Sign in to follow this  
Carborendum

The Law of Consecration and Stewardship

Recommended Posts

I'm going to bring up this topic again because I've just had a change of perspective on just what the differences and similarities are here.  It was because I actually got a copy of the Priesthood manual on Church Welfare and read it.

The primary thought that has enlightened my mind is the "full title" of the law.  It isn't just "The Law of Consecration".  It was "The Law of Consecration and Stewardship."

Primarily what this meant was that, yes, we signed over the deed to our land and property to the Church.  BUT!!! then we were given an assignment to be stewards over that property.  The vast majority of the time, such stewardship simply meant that the signing the deed over was effectively nominal.  Yes, a legal procedure.  But the way it was practiced, it was "in name only."  The steward ran the farm, received profits from it and gave what he could to the Church for welfare purposes.

As a side note, there were many of the particularly wealthy who would not sign over their property.  None of them were excommunicated for that refusal (that I'm aware of).  And when the practice was discontinued, the property was all given back to the stewards.

Today, the general authorities practice the same thing.  And I wonder when George P. Lee was excommunicated, did he ask for his property back?  Was it given to him?  I don't know. But I'd suspect that if he did ask and it were not given back to him then we would have heard about it all over the news.

So, again, even though it was a legal procedure, it was apparently in name only.  So, why do they practice it?  I think that it is because when you sign on as a general authority, you have to have a physical reminder of the level of sacrifice you have to make to serve in that capacity.  Signing over the rights to all your property is a pretty big commitment.

Each of us makes a commitment to live the Law of Consecration.  But we are not asked to sign over our homes.  I think that on a practical level, it would be untenable.  A general authority will live in the same place for pretty much the rest of his life.  But I've moved into 11 different homes since I've been married.  What process would I have to do for each time I had to move?  I'm going through the process in my head and it could potentially be REALLY complicated.  Would I even be able to move? How would I have had the jobs I've had in my life? 

The reality is that I would end up unemployed most of my life if I had to stay where I was.  Instead, I make that covenant in my heart, but not on paper.  I view all my property (both real and personal) as the property of the Lord.  I am only the steward of that property.  If the Lord were to ask me for it, I'd have to oblige.  It's His.  How could I keep it from Him?

So, while some people say that we don't live the Law of Consecration today -- only the GAs do -- they are technically correct.  But on a spiritual level, I disagree.  The difference really is "just a piece of paper."  The GAs who practice it are still given stewardship over all that property.  They basically run it as if it were their own, just as I run my property as if it were my own.  But in the back of their minds, and in the back of my mind, I'm always reminded of the covenants I've made.  It isn't mine.  It is the Lord's.  And as long as I carry that thought in my mind and the principle in my heart, then I believe I am living the Law of Consecration and Stewardship -- with or without that piece of paper.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The primary thought that has enlightened my mind is the "full title" of the law.  It isn't just "The Law of Consecration".  It was "The Law of Consecration and Stewardship."

Indeed, the two are inseparable. Part of our consecration is accepting and magnifying our stewardship, just as part of our stewardship is our consecration of all things to God. Obvious? Maybe, but worth considering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) What is the source for the claim that the GAs live the Law of Consecration?  (I’m not disputing it, necessarily; but this seems to be one of those things that everybody knows but no one can source.)

2)  FWIW, property records in Davis and Salt Lake Counties are online, and searchable by owner name; and several members of the Q15 are on there as owning homes in their own names or under family trusts.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

As a side note, there were many of the particularly wealthy who would not sign over their property.  None of them were excommunicated for that refusal (that I'm aware of). 

I believe they were during Joseph Smith's time, but not during Brigham Young's time.  That's what I remember from reading The History of The Church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Primarily what this meant was that, yes, we signed over the deed to our land and property to the Church.  BUT!!! then we were given an assignment to be stewards over that property.  The vast majority of the time, such stewardship simply meant that the signing the deed over was effectively nominal.  Yes, a legal procedure.  But the way it was practiced, it was "in name only."  The steward ran the farm, received profits from it and gave what he could to the Church for welfare purposes.

As a side note, there were many of the particularly wealthy who would not sign over their property.  None of them were excommunicated for that refusal (that I'm aware of).  And when the practice was discontinued, the property was all given back to the stewards.

