In many religious contexts, the idea of “economic theology” is seen as almost a contradiction in terms. Theology, after all, deals with the divine whereas economics is fundamentally about the grossly material. It is perhaps unsurprising that Mormon theology — a system of ideas that denies the distinction between temporal and spiritual things, and that places God and spirit in a purely material framework — has a great deal more to say about economic issues than have many other Christian theologies. Hence, coming to grips with the evolution of Mormon economic theology is a task of obvious importance.
In this post, I want to briefly sketch out what I currently see as the six major periods of economic theology in Mormon history. This is an initial schematization, so comments are especially welcome. For each theological period, I will offer a title, a range of dates, and a brief explanation. As is typically the case with systems of ideas, each of the five theologies to be discussed below has exerted an effect that lingers to the present. Yet, rather than refuse to assign end dates in order to recognize the long tail of influence that ideas have, I will instead specify a final date corresponding to the time when this theology was no longer frequently preached by top church leaders.
Early Collectivism, 1828-1837. The first two periods of Mormon economic theology were highly responsive to Joseph Smith’s revelations, and thus consisted more of networks of instructions than of reason and argumentation. What I am calling early collectivist economic theology first arose in the Book of Mormon, which contains multiple references to economic equality and collective ownership (”all things common among them“) as the divine ideal for society. Other portions of the book, including the economic segment of King Benjamin’s sermon in early Mosiah, provide reinforcing messages about individual responsibility to the poor, in particular, and the collectivity more generally. These themes are expanded and developed in the Law of Consecration revelations, now found in the Doctrine and Covenants. Early collectivst theology was made distinctive by its emphasis on appeals to individuals as the basis for holding together the collectivity; institutions and organizing principles were given at best a secondary emphasis. The early collectivist period faded out as the conflict in Missouri became so intense that economic experimentation was no longer viable.
Kingdom Economic Theology, 1838-about 1900. The distinctive emphasis of early collectivism was concern for the poorest so that the group as a whole could be made equal. In contrast, the focus of the kingdom period in Mormon economic theology was the use of all economic resources to build up the church and the kingdom of God as institutions. Hence, another kind of economic unity becomes paramount for church members: unity in obedience, rather than unity in joint ownership. Kingdom economic theology becomes prominent in the religious rationales offered for Joseph Smith’s virtual monopoly over land sales in Nauvoo and continues through the entire period of intense conflict with the Gentile world. On the one hand, kingdom economic theology may have enhanced the Mormon ability to survive such conflict by allowing top leadership maximum resource autonomy in conflicts with outsiders. However, on the other hand, kingdom economic theology also contributed to the conflict, offending the nascent capitalist/individualist sensibilities of Americans in general who thoroughly rejected the idea that religious leaders could control their followers’ economic lives. Kingdom theology faded out about when the church as political kingdom did — i.e., around the beginning of the 20th century. Perhaps the most important legacy of this period is the current form of the Law of Consecration covenant.
Late Collectivism, 1874-about 1900. While the United Order period in Utah certainly has continuities with the earlier collectivist period, there were noteworthy differences, as well. Perhaps the most important difference is the increased emphasis in the late collectivist period of economic theology on institutions and organizations. It isn’t too much of an exaggeration to claim that Brigham Young was incapable of giving a sermon on the United Order without offering a practical and theological rationale for some experimental social institution. The institutional forms highlighted during this period included producer’s coops, collectivized towns, and even large apartment building-type structures in which child-care and family life would be collectivized among multiple families. While continuing the emphasis on individual responsibility toward the collective from the earlier period, then, the late collectivist period is more than a revival: it’s a reinvention along more radically social-experimental lines.
