This is another of my favorite topics to expound upon to my poor unsuspecting wife. This, to me, is one of the best "proofs" that Joseph Smith was inspired by God, because the law of Consecration is the closest thing to a Utopian ideal, if implemented correctly and followed faithfully, that has ever been postulated by modern man.
I got interested in this topic back in my freshman year of high school, ironically enough. One afternoon while playing Starcraft over the internet, a person I was playing with asked me if I was a Mormon (my screen name was LDS_MAN). When I responded in the affirmative, he proceeded to fill me in on everything I "believed," claiming that he knew the real truth behind Mormonism, etc. etc. Needless to say, I was unable to counter any of his arguments, and that bothered me quite a bit. Though that incident didn't cause me to reject any aspect of my religion, it did spur me into searching for the answers to the questions and concerns he raised- one of which was the claim that Mormons are in fact communists.
A brief delve into the basic tennets of communism, from my own non-professional understanding, should probably follow. For Marx, the natural order of the world was eventual overthrow of the capitalist system by the proletariat, or working class. After years of oppresion to the schemes and whims of the evil bourgeoisie, the downtodden proletariat would eventually overthrow their capitalist masters, establishing "communes," or abolshing private property in favor of common ownership of all goods. Lenin elaborated on the theory, explaining that in order to bring about this desired change faster, the proletariat would establish an authoritarian government to seize all capital in a given country, and after they had restructured the economy and replaced all social conventions with loyalty to the State (including the abolishment of religion, which Marx referred to famously as the "opiate of the masses"), they would relinquish power and everyone would live in harmony as goods and services were shared without price and without restrictions. I am fully aware of the extremely simplistic nature of this overview, but I believe I have hit the main points for the purposes of this discussion. Anyone with more knowledge then me is free to post a comment to address a possible problem.
Anyone with a basic understanding of economics and history knows how this scenario played out. Now, allow me to compare this to the law of consecration as set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants and elaborated upon by the Prophet. It is worth mentioning that several times in the New Testament, the apostles reference that the early church had "all things in common," referring to their material goods. So, this was by no means a "new" thing that Joseph introduced, just another example of something lost to the ages after the early church fell apart.
The general idea behind the law of consecration is a seemless blend of the best things from communism and capitalism. Under communism, everyone became poor-- productivity fell to 10% in the Soviet Union, as no one had any real incentive to work harder or to better their situation. There was no chance for advancement, no higher salary, no reason to fear losing your job if you were not efficient- and no over-arching goal, no possible purpose to strive for, with the removal of God and religion from their lives. In consecration, the opposite effect happens. Though property is pooled together through the bishop, it is deeded out again as a "stewardship," with that person having direct accountability for that which they are deeded out. They legally own whatever the bishop gives back. Then, they are required to work, taking care of their stewardship with an eye single to God, desiring to bring about his kingdom. After a set time, after expenses and revenue have been calculated for each person, the surplus is gathered into the Bishop (surplus money, grain, products, etc) and it is then divided out to each persno according to need, and then according to wants. Productivity, theoretically, would actually stay the same, or perhaps increase- money still operates as a means of exchange, goods and services are still bought and sold according to a market. It is the most effcient means of allocating resources, though it does not always do so "morally," which is why the bishop allocating the surplus makes the difference. In this system, the exact opposite result of communism occurs- everyone becomes rich. After a time, everyone has everything, and there is an abundance of wealth. And everyone contributes to get what they are metted out- there are no "free-riders" in the law of consecration.
Lastly, and in my opinion most importantly, the law of consecration is purely voluntary. No one, not one person, is forced into joining and living according to a higher law. This allows for only the most committed to the system to join, and diminishes the problems associated with free-loaders mooching off the system. And if at any time a person wishes to opt out, they own the property that they are deeded back from the Bishop in the inital accounting, and are free to leave at any time (they would not be able to take back what they had given in the first place, as that would have been legally deeded over to the church in the beginning). No utopian system can be unilaterally imposed on a population that actually wants to work. Only through persuasion and devotion to a higher ideal can someone be truly committed to a cause as lofty as eliminating poverty- guns and tanks can only get you fear, not a person's heart. Without that, they will try and undermine you in any way they can, and the overall effect will be negative.