NOT according to history...but then...there are MANY in the Church that do NOT read history today or even care  how things actually occurred.

There WERE people (particularly in the Missouri and Nauvoo areas) that were excommunicated over property and their attitudes towards the exact thing you are talking aqbout.  many of them became leaders of Mobs and organizations which eventually kicked the members out of those areas...which is actually a pretty big impact.  These were VERY angry and anti-driven people.

Originally, they probably had similar ideas that you have, that they would sign it over, but it wasn't actually being signed over...it was still "theirs" to do with as they wanted.  Unfortunately...that's not how it worked out for them...and it caused a LOT of strife. 

One thing that repeats constantly in history is that normally, the root of MANY problems can be traced back directly to MONEY and the struggle over it.

This also created a problem in Utah later on, but not in the same manner.  There were areas that lived under the Law of Consecration.  There is no society on earth that really lives in the same manner, but the closest we could probably lay it to would be communism (as in RED communism...Marxist Communism...etc) but with some very strong differences in the approach to religion and who actually handled the property.  In the Church (as opposed to the Reds)Religion is a the core of the law and plans, and the handling is done BY the leaders of the church under (hopefully) the influence of the Lord.  As it was pointed out, the adversary likes to copy and make a mockery of the things of the Lord, and the Communism in the USSR was that copycat done by him.  Like many copycats, it has many similarities, but the core is so vastly different it becomes the polar opposite in spirit).  In so far as similarities physically, property was still handled by a small group of people who gave it according to how they saw needs and necessities to those under them.  Spiritually, the Law of consecration and the copycat were as different as night and day.  In Utah, Property really was dished out accordingly in a more communal fashion according to what a LEADER felt a family or individual needed (YOU, as an individual, did NOT get to decide what you kept or did not keep initially, that was decided more by the leader [normally a Bishop or similar leader] who would decide what YOU and your family actually needed...NOT you and what you thought you already had].

At times, when a leader died, this could lead to questions (legally in regards to US law) who owned the property or controlled it at that point.  Most of this was settled in the Post Brigham Young crisis years, and many of the deeds in the former Utah territory have roots in these decisions by various individuals and groups.

 

Quote

Each of us makes a commitment to live the Law of Consecration.  But we are not asked to sign over our homes.  I think that on a practical level, it would be untenable.  A general authority will live in the same place for pretty much the rest of his life.  But I've moved into 11 different homes since I've been married.  What process would I have to do for each time I had to move?  I'm going through the process in my head and it could potentially be REALLY complicated.  Would I even be able to move? How would I have had the jobs I've had in my life? 

The reality is that I would end up unemployed most of my life if I had to stay where I was.  Instead, I make that covenant in my heart, but not on paper.  I view all my property (both real and personal) as the property of the Lord.  I am only the steward of that property.  If the Lord were to ask me for it, I'd have to oblige.  It's His.  How could I keep it from Him?

So, while some people say that we don't live the Law of Consecration today -- only the GAs do -- they are technically correct.  But on a spiritual level, I disagree.  The difference really is "just a piece of paper."  The GAs who practice it are still given stewardship over all that property.  They basically run it as if it were their own, just as I run my property as if it were my own.  But in the back of their minds, and in the back of my mind, I'm always reminded of the covenants I've made.  It isn't mine.  It is the Lord's.  And as long as I carry that thought in my mind and the principle in my heart, then I believe I am living the Law of Consecration and Stewardship -- with or without that piece of paper.

It would probably occur more like it does already for those who live under the similar laws. 

Missionaries also technically live under the law of consecration.  Living places are paid for by the Mission itself, and when missionaries move, they live in the place provided.  They are given a small allowance which is determined enough to fulfill their needs in life (not necessarily their wants). 

Under the law, you would NOT be free to move around as you wish normally.  You would be given a job (like a calling, but it would not just be a calling, it would be your occupation, until called to another) and you live accordingly.

In Brigham's time, the houses probably would be being constructed during the time the Law was more strongly enforced, so it would be more debatable about what type of living situation you would be under.  Once established, if it was still in effect, you would not have to worry about moving.  If you were told you were moving (and you would be told, much like missionaries are), then you would also have a place provided for you and your family.  You would have stewardship, much like missionaries do.

