Can a Latter-day Saint Be a Democratic Socialist? Church Socialism Today and In the Past

s Socialism Mormon? Yes, there were socialist bishops in 1910. That's not the whole story, and the part they left out matters From the 1936 First Presidency warning to Romney in 1966, a consistent line runs through the Church's teaching. Socialism Is Not the United Order Marion G. Romney's forgotten 1966 conference talk answers the question the Tribune won't. Salt Lake Tribune Article on Mormon Socialists and the history of socialism within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

 Raw Transcript:

So, Mormon socialists, Mormon communists, has that ever existed really before in the church? Have there been a
number of Latter-day Saints that have been socialist, maybe communist even?
The answer is yes. We're going to go into that a little bit. What about today? What are the parallels of a time in the early 20th century when socialism was really starting to spread in the US?
early on before people really knew what it was. It also started to spread some within the church. Is that happening again today, especially with the younger generation? We're going to cover that.
Matthew Bowman, a scholar, a Latter-day Saint scholar, recently put out an article in the Salt Lake Tribune talking about this, implying that because
there's some history of socialism in the church, you know, hey, maybe that means something for today and we ought to look
at it closer. I'm going to critique that article to some degree and then we're going to talk about the history of socialism and communism within the
church. First, this episode is brought to you by the Warriors of Tiana Men's Retreat. This is a fantastic, fantastic
Chapter 2: Warriors of Teancum retreat
event. It is coming up on January 21st to 24th at Zion National Park in Utah.
That's in southern Utah. Uh beautiful, beautiful venue. It is a fantastic event with great pre presenters. Um, there
really is nothing else like this out there. And and if you've been to a men's retreat before, this is something completely different. This is not therapy. This is not affirmation. This
is uh something that is direct and true and bold and edifying and challenging, inspirational, motivational, and it's
done with gospel principles. And one thing we've noticed in our past event in August, which sold out, entered in a standing ovation, is that actually a lot
of wives end up sending their husbands and sons to this event. It is 18 and up.
But we'll have outdoor activities and gospel centered masculinity is the focus. To find out more, go to warriorsofank.net.
Warriorsoft.net. We're going to put the link in the description box. Here we go with Mormon socialism.
Chapter 3: Critiquing the Bowman article
All right. So, I want to focus in first on this article by scholar Matthew Bowman in the Salt Lake Tribune. We'll take a
look at the headlines here. Now, he's not responsible for the headline. This is always from the publication is the way that this works. But you see here,
commentary, Latter-day Saints are no strangers to socialism in the past and present. This is first of all implying
that somehow there's some big movement in to me it sounds like there's some big movement within the Latter-day Saint
community which is not true. There has been a swelling we'll say a little bit of this in times past. I'm going to go
over why and that is starting to percolate a lot more even in the state of Utah. I love this subtitle here. It
says, "What is socialism?" A former presidential candidate said, "Merely Christianity in action." All right.
Merely Christianity in action. And this is where church members are especially susceptible to things. And this is why
part of the reason I think that Utah will be blue within 10 years is because of this idea of of compassion which is
actually misplaced. It's an untethered empathy that takes over. And this is what socialism and especially hardcore
socialism like the DSA, the Democratic Socialist of America and Communism, Marxism do you. They pull on your
heartstrings in a way that is completely untethered from any truth. And so if you're a feelings-based person,
4 minutesyou know, one one statement might be something like, "Well, do you care for the poor?" Well, sure I care for the poor. Oh, well then you should be a
socialist, right? you should follow these types of principles. Marxism is a good thing because it flattens everything out and makes it equal for
everybody. And people start looking at this and they're like, "Oh, okay." And especially the younger generation that does not have an experience. They're not
cold war kids like many of us are. Uh they don't understand the threats that
come up with with socialism. And Matthew here in this article is going to talk about this spectrum of socialism and
it's not easily defined. Yeah. Well, that might partially be true, but it all leads to the same place. So, what is
socialism? Merely Christianity in action. Now, we're going to talk about what church leaders have said previously
about the difference between, say, for example, communism, which is usually what they mean by socialism. That's changed a little bit
5 minutestoday, and and Christianity, or even with Latter-day Saints, the idea of the United Order and the law of consecration. These are not the same
thing. They're not even close. It is communism, Marxism, and and you know,
DSA type socialism is a counterfeit to these ideas. Okay,
so this came out just a couple of days ago, and let's just go through the article a little bit and talk about this because it brings up some interesting
points. Utah held its primaries back on June 23rd. The contest for the Democratic Party's nomination of the
first congressional district attracted outsized even national attention. Now remember this is the new district that
was formed that is leftleaning, right? So that they could get primarily this is for the Democrats so they can
get a seat in Congress more easily. And so that was the redistricting of this.
