The law of consecration is not the same as socialism in the way that the two are implemented, but philosophically it is much closer to socialism than it is to capitalism. The goal of both socialism and the LOC is to redistribute wealth. The concept of stewardship is a smokescreen. If I own a thing but someone else benefits from that thing, then my ownership of that thing is false.
The basic difference between socialism and the LOC is that one is directed by government and is mandatory, while the other is directed by the Church and is voluntary. But is it really voluntary? We pay taxes to the government because we are mandated to do so, and we pay tithing to the Church on a voluntary basis. But paying tithing is not really voluntary if we want to be a member of the Church in good standing. For all intents and purposes it is mandatory.
It is clear that the majority of people in the Church are die-hard conservatives and are infatuated with capitalism and despise anything that resembles socialism. That's why it is understandable that people engage in mental and semantic gymnastics when trying to reconcile the LOC with their political beliefs. But if you honestly look at the ideals of the LOC on a philosophical basis and compare those ideals to the ideals of socialism, you can only conclude that the LOC has more in common with socialism than it does with capitalism.
I am not endorsing socialism, and I am not a closet communist. I realize that in the real world it simply does not work. People are not altruistic by nature. People are motivated by greed. Socialism and Communism ultimately lead to corruption and abuse, because people will always look out for themselves first. That is why the LOC didn't work when Joseph Smith was alive, and why it won't work in modern times.
|