Is anyone in my church confused by Socialism and the Law of Consecration? I have heard people declare that they believe that Socialism is right because it is like the Law of Consecration. I knew this couldn't be right because it denies agency, but there is more...
I have been reading "The Elders of Israel and the Constitution" by Jerome Horowitz. This is one of the books that was recommended by Ezra Taft Benson in a talk of his that I read. Well, today I came across a section in the chapter on the constitution and capitalism that answers some questions about the law of consecration and socialism. It is titled "Law of Consecration Like Capitalism, Not Socialism", and it details at least four ways that the system of capitalism is most in line with the law of consecration. First, both capitalism and the law of consecration are based on voluntary participation rather than compulsion (we knew that). Second, the law of consecration is actually a private property system in which a person voluntarily conveys to the church all that he owns and then is deeded back that part which it is deemed that he needs…this is then his own private property and his stewardship. In fact, if he leaves the church, he takes that part that was deeded back to him with him…it is his. (The author quoted from D&C 41:46 to show this). After he receives his stewardship, he is then responsible to manage it wisely and build it as well as he is able…and then again voluntarily delivers that portion which he does not need to the church (many more scriptures were quoted). As has often been pointed out, we can live closer and closer to the second part of the law of consecration individually through our choices of what we give to the church in tithes and offerings. The difference then? There is no private property in socialism, and there is no "voluntary" either.
In addition to these differences, it was pointed out that with the law of consecration the individual has no unconditional right to be helped by the group. If he is a lazy person who could work and just expects to profit by the labor of others, he has no claim on the church or his fellows for his support…way different from socialism or government welfare.
And lastly, both the constitution and the law of consecration can only function in a religious society (which we also knew). Hence the need for us to become Zion people before we can live this law. This also points out part of the reason that our country is having challenges and reasons for some of the abuses of the capitalistic system as people become less righteous and less ethical in their dealings with each other. But, as the author points out, these abuses do not show that capitalism is wrong any more than they show that agency is wrong. Agency…choice…must always be at the basis of any correct governmental system.
I would add a final difference between the two. In the law of consecration, all live under this same standard and order. In socialism, the government officials in every circumstance where socialism is in place live a standard of living far above those that they profess to "care for". Socialism is pseudo-philanthropy.The profession of a tyrannical government that they will care for and make all equal, when in fact the real and underlying goal is power and authority. Remember what Satan's plan was in the pre-existence? Let me take care of you...and by the way I want all the glory and power. And in fact, the law of consecration could not exist under a socialistic government or in a socialistic nation. Neither could the church have been organized or exist under this form of government.
There is also an amazingly clear and consice speech on this topic by President Marion G. Romney on the BYU devotional page at this link
http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=480
Just a few thoughts. Back to my study of the book...I hope to find time to annotate this one on my blog when I'm finished if I can find time...