remember the judge that helped with this that ended up resigning because she there were there were there was a lot of smoke about her and the attorney that
was pushing for this having an affair and so she ended up resigning. But that's what district this is. This is district one. Like many Democratic party
primaries this year, it featured several candidates calling themselves socialists. Now, it's interesting he
brings this up, right? that like many Democratic primaries this year, this is the year that that socialism is taking a
big jump. All right, he's kind of going to argue against himself here when he talks about this spectrum because most
of those that are actually calling themselves outright socialists have sympathies or are supported by the DSA,
the Democratic Socialists of America. So there's a couple of candidates here. We've got Luis Varal Lebanon Muhammad.
Uh he is the Somali son of uh Somali immigrants into Utah who won the
endorsement of the state's party convention. Right. Muhammad won the convention essentially
and also acknowledged the label of being a socialist. Nate Bluein and I don't know if I'm saying that right. I'm not from Utah so I don't hear these names.
He declined to identify as a socialist, but asserted, "I certainly align with those politics." That is a political move. Right? That's a political move.
He's straddling the line here. It may seem odd to have self-identified socialists so prominent in a state that has become deeply read in the past 30 years.
It It's longer than that, Matthew. It's definitely longer than that, especially against socialism because of the words of church leaders in the past. So 30 years ago, we're going back to the '9s.
You get into the 80s and and you have church leaders like at that point like Ezra Tapbenson being very very strong against um against against socialism.
And yes, that has to do the change I believe in the message does have to do with the fall of the Berlin wall.
However, however, it is not completely you can't put this completely onto the cold war.
And that's what he's going to argue here in here in a minute. The Mormon Socialists, historians John Celo and John McCormack remind us that the
Socialist Party of America flourished for the first two two decades of the 20th century and won nearly a million
votes, 6% of the total for its candidate Eugene Debs in the 1912 presidential
election. Now let's set ourselves back here into 1912 and understand what was happening in the
United States at this time. This is a completely different period. Socialism is very new uh in in in the way it's
being laid out and codified coming from places like this that you know it's you're not even to the Red October yet
at this point right in 1917. This is five years before that. you've got in, you know, some
this is mostly a time where people are, this is in the academic circles. Um, and
and and people don't really really know what this is and how it plays out
and how anti-American and how anti-constitutional this is. They're going to find out soon. That doesn't
mean all the socialists scatter and run away or that people completely change their mind. But the movement drops about
20 years later, 20 25 years later quite a bit and they be still are very loud.
We'll see that uh in the United States, but yeah, they got 6% of the total votes for socialists in the presidential election in 1912.
Now, during those years, he says, the Socialist Party, it's an actual Socialist Party, elected more than 100
people to local offices all over Utah and attracted hundreds of Latter-day Saints. He doesn't even say thousands.
So it it's it's kind of a misnomer here to talk about the history of the Mormon socialists, but I think it's pertinent to to what I'm trying to deliver here.
And it's pertinent to what he is saying in terms of what's happening today in Utah and and among Latter-day Saints, especially the younger generation, but
hundreds of Latter-day Saints is all he can say. There were socialists with names like Parley Pratt Washburn and Joseph Smith Jessup. Of course, he wants
to give names that look very Mormon, right? Alexander Mat was serving as a bishop in Cedar City when he ran for
local office on the Socialist Party line. So, there is this history, right, where you've got several candidates. Uh
there are a couple of cities that twice voted in um a lot of candidates in into
in into that were self-described socialist and from the socialist party in the state in the state of Utah. Will
Chapter 4: History of communal efforts
Wilfford Woodruff Freckleton was a socialist party member of the Eureka City Council. Eureka is one of those three cities. When Joseph F. Smith, then
president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, called him on a mission to England. So, here you have a guy that's a socialist party member. Uh
he's on the Eureka City Council and he gets called on a mission. Okay? Now, remember this is not this is in 1907.