12 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1) What is the source for the claim that the GAs live the Law of Consecration?  (I’m not disputing it, necessarily; but this seems to be one of those things that everybody knows but no one can source.)

2)  FWIW, property records in Davis and Salt Lake Counties are online, and searchable by owner name; and several members of the Q15 are on there as owning homes in their own names or under family trusts.

They live under a form of the Law of Consecration, more so than anyone else today, as far as I know.  They do not get paid to be General Authorities and generally do not get any money from jobs.  I'm not sure about their retirements (if they collect such) and what they do with that money, but as far as the church is concerned, much like missionaries get a monthly allowance to pay for the necessities of life, the General Authorities also collect a stipend of sorts, or monthly allowance to help provide for the necessities of life.  A few years ago it was around 120K and probably increases in regards to inflation (which may make it around 125K or a little higher today).

Much like Missionaries, it is theirs to budget accordingly (and wisely, as it is the Lord's money they are budgeting) to help provide for what is needed in life.  Unlike the Missionaries, they are given a little bit more leeway on what is needed (for example, a place to reside, and furnishing it as well as utility bills and other expenses that go with it).

IN THEORY (not that it happens this way, I don't know) they would also return unspent money at the end of a certain amount of time (one might think annually, but it could also be at the end of their lifetime as well), and certain things would remain with the church while others would go to their families as inheritances. 

There have been times (And a FEW positions still do) where a specific living or residence is specified for that leader to live.  Below the GA level, there are various levels of the Law in effect (for example Missionaries are rather close to living the Law today as well, but Mission Presidents are technically somewhat under it, but also not...and have a foot in basically both worlds of living.  Many have certain residences spelled out where they must live and utilities and other things are reimbursed as per what they need to pay).

Information on how Missionaries live is pretty widely known, but I'm not sure of specific sources at this instance which graphs it out and puts it in writing.  The same could be said for Mission Presidents, and much of it may be found in some handbooks which probably are still not widely distributed.  The Handbook for those in higher positions is definitely not available for public consumption as far as I am aware.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Side question. Could we look at callings the same way we look at property. Nothing is truly ours, we only have the illusion of ownership, God gives all and gives us stewardship over what is his. Callings are only additions to our stewardship. However, because of the illusion of ownership, we treat our property better than we treat our callings. But in reality they are equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Today, the general authorities practice the same thing.

Please provide a reference -- I would be interested in reading up on this -- thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personal property rights and ownership are not eliminated under the law of consecration. They are in fact a vital part of it. Whenever something such as land was given back to an individual it was in fact deeded to them. Without ownership the law of consecration ceases to be operative as no one any longer has ultimate say over their property. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, laronius said:

Personal property rights and ownership are not eliminated under the law of consecration. They are in fact a vital part of it. Whenever something such as land was given back to an individual it was in fact deeded to them. Without ownership the law of consecration ceases to be operative as no one any longer has ultimate say over their property. 

Agreed. Consecration is not socialism...far from it in fact. All persons have complete control over their own property and earnings. People are not asked to give all of their earnings to the church, only to have the church divvy it back out "equally" while they keep much of it like governments would do. Once your own necessities are met, you are then asked to give your excess to those in need. Could the church ask for everything...yes. But the goal is not to have the church dictate everything to us. Rather, it should be a proactive cooperative mode between families. We should all be actively engaged in a good cause and help our Bishops in seeking out the poor and needy. And, those who are in need cannot be slothful...they must put forth true and honest effort in supporting themselves.

The Bishopric doesn't look up your tax returns for the past year before issuing you a temple recommend to make sure that 10% was paid...all we ask is "are you a full tithe payer". If you say yes, then we move on. The law of consecration is a principle that is based off of trust and a covenant between you and the Lord. There are many people in the church who are already giving all of their discretionary income to others, and would give everything if it was asked of them. Abraham was truly willing to sacrifice anything and everything for the Lord, but ultimately did not have to. What he had sacrificed prior, along with his demonstration of faith and true commitment, was enough for the Lord.