Moderate Individualism, 1900-the mid-1990s. During the process of Americanization of the Mormon community, after the abandonment of polygamy, economic collectivism, and the temporal kingdom of God, church leaders produced an economic theology that echoed the moderate individualism of mainstream American society. While this theology is clearly anti-communist in rhetoric and logic, the emphasis is more squarely on the economic responsibilities of men, in particular, and families, more generally. In comparison with previous periods, the moderate individualist period is marked with a strong insistence that men have a divine, theologically-motivated duty to work hard enough to economically support their own families. Other points of emphasis include family networks as the divinely-appointed safety net for people who are temporarily unable to support themselves; and education, particularly in the sciences and engineering, as a means to economic success. While this economic theology still feels contemporary to most Mormons, there has been a distinct decline in the frequency with which it is preached by our top leadership in recent years.
Radical Individualism, 1960-the mid-1980s. Above all, radical individualist economic theology is the legacy of Ezra Taft Benson. In a long series of economic and political sermons starting about the time of his endorsement of the John Birch Society in 1960, Benson created an economic theology in which the individual is the only morally legitimate economic unit. All institutional structures which attempt to regulate or redistribute economic outcomes are encroachments on the economic liberty of the individual. Not only are government welfare systems inferior to individual effort, family support networks, and church charity — as in moderate individualist economic theology — but in fact such welfare systems are theft: the government is stealing money from successful individuals and reassigning it to the poor. Radical individualist economic theology imagines a dramatic transformation of society in the direction of laissez faire capitalism as the best institutional support for individual free agency, the master value in this theological system. During his later years, Benson all but ceased his public preaching on radical individualist economic theology and, in the years since his ministry ended, no other leader has advocated this theological system.
Risk Aversion, mid-1970s-the present. The most recent version of Mormon economic theology is much less comprehensive than any of its predecessors. It offers little guidance on grand questions related to the economic future of the kingdom or national economic policy. Instead, the focus is on encouraging economic risk aversion among members of the church in their individual decisions. This emphasis on risk aversion appears in Spencer W. Kimball’s sermons from the 1970s and early 1980s on food storage and gardens as hedges for economic misfortune. It continues to the present in sermons focused on the need to avoid gambling and get out of debt. In risk aversion economic theology, each of these topics is typically treated as a stand-alone theme, rather than as part of an overarching package of economic ideas. Nonetheless, similar arguments drawing on economic outcomes are offered in each case. Speakers routinely emphasize the dangers of unexpected negative economic events (losing a job, becoming ill, etc.) as a justification for advice on particular points. In comparison with earlier periods, risk aversion economic theology is perhaps noteworthy for the degree of freedom in economic beliefs that it leaves with individual members of the church. Members are left free to support or oppose welfare policies of their national governments, and they are rarely asked to make major economic sacrifices for the church or the community. Instead, they are encouraged to plan their economic lives with a fixed eye on worst-case scenarios. This is perhaps especially fitting in the increasingly economically diverse church of the 21st century.
It should, of course, come as no surprise that Mormon economic theology has evolved over time. Different leaders bring individual personalities and packages of ideas to bear in addressing economic themes. But also, the economic circumstances of the church and its members have varied substantially during the last 175 years or so. Hence, it would perhaps be more shocking if the church’s economic theology had remained fixed throughout.
Thanks for drawing the historical data and your insight together here, RT.
I’m personally drawn to collectivist notions and find it interesting that, at the time, Mormons were not the only group involved in experiments with communalism. Other attempts were being made by the Shakers (actually predating Mormon attempts) and the Oneida Community…just to name two discussed in Lawrence Foster’s “Women, Family, and Utopia”. Each of which were New Testament/early church/millennialist-based and more or less rejecting the emerging “dog-eat-dog” capitalism as a sign of end times.
On the other hand, the era I find most historically interesting of those you present is the “Radical Individualist”. Perhaps because it is the most difficult for me to understand. Having been born in the late 60’s, I don’t really connect with the mind-set of John Birch. I’m not really clear on where folks like ETB were coming from…though I imagine that they had their reasons…and it could be just the normal swing of the pendulum, pushed beyond its natural apex by the “red scare”?