This is not a a a a codified socialism.
There are certainly principles that are here, but but it's not known. there is no precedent for them to really act upon
and to see just how evil this becomes, especially for those that are supporting the Socialist Party and later the Communist Party of America.
Um, so he resigns his office and goes and serves, let's see here, Eric Freeman's upcoming book. Okay, this is important and this would be an interesting book to read.
It's called A Radical Convergence: Latter-day Saints and their utopian Socialist Origins.
Okay, this is a misnomer that this is not a utopian socialist origin. It might be utopian origins, but it's not utopian socialist origins.
And and this is the problem because you have Latter-day Saints in that time that are,
you know, in 1912, for example, that are still looking at what they had been trying in the past. There were several
attempts at a communal type of of living, right? The United Order, of course, the law of consecration
and and different efforts and programs that were put into place. Now, in 1890, that's when you get a bigger change and
these attempts are removed. Pretty much they die out. The these communal efforts die out. And one of the reasons could
very well be because the timing is right is the change with polygamy where in a sense you have a family the
family unit of those polygamist families is kind of communal living. You have
women that are helping their other the other wives that are within that family that are helping with the children.
they're helping with the domestic needs or other needs that uh that the family need needs. And and so you've got some
type of a communal living that is beyond what we think of today as as family living, right? You've got a different
family unit there that uh was not the majority, I don't believe, but but it was, you know, it was prevalent in among
14 minutesthe Latter-day Saints. And so this change in 1890 where the majority stopped practicing, you know, several still practiced, but the majority
stopped practicing polygamy. And there's kind of a shift there. So I think that that that living style of polygamy is
probably a little bit more conducive to trying out these communal efforts in in in Utah, but they pretty much go away.
And this is an important thing to realize. This is not just a Cold War issue, right? that starts after World War II.
And even the statements on socialism don't start after World War II and and seeing and most Americans seeing the Soviet Union as as the big enemy, right?
It's it's something that happens before this and it's not based on just an enemy to the to the United States and to the West, but it's based on doctrine.
It's based on doctrine. And that's what Latter-day Saints need to understand. socialism.
15 minutesAnd I'm going to because because those that are self-identifying as socialists are typically going to lean toward the
policies and politics of the DSA. If you're if you're identifying as a socialist, right? You're you're going to lean to
that. If you're a Bernie Sanders socialist, you are leaning toward the DSA, which many of those members happily call themselves Marxists and communists.
And their biggest leaders use the same verbiage and framework that the Soviet Union used to work and even Mao used to
work with. So that's when when he covers this, he's going to give a a number of dimensions to
socialism almost removing any definition that there can be with socialism. And I don't believe that that's true. I don't
think that's true. You have here in his book uh Freeman's book notes that many Latter-day Saints were minors and
railway workers more inspired by the union movement than Karl Marx. Right? So you had the union, you had the the
labor, they wanted help against uh um capitalist owners who were maybe not treating them well back at a time when
there was not as many options for jobs, right? You may have one skill and you're going to fall into that skill somewhere
and you're going to have to take the terms that are available to you. So you can kind of get a little bit of understanding of this and and and see
how many people would want some type of a labor union uh for for the their their industry that they're working in. Unions
fueled early 20th century American socialism's vision of greater protection for workers and public ownership of major industries like railroads.
Right? So the unions were have always been a very strong place. Look at the unions today. They're all almost all left-leaning. And some of them radically
radically left-leaning. Number one, they give they get access to tax dollars.
Oftentimes, they get access to to people's money, the workers money in order to push their agenda. It's a way
for them to do it. It's instead of saying, "Hey, we're going to go commit fraud like many do, we're going to do it
transparently, but still compulsory in many cases and and and in and getting taxed or
getting dollars from from workers so that we can push our agenda. I mean, if you look at the NE, the National
Education Association, the largest union in the country by far, um, you know, teachers union, it is it
it is unbelievable. It is a cult. It is a leftist cult. I I I would recommend
that you just look up on YouTube any of their conventions from any year over the past 5 years even and listen to them.
