There is a people who have lived the United Order very well for many generations.  They are called the Hutterites.  And this is how it works.  When they begin or when the community is forced to leave an area, they sell everything and live as one family until they are able to settle again.  Then, when they arrive at a piece of land, they buy it as a community.  Then the work begins.  Every family is set up in business.  The entire community helps until the have all the needed facilities, building homes and places of business.  When they have their home and business, it is theirs, under their total private stewardship, just like a calling.  The funds that they are able to raise with the business are tithed to God and then go to support the family.  The family then decides if they have more than they need.  They decide what their needs are and how to meet them.  And all that they have which they do not need to fill their families needs and/or wants for recreation, schooling, etc. is given back to the community for the poor or to help set up another young man’s business, etc.  They also give of their time and efforts in support of one another.   But there is no force or demand that every young man get the same number of pairs of jeans or any other form of everyone having exactly the same.   It is NOT socialism.  

Now if a problem arises, if some are getting wealthy while others are suffering, then it is handled the way it is supposed to be according to scripture.  Anyone offended goes to the offender and talks to him, explaining that he has been hurt.  If that does not work, then he takes a witness and goes again.   If that does not work, then they go to the bishop and He goes and talks to the man who is seen as being a with-holder.  The Bishop prays with the individual or family until they come to agreement as to what should be done.   But in any case, private stewardship is how things are done in the United Order, not by Socialism.  

We should be building Zion right where we are. So we are few. We can do something. I know people around me, who have put effort into keeping young men and women of the branch occupied; young men & women have been hired to do various things that perhaps were not so needful or could have been self-provided, but were bought as a service from them as a way of helping them out so they’d not fall on rocky bottom. I really respect that; my sons have also benefited by this, and I am very grateful for that. That I think is building Zion.

Now, I am not judging the people who live in opulent mansions and gripe about the less-than-minimum wage they pay their illegal gardeners and nannies (mommy can’t be bothered by real housework, she needs to cultivate herself with good company); I’m jus saying that perhaps there might be a better way.

It would be quite pompous of me believe I could address everything that everyone has said here.

But I’ll try anyway. In answer to your last question, I’ll say yes! However– let us take note of the differences between the Law of Consecration, an overarching principle, and the ‘United Order’– a term which has applied to such a variety of practices and ideas that it’s meaning is likely not to be found in a single description.

What we refer to now as the ‘United Order’ most commonly, was a directive from the First Presidency at the time (the 1870s) in response to a complete and utter recognizable property laws– especially in regards to private land. It furthermore was a directive to be self-sufficient, and take care of the poor, as well as increase employment.

The ‘same’ ‘United Order’ was a concept used by Joseph Smith in ways more akin to our modern day ‘Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints’. It was the legal entity of the Church. When Brigham Young ruled Utah, fairly autocratically– the Saints were essentially ‘squatting’ until land laws were finalized in the late 1870s.

The Law of Consecration is principle behind any seemingly communitarian, collectivist, or group-oriented programs. It does not prescribe a particular and specific economic practice.

My potent example of this is the different practices of Brigham City and Orderville. Orderville was as close to a communist paradise (according to Marx’s definition) as anything really has come. It wasn’t quite what Marx envisioned for various reasons, including, but not limited to: It was not worldwide, it was theocratic in nature, and it was almost militaristic with respect to organizational structure and ‘chain-of-command’.

Brigham City was similarly authoritarian, but perhaps the other direction– it was at least slightly ‘fascist’ in nature. It was a corporate structure that was driven by a necessity of self-reliance. It was a monopoly on all businesses in the area– at least toward the end. It also paid people not in cash primarily, but in goods and services. However– it was unable to compete with goods delivered from the east coast once the railroad was completed. Those in the community were not under the same strict authoritarian command that existed in Orderville.

In BOTH of these situations, the participation was voluntary: you had to apply to join the Orderville population, and many were declined. In Brigham City, the population’s participation was encouraged and expected, but not required, although eventually economic forces prevailed in consolidating almost the entirety of productive means in one.

Notice, Orderville the arguably more socialist of the two finally failed– due to no obvious external forces or reasons. It’s failure was internal. (I refer to Marx’s definition of socialism)

However, Brigham City was extremely successful– for THIRTY YEARS after the dissolution of the Co-op, there were NO unemployed or impoverished people in Brigham City. If that’s not economic success, I don’t know what is.

So, YES, I would love to hand over all my stuff to the Bishop (at least on some days), but the Lord’s plan requires that this be a choice– I must retain my Agency. Until we have enough people in the world to create this necessary body of united and choosing believers, I think that we will make do with what we’ve got. I can’t stress this point enough– Agency is the key.

http://blog.mises.org/archives/011620.asp

From the comments: “A typical American family is the essence of socialist theory.”

The Constitution, which I believe is divinely inspired, has a 10th amendment. Being the 10th of these, it is also a right, as in the Bill of Rights.

We the People have a right to a small and efficient federal government which will provide the necessities of defense and international relations while at the same time preserving the conditions necessary for individual liberty. Anything the federal government takes upon itself beyond those powers specified in the Constitution will lead to corruption.

If you desire the feds to have more power than this, the only authorized means is to amend the Constitution to ensure that your social program accurately reflects the will of the People. Otherwise, such powers and programs are left, rightly so, to the discretion of the individual States.

This is accomplished through the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost as described in 2 Nephi 31 and 3 Nephi 12. This baptism purges our heart of all dross. It was not until after the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost that the saints at the time of Christ were found to be living with all things in common. The same is true after the visit of Christ to the Nephites. As described in 4 Nephi, they were able to hold this together for three generations.

I believe strongly that the individual must experience this baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, which results in ‘no disposition to do evil but to do good continually,’ before he/she can live in a fashion that demands purity of heart. See Mosiah 5.