At any rate, I’m looking forward to seeing how you further develop this.
Great post, and interesting topic. (I love stuff like this.)
I’m not sure I’m convinced by your last period. The themes you mention were not unique to that period, and I’m not even sure if they were stressed particularly strongly or consistently during that period…gardening and food storage have become much less prominent over these years, debt has long been a concern since long before, and the emphasis on gambling seems to be mainly a response to the rise in legalized gambing in the USA. I might be wrong, though. It would be interesting to look at the evidence more systematically.
Nice overall summary, RoastedTomatoes.
It seems the Church welfare program is a glaring omission here, however. In this connection I wonder if the separate category of Radical Individualism is really justified as a phase of the entire Church, for two reasons. First, you’re basing it on just a single apostle’s earlier talks—who, as you point out, not only didn’t speak for the Church at the time, but also didn’t speak so starkly about this when he did speak for the Church as prophet. Second, surely Pres. Benson didn’t rail against the Church welfare system or consider it theft? (Perhaps you can surprise me here!) I think there was probably a very similar outlook with Heber J. Grant, in deploring the government “doles” (the statement “work must be re-enthroned” is from the Grant era), but still wanting to take care of the poor, but ‘in the Lord’s way.’ Grant, JR Clark, and Benson were all political conservatives, while McKay and Brown were more liberal.
On the risk aversion stuff, I don’t really know but suspect it was around pretty strongly ever since the Great Depression (e.g. JR Clark and perhaps Grant on debt and interest). It may have become a little stronger in recent decades as the top leaders became those whose formative years were during the Great Depression. I suspect all this will be significantly toned down when the torch is passed to the next generation.
So in an economic summary like this I think you have to point out the effects of (1) the Great Depression, which spawned both the welfare program and risk aversion, and (2) the political tendencies of long-tenured prophets: conservative Grant to liberal McKay to more political neutrality in more recent decades.
Ed, I intend to (gradually) work through posts that sift through the evidence on each period more carefully. Thanks, though, for the feedback on the last period. I agree that these themes aren’t novel; however, my initial sense is that there’s proportionately greater emphasis on them during the last period than previously, concomitant with a fading out of most other economic themes. Hence what was once a substratum of discussion has been left as the dominant topic of economic theology. I agree that food storage and gardening have become less prominent, but the explanations with respect to debt are similar enough to the theological reasoning behind the older emergency-preparedness discussions that I classify them together.
Christian, nice points, and thanks for the input. Let me make a quick clarification related to how I see the topic of economic theology. Economic theology is about the structure of religious and/or revelatory ideas that support programs or instructions. Theology doesn’t stretch far enough to include the programs themselves, however. In other words, I’m not looking at the history of economic institutions within Mormonism — a topic that has been thoroughly discussed — but rather of economic ideas.
In that sense, I see the welfare program as eminently compatible with the moderate individualism period of economic theology, which encourages men to make individual efforts to support their families, falling back on family and other nongovernmental social networks only as a temporary support in times of crisis.
With respect to the radical individualism period, I agree that it doesn’t completely dominate the church — that’s why I’ve got it running concurrently with the moderate individualism period. But it does have an authoritative voice: Benson was an apostle, and he often had McKay’s explicit permission to give his speeches on economic themes. Furthermore, it is clearly distinctive from the speeches of Grant and others in terms of the network of ideas underpinning it. Last but not least, it remains influential within a small but significant segment of the church.
Your ideas about the causes of different theological emphases are useful. I haven’t really done more than sketch a few possibilities about causation here. Since this is a first post on a complex topic, my goal was simply to make some initial descriptive distinctions. But I’ll keep your suggestions in mind.
One last point: I’m nervous about your characterization of McKay as a liberal. Much of what I know about him doesn’t really fit that label. What do you have in mind with that description?
I agree — excellent and thought-provoking post, RT.