They don't care about the kids. There is nothing about supporting education. It is all DEI, BLM, and socialist points of
view and a lot of uh communist and Marxist rhetoric that you're going to get in those. It's insane. Uh many of
those socialists, Matthew says, believe that the history of their own faith, the experiments in communal
Chapter 5: Defining the conflict
ownership and redistribution of property that church founder Joseph Smith and successor Brigham Young called the law of consecration or the United Order
offered plenty of reasons for their political leanings. Now, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young
fought against socialism. They had they had words against socialism. So that's important to understand. Now, why would they have words against this if they're
trying to fight for the law of consecration? If they're trying to get their people to that point in the United Order, etc. Because they're not the same.
It's not the same thing. It's important to get that distinction.
He says other American socialists also believe their politics were basically Christian.
19 minutesAh, they're Christian. And this is how they get into the with the members of the church. It's compassion. And are you
going to be Christlike? Are you going to be Christlike? Well, then you should follow these socialist policies and a
worldview of socialism because it's Christlike.
Scary. Other American socialists also believe their politics were basically Christian. One of you Eugene Deb's applause lines was, "What is socialism?"
This is where the subtitle comes from of the article. What is socialism? Merely Christianity in action.
And so here you have a subtle way where the opposition, the adversary can
replace Christianity with socialism, right? It's a which is a religion in and of itself. There are three different
uh uh uh talks and statements that that I want to go over within the church that happened during this time as socialism
20 minutesis starting to really grow. Like I said, going back to that 1907 and 1912 period, people don't really understand all of
that. They don't understand what the implications, the consequences, the actual practical realistic uh outcome of what what socialism is going to provide.
And as they learn this, they they get away from it more and more and more. But there is the 1936
message from the first presidency that was put out in the improvement era. I want to go over that. Then there's the 1942 talk uh delivered at General Conference
by uh the first presidency by J. Ruben Clark of the of the first
presidency and then later there is a talk by
Marian G. Romney I believe that's 1966 that we're going to get to that. So I want to cover those three things and look at some very specific
21 minutespoints that they are pushing against with socialism, communism, Marxism, etc. Before I do that though, I
want to follow up with one more point here in the article which is frustrating to me
where the author here goes through uh this one there's one paragraph he
says it would be easy to see Clark as historically ignorant uh that's in terms of Clark who's going to be pushing back on this in his statement or to see
Wilfrid Woodruff Freckleton as naive on the other side, right? But I do not want to argue because I don't believe it is
true. And I believe that that's not true either. Well, I'm going to back up. I'm going to say Wilfrid Woodruff Freckleton may be naive. I don't know that he's naive. I don't know what his agenda is.
Right. And that either Clark or Freckleton was right. All right. Now, look at where his position is on this.
22 minutesis the author here of the article is saying the one who pushes against socialism isn't right and the one that pushes for socialism isn't right. Right?
He's not saying that either of them are right. So that's his moral position. So open the doors to socialism. Right?
That's that's the feel of the article.
That's the implication here. It is simplistic. He says to argue that the church is either inherently socialist or
inherently antisocialist. That is garbage to me. I'm sorry. That is I don't get that at all. With the
statements that are made and the strong push against communism and socialism, I I don't understand that. Now, you're
going to see in these comments coming up that there this is based off of doctrine primarily. Now, there may be more of a
focus as the Soviet Union increases in power and strength. And it's not just that that they're the enemy. They're expanding. They are they are by force
taking over other countries and making them communist countries. And and there is a real evil here, a real evil. We're
talking about a 100 million plus that have died because of communism.
the the the once people really found out what was going on with the Soviet Union and there
is no utopia happening here, people started to see that, oh, okay, this this is horrific. It is horrible. And to
think that the church would not be involved with that. Now, I understand again here, Matthew, you're saying socialist here. You're not saying communist or the Soviets, etc. I get it.
I get it. But to say that they're not antisocialist, that that's that's a real stretch for me to say such a thing that
that that the church is not antisocialist.
Now, they're not going to go out and spread the word in of antisocial socialistic
uh uh messages to especially to countries that espouse some form of socialism. You're going to go into
Europe and up into the Nordic countries and and which really aren't it's hard to say that they're socialist, but you know, they've got public services.
That's mostly what you're looking at.
They've got in many cases higher taxes, uh, in many cases, uh, you know, more public health care and different things like that. It's hard to say that they're
socialist. The communists called themselves socialist. That that's what they were. the Frankfurt school coming
out of Germany was socialist, right? And and so that's the core of what you need
to look at. It's certainly previously as to what people meant by socialism at the time. It was a a real effort of a
communal way to live. Now, saying that, I I'm not going to say that someone who is a socialist should be excommunicated or or anything else, but just look at
25 minutesthe doctrine we're going to get to here to find out a little bit more about exactly what the church has said about this.