I am indeed grateful for the knowledge that I have of this wonderful system of government. I keep it in mind as often as I can to remind myself that riches mean very little in this world, inasmuch as I can provide for my family and life relatively comfortably. I plan to always be ready and committed to live the higher law at a moments notice, and gladly to do so- after all, I won't be able to take my condo with me when I die, right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Steve, I must admit that I've had quite a few people tell me, too, that Mormons are communists. I think it's absolutely hilarious that people would infer such a correlation simply because of the simple statement you touched on my Marx himself:
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
Within communism, religion cannot exist. And as you've pointed out quite well, communism cannot exist within religion. Whereas man strives for himself and himself only in communism, in consecration man strives to build up the Kingdom of God and sacrifices all, if he so chooses, to see Zion established on earth. Very good post. We should try to recruit some negative opinions here to stir things up once in awhile!
I guess I could critique my own posts... "Steve, this is your alter ego, Stephan. You are an idiot. Mormons are communists and everyone knows it. You are a fool for believing in a false prophet. Blah blah blah yakkaty yak yak..."
That was fun! lol
I think there is some confusion here that is common. Many times the teachings of Karl Marx are too closely associated with the distortions of Marxist thought used by totalitarian governments such as Lenin and Mao. In reality, the quote given by Marx does not directly implicate religion as a horrible institution. As was quoted early, he believed religion to be "the sentiment of a heartless world." To me that seems to indicate a positive view of religion rather than a negative one.
Also, a lot of Marxist doctrine stresses the oppression of the proletariat masses. When Marx publishes the previous quote in 1844, opium was the main base for pain relieving drugs. He is suggesting that religion is actually a source of relief and comfort from daily pains of the worker (which is quite in line with Christ's doctrine).
In the same article Marx refers to religion by saying, "Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion" (see http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm) Hardly the words of a raving atheist.
Marx does see religion as a man-made substitute for the freedom we all long to see inside. However, only 24 years earlier Joseph Smith learned the following: "My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: 'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.'”
Marx is really only decrying religion in the same way that Joseph Smith was told to in the First Vision. Marx obviously could hardly be referring to a fledgling church of which he had little knowledge.
I don't mean to say that communism and consecration are equal, however, Marx is often misquoted and portrayed as an extreme atheist. This is mostly due to the form communism took in the USSR.
The problem is, that many people simply use the USSR and the USA as the only examples of capitalism vs. socialism. Yes, in comparing these two countries your analysis is correct. Capitalism, however, has just as often as socialism created a political environment that promotes the wealth of the wealthy and leaves the poor destitute. Take, for example, most of Latin America. In several countries the capitalist investments of foreign nations have monopolized the means of production and taken the wealth away from the common people. It is for this reason that after decades under an extreme right-wing dictator the Chilean people have elected two consecutive socialist presidents. The trend is also true in other countries like Bolivia and Venezuela (and don’t think I would mention Venezuela lightly as there is a lot more that could be said about Hugo Chavez that will go uncommented here). And that is to say nothing of most of Europe, which is increasingly socialist (and might I say has been doing quite well economically compared to the United States recently).
Sorry this comment has become a diatribe, but this is something I feel strongly about. There is a lot more I could say here, but I’ll end it by saying that I really do enjoy the blog, keep it up Steve. Oh, and I also don’t believe that Mormons are communists (only in the strictest sense of the word).
Cory-
Thanks for the post! I am always happy to re-think my views when presented with new information. And I was aware of the distortions that crept into pure Marxist thought after Lenin and others got a hold of it. Communism, as put forth by Marx, has some merit to it. I think he just gave people a little too much credit for their capacity to not think of property as "theirs." It will be interesting to see if future later day saints, perhaps future versions of ourselves, will be able to pull consecration off!
And as a side note, I believe that capitalism, with all its faults, is still incredibly potent in its ability to do good. Given that under a capitalist system, all people have the opportunity (NOT the guarantee) of acquiring gain, but only by virtue of their ability to provide goods and services that other people find of use. Can there be exploitation? Of course. But no more so that is possible in communist or any other regime. On the aggregate, capitalism does much more to benefit man kind than idealistic socialist orders.
a criticism of capitalism is posted on the global warming article. somewhat related...
Post a Comment