I think Ed’s point is a good one. It seems to me that the strong debt aversion of leaders reaches back to the depression era at least. The seminal quote comes from President Clark on the subject (”debt never sleeps…”) which was well before the 70s.
Further, is it really an economic “theology”? It seems to me that we are talking about situation based economic policies, preferences, and preachings mostly. The collectivism idea could certainly be considered part of our theology — but I’m not sure of the succeeding policies. Aren’t they more appropriately called practical recommendations for a Mormon society that became deeply integrated with the rest of society (thus making collectivism a practical impossibility church-wide)?
To following up on Ed’s comment. One does not have to be risk-averse to find gambling abstinence optimal. Most legalized forms of gaming do not offer fair bets (e.g., in order to make a profit in football betting at a sports book, one has to be correct about 53% of the time). A risk neutral individual would also avoid many forms of gambling.
However, I do think risk-aversion does fit into the anti-gambling discussion. President Hinckley seemed to emphasize that one should avoid gambling because gambling is addictive and can/does lead to other kinds of addictive behavior. This seems similar to the kind of risk avoidance associated with the Word of Wisdom (and less similar to the discussions about risk I have with my MBA students when I teach Investments). Thus, off hand, I see anti-gambling prohibitions as a continuation of a theme that has been prominent since towards the beginning of the 20th century.
Like Ed, I also would be interested in a more sytematic look at the data.
Maybe you should change the name from “Radical Individualism” to “Anti-communism.” That seems to me to capture the motivation and content of much of what was being taught, both by Benson and by others like Clark and McKay.
One other point: how do you intend to separate underlying theology from changes in emphasis that are a response to changing conditions? For example, an increased emphasis on gambing or debt might just be a response to societal trends, with no change whatsoever in the underlying theology.
Of course it can work the other way, with changes in emphasis themselves changing how we think about the underlying theology. I’d argue that something like that might have happened with anti-communism and radical individualism.
I don’t think you sufficiently emphasized the sociopolitical change that occurred for Mormondom beginning in the early twentieth century and its necessary effect on economic theology. From Mormonism’s birth until the final events culminating in Utah’s statehood the Mormon community behaved, for all intents and purposes, as its own political entity which made preaching collectivist theologies not only practical but essential to the survival of the Mormon community. Collectivist teaching provided the Lord an avenue to ensure the survival of the Church through the early years until the crital mass for membership could be reached ensuring that it would exist in perpetuity. Once that critical mass was reached the Lord saw fit to cease preaching the collectivist ideal.
I also have a quibble with your distinction between “moderate individualism” and “radical individualism.” Based on your own descriptions they appear to be identical except for the tone that ETB may have used versus others that preceeded him– which I doubt provides sufficient basis for any real distinction. What may be shining through here is your own personal distaste for ETB and his political philosophy and not a real distinction when applied to the concept of economic theology.
I also think your personal distaste for individuallism has lead you to artificially create the last catagory, “risk aversion” (RA). RA happens to be one of my father’s pet doctrines so I grew up on the sermons of Lorenzo Snow, Wilford Woodruff, J.F. Smith, J.R. Clark (especially him), G.A. Smith, and D.O. McKay as well as S.W. Kimball. RA is in no way a new doctrine or one that has assumed special empahasis in the last few decades. Now I will grant that official discourse attaching a moral component to individual responsibility has been scaled back but it’s quite easy to make the argument that such behavior is a practical consideration to avoid outwardly and openly alienating governments where we currently or hope to preach the gospel. If we used the language of ETB today I have little doubt that the Church would become the object of offical persecution in any number of states (hello Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia, etc.)