And by the way, in the book that uh Bowman references here
from Freeman, right, is in in the book itself, it says that the
uh unofficial position within the church and the church leadership was actually very antisocialist,
right? They they were increasingly supportive of free enterprise and capitalism and and m more and more
and more are are are are against socialism. Right? Anthony Ivans in a 1912 letter to a socialist asking to
have his name removed is the best window to look at with this. He said that he had no quarrel with a socialist acknowledging real abuses that needed
reform within the United States. and he believed that the socialists were even sincere but he had no confidence in the movement. His view was we need to
convert people to Christ. That's what will help. Now the 1936 letter here that
is found in the uh the improvement era is interesting and it's going to focus on communism itself here. But again, I
mean, if we're looking, he is bringing up the author of the article in the Salt Lake Tribune is bringing up the candidates that that identify as
socialists. They also are identify with Bernie Sanders. I mean, you can go to the LinkedIn account of Muhammad and
you'll see that he has got Bernie Sanders on there as one of the groups that he's a part of. They are outright socialists. they they are going to be a
part of the whether they're supported by them or they are members or not. The the Democratic Socialists of America are the
ones that are going to be aligned with these these candidates. And that is a firmly communist style belief system.
Don't make the naive mistake to think that they're just looking for democracy with a socialist slant to it. Here's the
1936 letter.
Chapter 6: 1936 First Presidency message
In an editorial warning to church members, it says, "This is from the first presidency in 1936. With great regret regret, we learn from credible
sources, governmental and others, that a few church members are joining directly or indirectly the communists and are
taking part in their activities." Okay, they're not happy about it. Why would they not be happy about it? Right?
Because we believe in compromise. We believe in um accepting everybody, right? So why are they not happy that
members of the church are joining and taking part in activities and party membership with the communists?
Well, again, we're going to see the reason. It's all about doctrine. The church does not interfere and has no intention of trying to interfere with
the fullest and freest its members. The church comes out against those that are associating with
with communism. Let's let's be clear on this, right? It says here, the church does not interfere and has no intention
of trying to interfere with what? with the fullest and freest exercise of the political franchise of its members under
and within our constitution which the Lord declared I established
quote I established by the hands of wise men whom I raised up into this very purpose end quote and which as to the principles
thereof the prophet dedicating the Kirtland temple prayed should be established forever.
Okay. So, that is not just in the United States, by the way. We live here in in an area that we can call the promised land where where these times of freedoms
29 minutesand liberties are are supposed to thrive.
But here in 1936, the first presidency is saying, "We support your political
diversity and and thoughts on different things as long as it falls under the Constitution."
Right? Right? And when I say the Constitution, you got to think about the principles of liberty, free speech, free practice of religion especially, right?
Um, now you could say, you could argue, well, are they talking about the amendments?
Is the first amendment included with that? Okay, you you could argue that, but they need to be under constitutional
principles to to make sense. So, that's very interesting here. Now, here's where the distinction comes in and we should
we should understand this well. But com communism is not a political party nor a political plan under the constitution.
It is a system of government that is the opposite of our constitutional government. And it would be necessary to destroy our government before communism could be set up in the United States.
Okay? And that should apply to anybody anywhere. understand that that communism or hardcore socialism
is is anti-church doctrine. It's anti-church doctrine. Okay? Since
communism established would destroy our American constitutional government to support communism is treasonable
to our free institutions. And no patriotic American citizen may become either a communist or a supporter of
communism. And again, I understand the push back on this. You're going to say, some are going to say, well, that's communism is different from socialism.
Well, you can place words anywhere to try and make them prettier, more flattering,
etc. But I if you haven't looked into the DSA right now, which is, you know, you've got Manny in New York, you've got several other candidates that are
running, some that have already basically are going to win. There's no way they're not going to win in a left leaning district, for example, in Congress. They're going to go to
Congress, the US Congress, as as members and supported from the DSA.