Are we just as willing as Abraham to do what we are asked? I scoff at those who say "bring it on" with regards to the law of consecration, when they themselves have never been able to magnify a simple church calling, never agree to help clean the church building, or never, ever, visit someone just one time for home and visiting teaching / ministering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1) What is the source for the claim that the GAs live the Law of Consecration?  (I’m not disputing it, necessarily; but this seems to be one of those things that everybody knows but no one can source.)

I don't know.  But here is what I do know.

1) In all the reading I've done recently on Consecration, there was a sentence somewhere that said something like,"Most people tend to believe it doesn't apply to the population at large, but just the presiding elders of the Church."  I took that to mean GAs.  But it simply said,"Most people tend to think..."  It seemed that said source didn't know either.

2) I, myself, have only heard this claim in the last few years. So, I really don't know.

17 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

2)  FWIW, property records in Davis and Salt Lake Counties are online, and searchable by owner name; and several members of the Q15 are on there as owning homes in their own names or under family trusts.

On the Church website, it says something different than what I read in that old manual.

Quote

The stewardship was given with a deed of ownership so each member would be fully responsible and accountable for managing it (D&C 51:4; 72:3–4; 104:11–13). The stewardship, then, was treated as private property, not common or communal property, even though all property ultimately belongs to God.

I looked up those D&C references.  Only one (Section 51) mentions a paper given to the person who was given a stewardship.  But Section 51 was about Edward Partridge as the First Bishop of the Church.

I would guess that since we're no longer entering into the "system" that was outlined, much of these procedures are moot until we are righteous enough to live it as written.

But it would seem reasonable, that what appears to be a gifting and re-gifting back is more ceremonial than legally binding.  Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Scott said:

I believe they were during Joseph Smith's time, but not during Brigham Young's time.  That's what I remember from reading The History of The Church.

I'd be interested in seeing that reference if you can find it. 

For now, I'm going to believe there was a bigger issue afoot and the consecration aspect was just thrown into the mix.

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, laronius said:

Personal property rights and ownership are not eliminated under the law of consecration. 

In some of the United Orders (there was more than one type), private property was abolished.

In Utah there were two main types of United Orders.

In Orderville Utah (named for the United Order) type for example, all personal property was abolished*.  Even things like owning your own utensils, cups, and plates was abolished.  Buildings were built where everyone would eat together at set times.

In the Brigham City United Order, personal property was still allowed.

Edit:  According to the town of Orderville's official website, some personal possessions were allowed (I don't know which ones), but private property was abolished.  I know that private ownership of things like plates, utensils, cus, etc. were abolished (so as to encourage everyone to eat in the same building at set times). 

 

 

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone remember "Within These Walls"?  It was a play that went around Church circles.  It was set in Orderville, UT.  At the time, I was just a kid.  So, I thought it was a figurative fictional title.  I had no idea it was basically historical fiction.

I can't help but remember the song "Put your seat to the grindstone."  Today, I'm seeing things like fashion trends for temple clothing and garments.  Some of it, granted is about function (comfort and fit) rather than form (appearance/fashion).  But more than a few websites seem to be around finding "fashionable" yet "modest" clothing for female missionaries.

Things don't change, do they?

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I can't help but remember the song "Put your seat to the grindstone." 

Ha ha, that event actually made into our Church history.

For those reading the thread that didn't know, in Orderville all members were required to wear the same clothing/uniform.  Apparently the clothing was well made and lasted a long time.   Some of the teenagers in town would sneak into the building with a grinding stone to grind their pants and prove that they were "worn out".   Orderville was a tiny community and some of the teenagers who would associate with friends in the other communities were embarrassed by their old fashion uniforms so they wanted an excuse to buy store bought cloth or pants.  

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Please provide a reference -- I would be interested in reading up on this -- thank you!

Two thoughts.  First - the general authorities that I have know personally - keep their personal lives personal.  This is not the type of item General Authorities want to brag about or make a big deal of in public.  The things from their personal lives are carefully guarded but may be referenced from time to time when it is thought to be beneficial for the Saints.  I am also aware that it is possible to be obedient and live according to the covenant of the Law of Concentration and Stewardship - I am also aware of many (with emphasis on many) of the Latter-day Saints that are not general authorities that are living the according to that covenant.

Second - The absents of evidence is not evidence of absents.  That a source is not sited does not mean that there is no one living the Law of Concentration and Stewardship.  

