Talk:United Order

FLDS & AUB

Don't both the FLDS (on a large scale) and the AUB (on a small scale) practice this?

Yes they do. The FLDS has a larger single community, but it seems that the AUB have more communities doing this. This needs to be followed up and added to the main United Order section, along with info about any other groups practising this. --Tobey 04:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Karl Marx got several ideas from the United Order or Law of Consecration?

I read this back in the mid 1980's, a book about the United Order (cannot recall title but it was an old thin, small (less than 8.5x11) whitish-tannish book) at the BYU library, that stated Karl Marx heard about either the United Order or the Law of Consecration in the late 1830's and incorporated several of their ideas into his works. From the jist of the book, Karl Marx got everything wrong because he took God out of the plan. If anyone knows of this book or finds it again at BYU on the shelves, Could you give us the title and quotes needed?

• The notion that the United Order somehow affected Marx and Engels is laughable. The original implementation of the United Order lasted from 1831 to 1834; the second implementation lasted from 1855 to 1858. Missionaries did not begin to serve in the United Kingdom until 1837, and even so, their activities were limited to the areas of Preston, Alston, and Bedford for many years.

  Although Engels was in England in the early 1840s managing his father's cotton factory in Manchester, it was also at this time that he began writing the 360 page treatise, "The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844". Engels brought Marx to England in 1845 to observe the conditions of poverty. That Marx and Engels should have had any exposure to Mormon utopianism, when the Mormons themselves weren't practicing it at the time, seems highly improbable. Rcharman 03:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't laughable, but I have no idea if it is true. Certainly news of the United Order and Law of Consecration could have reached Engels and Marx much more quickly than actual Mormon missionaries, and I know they got a lot of news, from around the world. JoshNarins (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, Someone close to the BYU library needs to look up the book (if it is still there) and comfirm or deny my recollections. I'm too far away.

• Interesting [Hyde was in Germany around this time frame] and putting out pamphlets.Septagram (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There is simply no evidence that Marx was influenced by Mormon doctrines. The very few references to Mormons in his writings are in a generally mocking tone, and it isn't any mystery to people who have studied the lives of Marx and Engels where they got their influences from (Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, Henri de Saint-Simon, etc.) 17th-century Dominican friar Tommaso Campanella had a demonstrably greater influence on Marx than any possible contact he could have had with Mormon missionaries (of which, again, there's no evidence.) --Ismail (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

A Few Points: United Order, Missionary Work, and Private Property

A stated purpose of the united order that is not mentioned which I read recently in Doctrine and Covenants 103:58-59 is to print scripture with the purpose of missionary work and the building of the kingdom. A purpose and value is to end poverty, but a value is also to support the mission of the Church of preaching the Gospel.

Also The treasury is owned by all , but I believe once property is alloted, it belongs to the individual with regular stewardship interviews. If a person opts out of the community, the community cannot take away what they currently have, and the individual cannot take away what they donated before.

I agree with the above statement completely. Private property was not eradicated by the United Order as is incorrectly assumed. J. Rueben Clark and others have clearly taught this in the past (see link below). This article has been put together by editors who have not taken the time to intimately study the history of the United order in the Church. The editors are under the false assumption that the United Order and Communism are very similar, which theory has repeatedly been disproven in general conferences. I added the new section "The United Order versus Communism" which dispels this myth. The reference included in this section should be required reading for anyone wishing to edit this article in the future (J. Rueben Clark, Jr. on the United Order and Communism). President McKay and Benson even recommended several books on this topics just so Church members would not be confused about this issue, one of which was "The Naked Communist" written by Cleon Skousen. This topic has so much involved to it that I really believe it should have it's own article dedicated to it. I may have to be the one to get it started. But until then, to all United Order article editors, please study LDS history, the old General Conference talks, and D&C! Gaytan 16:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Reuben Clark's views were revisionist - he was looking back at past United Orders (of which there were many different types) through the lens of a Church that had relinquished consecration for capitalism. Church Historian Leonard J. Arrington is a more accurate source for the history of this doctrine and the United Orders of the last century. We must remember also that sections of the Doctrine and Covenants on this subject were changed to accommodate civil laws that had already proved an inconvenience to early attempts to live consecration. --Tobey 21:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Who defines the doctrines and teachings of the LDS Church? Historians or Apostles and prophets of the Church? I guess it really depends on whether you are an adherent of the LDS faith or not, right? I can tell you that Mormons will generally give much more weight to the statements of a prophet or apostle much moreso than that of a historian. The words of current prophets are generally considered equal or of more wieght than the LDS canon. A historian cannot speak for the Church as a whole while a prophet can. Besides, it wasn't just J. Rueben Clark who made such statements; these ideas were commonly made public by Church's general leadership of seventies, apostles, and First Presidencies, throughout much of the 20th century. Now if you are not an adherent of the Mormon faith, then this is all irrelavent to you. Gaytan 19:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The words of someone who did not live during the era they speak about or was not involved with the events they speak about can never compare to the accounts of those who were there, wrote contemporary records, and were eye witnesses. Leonard J. Arrington, who was the official LDS Church Historian, in his book "Building the City of God" quotes from contemporary faithful Latter-day Saint witnesses to the United Order, who lived in communities in which sometimes property was held by the Church or community. The records, including official Church and legal documents, exist to prove that point. Whatever value we may place in President Clark as a religious leader, he seems to be mistaken in his history on several points. Perhaps he was trying to describe what consider the ideal conditions for a United Order, but this article is primarily about the history of United Orders, not the modern views on how they should have operated. --Tobey (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where else to mention this, but the section on Communism vs. United Order could use some of this discussion. As it is now it merely states they aren't the same "because church leaders said so" without any actual examination of the similarities or differences between the two, either in ideal or practice.74.236.192.149 (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Anon