I see nothing in the church today that teaches the members of true character of this extraordinary ordinance nor to I see the ability to live as such with this world controlled by Mammon. I believe both have to change before Zion will be found among us.

Altruistic Individualism was coined by Ghandi, In India the cast system was prevalent this is a negative effect of a communitarian, collective society (they subdivided those who don’t work as hard, who aren’t as smart, Prejudiced reins). Altruistic Individualism is when someone within an upper class group, stands out to say it is not fair how we are treating those below us, normally that individual is then ostracised. William Wilberforce would be one of the greatest examples of this type of Altruistic Individualism.

A good example of a collectivist mentality working is Japan, virtually zero poverty(although it’s rising at the minuet), there GDP per capita is the highest in the world.

Equality – I think before we get caught up I work harder than he does, lets just make sure that simple needs are met, access to fresh water, universal medical care, freedom of speech, shelter etc.

IMO we cannot be advocate the current method of implementing the constitution as being God given, whilst we have people suffering because they can’t afford life saving drugs, or operations.

I’m not bothered about the United Order or the law of consecration, (Altruistic Individualism) I can’t be happy existing in one altruistic group whilst people in a less fortunate group are suffering with something I take for granted, last year I went to the Hospital three times because of sports related injuries, and twice because of strange stomach pains, I went to the doctors once because I thought I might need a operation on my throat, and my wife and I underwent expensive IVF treatment, perhaps I waisted the Doctors time on many occasions, but that is why it is something I take for granted, Imagine what it will be like when I have Children, I’ll be rushing them down all the time, again something I’ll have the access to. Maybe everyone should not be as crazy as I am but they should not be worrying at home about finances because of a physical illness. That is something the state should get involved in.

Ahh, the devil is in the details.

#62 — “Aren’t we all supposed to become One with Jesus, as he is One with the Father? Shouldn’t we collectively strive to be One? How is this not collectivism?”

If I can borrow from that awful apostate Athanasian Creed — yes and no. We are to be One with Christ, as he is One with the Father. What is that nature of that oneness? “Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.” The first part is critical: The distinct, individual Personhood of Christ is not lost in unity with the Father, even though they are part of the same one God. (See D&C 20:28.)

Likewise, we do not lose our individuality in becoming unified with the Body of Christ, that is, the fellowship of the saints.

FireTag at 52 puts it well.

I really like the term altruistic individualism. To answer MH’s #60, I would, as most rational individuals be bothered by a situation where the lazy ones got just as much as the hard-workers. But I think in going into a United Order type of situation I would be aware that this was going to happen, and I would be OK with working harder and getting less than I deserve because of “altruistic individualism.” I think I would be OK with things not being as fair because I’m willing to take a little less so that the community would succeed. That’s why I think I would be a good candidate for a United Order. I don’t know, perhaps I would find after living it that I couldn’t do it. I just want to try.

The problem with Neo Dan’s comment #59 about being an agent unto yourself and living the Law without being commanded is that I wouldn’t feel the same about forming one of these communities myself (without authority?) or joining one that I didn’t feel was instituted on religious principles. So I guess I’m stuck with what we have in the Church right now.

Yes, we are all supposed to become One with Christ but we do it individually. I am responsible for working out my own salvation through Christ, not you, just as it’s your responsible to work out your own salvation through Christ and not mine. Yes, we are all commanded to lift one another’s burden, share the gospel with everyone, and do all we can to assist others with their temporal and spiritual needs but none of that can ever replace individual agency. Ultimately, I make my choices and you make your choices; we cannot make them for each other.

Successful United Order type communities and societies are based not on collectivism but on altruistic individualism. If these communities work, it is because every member of that community chooses to be completely altruistic and willing volunteers everything to the other members of the community. The City of Enoch was not a celestial city because Enoch established collectivistic rules that everyone had to follow. It was a celestial city because each and every citizen of that city individually chose to live like that. This type of society may be ideal but in my opinion is nearly impossible to achieve. I too would love to live in a society where the distribution of wealth is made equal based on the individual choices of every member of the society but never in a society where the distribution of wealth is made equal based established rules and oversight committees.

A very CofChrist viewpoint, except for Heavenly Mother, the Companion of Heavenly Father (we’d not assign gender to God in actuality, despite the common use of “Father”.

More seriously, the taking of initiative outside of one’s structured calling — as the manifestation of one’s gifts and “full” calling — is something to be highly admired.

Lucifer’s campaign is classic collectivism – every one is the same, there is no class distinction and everyone is equal. A universal eternal life plan, if you will, where everyone has coverage. The harsh reality is that everyone will not have eternal life – some will succeed, some will fail and most will fall somewhere in the middle. This is the very essence of the Saviors statement “Straight is the way and narrow the gate that leads to life and few be there that find it”. It is the distribution of the souls of MEN discussed in the 76th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants; and, the distribution of the souls of GOD addressed in the 88th section (22-36).

As for the statement God the First, it was how Joseph Smith referred to our Heavenly Father. It is based on the concept of Eloheim, or the plurality of Gods. It is a way to distinguish the Father of our spirits from the other Gods – thus God the First.

I think what I found so interesting about Leonard Arrington’s book discussing the United Order was that Brigham tried and mostly succeeded in making sure there were “no poor among us.” However, there were constant struggles to make sure “everyone is working hard.” Let’s face it, some people were lazy then and now, and some just don’t put the same amount of effort, yet were rewarded the same. If we work harder than another, it doesn’t seem fair to us either. Jesus’ parable of some laboring all day and some laboring for only 1 hour, yet all receiving the same wages struck the all-day laborers as unfair (and it would bother me too.)

Can anyone honestly say they wouldn’t be bothered that hard workers receive the same wages as lazy workers?