RT, yes, saying “liberal” for Pres. McKay is too strong, especially given today’s associations of the term with things like sexual freedom, which Pres. McKay of course did not endorse. I guess I’m basically saying Republican vs. Democrat, and along with this different views on the extent to which the government is seen as having a legitimate role. I don’t know a lot about this, but I got the idea somewhere that Grant and Clark were Republicans, and McKay and Brown Democrats. (Note when McKay came in he demoted Clark to 2nd counselor in the 1P, with Brown as 1st counselor. Perhaps McKay had a bit of a long memory from intense discussions that must have gone on on how to respond to the depression when he was 2nd counselor and Clark I think was 1st counselor to Pres. Grant? ;-> )
When it comes to Benson getting permission from McKay, from the very little I know of Pres. McKay in other episodes I suspect that’s more a reflection of McKay’s allowing people freedom to think and speak their mind rather than implying McKay’s endorsement.
RT, I think eliding discussion of the 20th century welfare program by saying programs/institutions/organizations are secondary to religious ideas misses the mark.
First of all, economics is primarily about organization and institutions, isn’t it? This is evident in the fact that to define several of your periods you refer to specific institutions—various communal things, the evil government welfare system, etc. (To mention the latter in connection with Benson while denying his support for the Church welfare program leaves a grossly misleading impression, IMO.)
Second, particularly in the 20th century—but even for Joseph, sometimes to an underappreciated extent—organization and implementation in fact constitute most of the revelation. Organization itself is very theory-laden.
Third, the ideas you do mention in the 20th century phases don’t seem to have a basis in revelation, but seem more like cultural or political ideas that some Church leaders happened to speak about occasionally. Perhaps what you have here is not so much changes in underlying revealed ideas, as the turn-of-the-century move of the Church away from being a political kingdom—and therefore ceasing to have an overt economic agenda—making economics retreat from Church focus.
RT,
Another a couple of thoughts I want to add concerning your first and second periods…and extending to our current situation.
1. I think there is probably evidence which links Millennialism (specifically a belief in the imminent return of Christ) to the desire of many to separate themselves from the world and form more idealistic societies. It would fascinating to me to learn more of how this impacted early Mormons…and the on the other side, what this says about where we think we are today vis-à-vis the Second Coming.
Foster speaks of the massive disappointment and rationalization that Shakers and Millerites went through when their expectations failed. Mormons, no doubt, have a unique story in this regard … all playing into the willingness to continue fighting for their unique economic arrangements, verses loosing interest and being swayed.
2. The impact that polygamy (from rise to fall) itself had, both on the nature of religious community economics and its transitions to “Kingdom Economics”, then finally to the utter disappearance of communal economic theology.
–
I’m thinking that the changes in economic theory were not only influenced alone by outside forces, but perhaps more forcefully by, and in unison with, inside forces.
Nice breakdown. It is sometimes hard for me to sepperate church economics and church teachings on economics. Clark’s parsimony vs. McKay’s binge spending is an interesting example. While I don’t think that we could underestimate the disparity in economic policy in the church, was there any significant change in message to the saints (besides pay more tithing).
Thanks to everyone for the helpful comments!
With respect to the “risk aversion” period, I think it’s useful to consider projecting this further back in time — I have no objection to that idea and I’ll see how the evidence works with it. My point at present is that it’s the only economic theology that’s still preached on a regular basis at the highest levels of the church. Please note also that I don’t see risk aversion as a negative idea in any way; it’s a reasonable response to a variety of situations.
Paul — I absolutely agree that statehood and the social and economic transformations accompanying it were important in the end of both collectivist and kingdom economic theology. That would be crucial in terms of any attempt at a causal account of the various transitions.
With respect to the moderate vs. radical individualism, I certainly do have personal preferences that need to be managed in carrying out this discussion. However, I think the ideas Benson developed are a novel contribution to Mormon economic thought. His emphasis on property as a component of the individual and on social networks as purely derived from individual choice are different enough from the moderate individualism which sees work — rather than property — as the central category and which sees social networks as ontologically equal to individuals. So I think this is a distinction which is viable; I hope to be able to convince you of this in future discussions.