It seems that this article takes the word of 20th century church leaders at face value instead of examining their viewpoints within the historical context of the Red Scare and anti-communism generally. It cites them as though they were historians instead of church leaders expounding on theology and doctrine. This article needs to cite historical research that isn't tainted by anti-communist bias. Stvltvs (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Free agency & politics

...it seems to me the spirit of mormonism-politics would suit better than the United Order and rather better mesh well, or rather evolve progressively into/with multicameral types of governance such as "Polycentric law", Consociationalism, Pillarization, corporative federalism, public choice bundling (and other forms of proxy democracy), and that ilk. The "bureaucratic yet freedom/free agency imbuing" form of government. Esp., if like one of the final paragraphs on the article page here about working free agency with the secular side of life, their promoting of freedom of religion, seeing the consociational/non-territorial federalism types as simply a just ideal of government to propagate rather than any church attempt at bridging church and state (far from it). The open endedness of each constituency being regimented into forming its own active polity and jurisprudential framework under the auspices of a central government's vertically federative infrastructure fits many of mormonisms tenets perfectly. 65.102.4.54 (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Results of the United Order

Someone needs to add the work done by Israelsen in BYU studies where he quantifies the inequality between united order communities and non-united order communities. He finds that the united order did not reduce inequality and that poorer individuals were more likely to join the order. It would be great to add all the results from real data about the communities to the page. I believe Israelsen also wrote an article entitled "economics of the United Order". 98.234.49.248 (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Israelsen has now been added: found "An Economic Analysis of the United Order" by him, but that was the only article I could find by him in BYU Studies. Is he published elsewhere on this or related topics? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

United Firm vs United Order vs Law of Consecration

This article reads like what I would expect to hear from a Sunday school class 10 years ago and ignores recent learnings from historians. That is, it conflates three things: united order communities setup by Brigham Young, the United Firm (called the united order in the Doctrine and Covenants) setup by Joseph Smith, and the law of consecration dictated by Joseph Smith. It should be updated in accordance with what historians on the Joseph Smith Papers project have discovered / called attention to. First, the difference between the United Firm and the united order. Second, that (at least part) of the reference to "Enoch" is due to Enoch previously being a code name for Joseph Smith in the sections in the Doctrine and Covenants which discuss the United Firm (which it calls the united order). Third, that Joseph Smith recognized that "the family" on the Morley farm was economically doomed; the law of consecration was at least in part given to fix those problems - for example, by recognizing private property. Fourth, that the communal-type united orders setup by Brigham Young were different from the United Firm setup by Joseph Smith which was different from the law of consecration setup by Joseph Smith. These points have been misunderstood for years and have recently come to light due to historians digging into the primary sources. It would be good to update this page to reflect recent work on the topic.

Let me say it differently, this article reads like a description of the united order communities setup by Brigham Young. And then the article imposes the ideas of communal living, which existed in those united orders, as if that was taught and practiced by Joseph Smith in the United Firm (commonly known as the united order). And that both of these are physical embodiments of the law of consecration. And that Joseph Smith was somehow in favor of the communal living of "the family" on the Morley farm. But this is all wrong. The United Firm was only for a small handful of church leaders to help them with their "literary and mercantile establishments" (i.e. publishing efforts and their two stores (one in Kirtland, OH and the other in Independence, MO)). On the other hand, you have Edward Partridge, tasked with implementing the law of consecration among lay members in Ohio and later Missouri who was never even a member of the United Firm.