 

This should not be a question in our hearts concerning what others are doing.  The question before us all - is what is the desire of our hearts.

 

The Traveler 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Scott said:

Ha ha, that event actually made into our Church history.

For those reading the thread that didn't know, in Orderville all members were required to wear the same clothing/uniform.  Apparently the clothing was well made and lasted a long time.   Some of the teenagers in town would sneak into the building with a grinding stone to grind their pants and prove that they were "worn out".   Orderville was a tiny community and some of the teenagers who would associate with friends in the other communities were embarrassed by their old fashion uniforms so they wanted an excuse to buy store bought cloth or pants.  

There was another chapter to this story.

Apparently one of the boys was quite capable with the needle and thread.  He went to the waste portions of the clothing manufacturer and picked out the pieces that were big enough to make himself a pair of pants that were very much like "the latest trendy pants."  As such, he was the envy of all the boys there.

It created a stir enough that some investigating was done.  The bishop decided that since he didn't steal anything, there was nothing wrong with what he did.  But he asked if the boy would allow the clothing mill to use his pants as a pattern to make new pants for all the other boys.  So, as the boys wanted the new pattern, they wore out the seats (without wearing out the knees).  Only then could they get the "Jordache Jeans".

I'm sorry.  I'm showing my age. I mean "Dockers."

Edited by Carborendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

There was another chapter to this story.

Apparently one of the boys was quite capable with the needle and thread.  He went to the waste portions of the clothing manufacturer and picked out the pieces that were big enough to make himself a pair of pants that were very much like "the latest trendy pants."  As such, he was the envy of all the boys there.

It created a stir enough that some investigating was done.  The bishop decided that since he didn't steal anything, there was nothing wrong with what he did.  But he asked if the boy would allow the clothing mill to use his pants as a pattern to make new pants for all the other boys.  So, as the boys wanted the new pattern, they wore out the seats (without wearing out the knees). 

Now that you mention it, I do remember that part of the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Two thoughts.  First - the general authorities that I have know personally - keep their personal lives personal.  This is not the type of item General Authorities want to brag about or make a big deal of in public.  The things from their personal lives are carefully guarded but may be referenced from time to time when it is thought to be beneficial for the Saints.  I am also aware that it is possible to be obedient and live according to the covenant of the Law of Concentration and Stewardship - I am also aware of many (with emphasis on many) of the Latter-day Saints that are not general authorities that are living the according to that covenant.

Second - The absents of evidence is not evidence of absents.  That a source is not sited does not mean that there is no one living the Law of Concentration and Stewardship.  

 

This should not be a question in our hearts concerning what others are doing.  The question before us all - is what is the desire of our hearts.

 

The Traveler 

Thank you. This is not a practice I was aware of among our General Authorities, and so would like to read more than a post a message board ☺️. I am interested in the factual basis upon which the statement that was made, preferably a Church source describing what has been posted, if one exists. Otherwise my interest level drops precipitously, quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Thank you. This is not a practice I was aware of among our General Authorities, and so would like to read more than a post a message board ☺️. I am interested in the factual basis upon which the statement that was made, preferably a Church source describing what has been posted, if one exists. Otherwise my interest level drops precipitously, quickly.

The only source I have is through personal contact.  As far as I know there is no public information.  As I stated previously the primary focus for anyone ought to be their own covenants.  If you hold a current temple recommend - it is my personal opinion that you ought to be living the law and covenant of Concentration and Stewardship.  

This kind of reminds me of a person that asked Mozart how to write music.  Mozart replied that the person was too young and the person replied that Mozart was only 6 when he wrote his first master peace.   Mozart replied that he did not have to ask anyone how.  It is my personal opinion that if someone does not want to live the law and covenant - obviously they are not ready.  If they desire such a thing - it is most likely they are not worried about what others are doing.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Vort said:

Is it unwise to live a united order as an expression of the law of consecration without the express command of God?

As I understand - the United Order was designed to provide a platform for a community to live under the Law of Consecration and Stewardship.  Individual families are individually responsible regardless of what is happening in their community - with the exception of socialistic states.  It is my personal belief that without freedom and liberty it is impossible to live the Law of Consecration and Stewardship.  Thus I believe a people must have desire and then G-d will provide a proctor with authority.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Traveler said:

The only source I have is through personal contact.  As far as I know there is no public information.