Christian, economics is absolutely about organizations, institutions, etc. But economic theology involves the ideas and worldviews that underpin and legitimize such organizations. What’s relevant here aren’t the institutions themselves, but rather the attitudes and ideas related to them. The church welfare system thus seems to me to fit reasonably well within the context of moderate individualism — both reflecting a view of the world in which men should work hard and in which community is explicitly valued over government action. Implementation may, as you helpfully point out, contain a lot of theoretical content, but unfortunately it also reflects a lot of real-world dynamics not driven by theory — so it’s ambiguous as evidence of theology.
With respect to the point about 20th-century moments not having explicit bases in revelation, you are of course correct. On the other hand, these ideas are consistently argued with reference to God’s will, our Heavenly Father’s plan, etc. Hence, while they may not reflect announced revelation, these ideas remain theological. However, the contrast between explicitly revealed theology and 20th-century economic theology is interesting.
Watt, I think the links between millenialism and economic theology are a fascinating question. Likewise, polygamy almost certainly played a major role in what I’ve called the kingdom period. So I think these are both valuable ideas!
J. Stapley, thanks for the example. Clark vs. Moyle on spending is an incredible contrast in economic practice. Furthermore, Clark and Moyle certainly had different ideas about the way church money should be allocated. But I think those men understood those ideas to be about practical considerations, not about divine goals and principles. What I’m trying to do is track moments where different teaching about divine economic goals and principles came through.
RT: Have you read “Working Towards Zion” by Warner Woodworth and frequent nacle participant JWL?
Davis, yes, I have read the book — there aren’t that many books on economic themes and Mormonism, and I tend to read them all… Was there a specific idea from that book which you had in mind as useful here?
RT, I don’t have any kind of meaningful comment, but I want to say that this is the kind of stuff that makes LDSLF so cool. Mormons and economics and history all rolled up into one juicy post…it just makes my little heart go pitter-pat. Great post.
Wasn’t McKay’s secretary a John Bircher? It seems the politics are more complex than they first appear.
RT: No, not really. Your post just reminded me of many of the things I read in that book.
Jay:
Didn’t have time to read the comments: 1 thing I’d suggest, rather than “risk aversion,” its about accountability & stewardship. Having a garden is providing directly for your family, and thus part of being a steward. Risk aversion seems more like MBA speak, and doesn’t resonate with gospel concepts as much, IMO.
Lyle, thanks for the suggestion — it’s tricky, because accountability and stewardship were also key words for 19th-century collectivism. But a better label would obviously be helpful.
RT,
I just found this thread, and I really like your project. I don’t have profound contributions like the others, but I wanted to pipe up and say that I’m interested in what you’re up to precisely because I think that the idea of economic theology is a colossal hole in the workings of what is supposed to be God’s Kingdom on Earth. Your initial paragraph is spot on.
And yet . . . I would recommend Nate Oman’s blog entries about United Order communities, etc. Where are these projects in our church today, now that we have moved from survival mode to being a major world religion with the financial and political reserves that might enable such works? I wonder if your examination might not throw into relief a certain meanness in our works with this doctrine, welfare expenditures notwithstanding.
XON,
We’re actually planning a series of posts, by ourselves and guests, on ideas about application of the economic theology RT discusses here and elsewhere on the site. Keep an eye out for it.
Buy Soma…
Soma buy Buy Soma Buy cheap Soma online order cheap Soma online. Soma…
Watch subject. Bush and the Republicans were not protecting us on 9-11, and we aren’t a lot safer now. We may be more afraid due to george bush, but are we safer? Being fearful does not necessarily make one safer. Fear can cause people to hide and cower. What do you think? Why has bush turned our country from a country of hope and prosperity to a country of belligerence and fear.
If ever there was ever a time in our nation’s history that called for a change, this is it!
We have lost friends and influenced no one. No wonder most of the world thinks we suck. Thanks to what george bush has done to our country during the past three years, we do!
usa Online Buy Soma Online Buy Soma to