of financial protection. It is strange to see that misunderstandings of the British common law (and misunderstandings of many other events and circumstances as well) have been used in political and polemical efforts to justify pressing socialism into the canon of church doctrine, but socialism (centralized ownership and control of nearly everything) can never be part of a value system that emphasizes individual responsibility. It is no accident that Utah is mostly a conservative, Republican state. This apparent inconsistency deep within the doctrines of the church will likely lead to a whole set of difficulties as the church grows in size and influence. At some point this issue must be cleared up, and this book should help.