Thank you. How is it you have personal contact with a General Authority, and would you describe your contact and relationship with him?

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Scott said:

In some of the United Orders (there was more than one type), private property was abolished.

In Utah there were two main types of United Orders.

In Orderville Utah (named for the United Order) type for example, all personal property was abolished*.  Even things like owning your own utensils, cups, and plates was abolished.  Buildings were built where everyone would eat together at set times.

In the Brigham City United Order, personal property was still allowed.

Edit:  According to the town of Orderville's official website, some personal possessions were allowed (I don't know which ones), but private property was abolished.  I know that private ownership of things like plates, utensils, cus, etc. were abolished (so as to encourage everyone to eat in the same building at set times). 

 

 

The United Orders practiced in Utah seem to be more of a hybrid of the law of consecration. The actual Revelations pertaining to the law of consecration specifically state: "every man shall be made accountable unto me, a steward over his own property." (D&C 42:32) It seems like I read somewhere that the full law of consecration that the Lord set forth was never fully implemented in Missouri or Utah though I guess we could say that they did try to live the spirit of it if not the letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, laronius said:

The actual Revelations pertaining to the law of consecration specifically state: "every man shall be made accountable unto me, a steward over his own property." (D&C 42:32) It seems like I read somewhere that the full law of consecration that the Lord set forth was never fully implemented in Missouri or Utah though I guess we could say that they did try to live the spirit of it if not the letter.

The Orderville type United Orders defintely went beyond those in Joseph Smith's time and D&C 42.  Brigham Young was most impressed by the Orderville community and said it was the model of what the United Order should be.  If you are interested, the Dramatized Church History is really interesting to listen too.  It's worth the money.  Chapter 45 has the story of Orderville.

https://www.livingscriptures.com/product/the-dramatized-church-history/

Although far less interesting than the source above, this is the version from the Orderville town website/Utah History Encyclopedia.

https://www.townoforderville.com/about

"Orderville became the symbol for the most communal United Order and a model for a number of Orders, especially in the southern portions of Mormon country.

The Orderville Saints went far beyond what Joseph Smith had envisioned in the Law of Consecration and Stewardship. The members ate together in a common dining hall, wore uniform clothing made by Orderville industries, and lived in uniform apartments. The elected board supervised all activity, including entertainment, schooling, cooking, clothing manufacture, and farming. Private property did not exist, though (some) personal possessions were assigned as a Stewardship to each individual.

Under this regimen, the order prospered, both materially and spiritually. Assets of the eighty families tripled from $21,551 to $69,562 in the first four years of operation and reached nearly $80,000 by 1883. The leaders made adjustments as time went on. In 1877 they replaced the earlier loose dependence upon willingness to contribute with an accounting system that placed uniform values on labor and commodities (the wages varying by age and sex, but not type of work). A flood in 1880 destroyed the dining facilities, ending communal meals. In 1883 Erastus Snow, a regional church official, recommended moving to an unequal wage and partial stewardship system, the latter giving each family a plot of ground to till for its own use. Evolution away from the original communal purity continued as specific enterprises were leased to their operators for a fee retained by the order.

External pressures took their toll as well. The largely polygamous leadership of the community was decimated after the U. S. Congress passed the Edmunds Act of 1882. This act stimulated a vigorous campaign to enforce federal anti-polygamy statues, leading to the imprisonment or forced exile of many local leaders. In 1885 central church leaders, eager to reduce the range of federal complaints against Mormon peculiarities (the government was hostile to Mormon economic as well as marital practices), counseled the members to disband the Order, which they agreed reluctantly to do. They retained community ownership of the tannery, woolen mill, and sheep ranch until 1889 and finally let the corporation lapse in 1904.

Although the less communal stock company system of Brigham City was at least as successful financially as was Orderville, it did not capture the imagination and live on in the collective memory of Mormons. Orderville became the symbol of the United Order for subsequent Saints, a daring and near-successful effort to build the City of God on earth. Celebrated in song and legend, Orderville is in the minds of most Mormons today a model of selflessness, devotion, and future obligation."

 

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this