You've got the LA mayor uh the mayor mayoral race that is that has got a DSA aligned candidate as well. You could
have the two largest cities in America being run by DSA mayors come November. It's pretty clear if you
want to argue the definition of socialism fine. Is and is it so different from communism? Fine. But make
sure it falls under constitutional principles. If you still want to call it socialism and it fits under constitutional principles,
you know, okay, fine, whatever. But as long as you're doing that, my guess is you're going to be adopting and and opening up your circle wider and wider,
taking in other socialist uh ideas and advocacy
as well. And then again here clearly to our church members we say communism
is not the united order and bears only the most superficial resemblance thereto. The most superficial resemblance thereto.
Communism is based upon intolerance and force. They try to get you by saying it's tolerant. You want to be tolerant.
Kind of like the abortion argument where they say it's about agency. Of course, the child has no agency. The United
Order is based upon love and freedom of conscience and action. Comm communism
involves forceful dispoliation and confiscation. The United Order, voluntary consecration and sacrifice.
There are many other differences going well beyond that in the way that this was practiced. Also, communists cannot
establish the United Order, nor will communism bring it about. The United Order will be established by the Lord in his own due time and in
accordance with the regular prescribed order of the church. So, if you're out there thinking to yourself, "Oh, well, you know, the further we go into
socialism and and the more we march toward Marxist principles, well, well, that's moving us closer and
closer to Zion, right? closer and closer to Zion. No, it it it is not. And then
Chapter 7: Doctrine of agency
we get this one here. Communism being thus hostile to loyal American citizenship and
incompatible with true church membership.
Of necessity, no loyal American citizen and no faithful church member can be a communist.
34 minutesThink about that. It is so dastardly. It it is so horrific
that they are saying that that the contradiction between practicing a level of socialism as to comm communism where
property and enterprise means of production are all owned by the state.
That that is contrary to being a faithful member of the church. Now, we don't talk that way anymore, right?
We're we're very soft and we round the edges off of everything these days. So you hear direct things like this and
it's it's a little harder because we don't hear direct things like this anymore. We hear affirmation mostly and tolerance becomes acceptance of things
that are outside of the bounds that the Lord has set. And that's the world that we live in today even within the church to some degree.
Finally, they call upon all church members completely to issue communism.
So again, I would ask you ba I mean, how far do we allow socialism to go toward that end?
What does that mean?
Mostly when socialists speak right now, they're not yet completely going in and saying that we want to take your land, for example.
But the means of production, boy, that's been said several times by DSA members.
Uh you heard mom Donnie has said this, right? Mom Donnie has talked about taking the means of production and giving it to the people to the state essentially is what they really mean.
The safety of our divinely inspired constitutional government and the welfare of our church imperatively
demand that communism shall have no place in America. That is Hebrew J.
Grant, J. Ruben Clark and David McKay as the first presidency in 1936.
In addition to this, we end up with some commentary here by um Widso, I believe it is. Let me see here.
Make sure that I'm right on this. Uh yes, J AW. This is Witso.
In talking about free will, human will, your agency, right? He talks about how that is just such a key doctrinal point
and something that we believe in. He says this principle being agency uh may be used in evaluating the merit
of many social, economic, and political offerings of the day. back then he's talking about communism, fascism, Nazism may be judged by this principle.
Whatever endangers to the least degree man's right to act for himself is not of God and must be resisted by Latter-day Saints.
So there's one litmus test in looking at political philosophy, political movements and ideas, world views.
So one thing I would look for often with this is is there a push to change the constitution to get rid of the constitution to replace the
constitution. This is what we had from Ibram Kennedy for example a book pushed forward and and advocated for by the way
by the Kennedy Center and several BYU professors just a couple of years ago.
Chapter 8: Modern-day challenges
And then we have this. This is from I don't know if this is from the first presidency or from Hebrew J Grant from the improver improvement era here but
but it's placed in here. It says there is both reason and logic in the recent pronouncement of the Mormon church against communism. The statement is more
than a religious document because it warns of a menace that drives that the very foundation of American life.
Communism has nothing in common with the Mormon church or any other, this government or any other, this people or
any other. It is an enemy to religion, to freedom, and to civilization.
And I keep repeating this, but I'm just telling you that if you look at the DSA and those that are proclaiming to be
socialists themselves, they are highly aligned with these principles.
many of them uh look at Hassan Pike. I mean, dressing in in Mao gear and bringing up many things about bringing
in the revolution and and the uh uh the new social the new socialism for the United States. He is one of the leaders
of that movement. And you have several of these individuals that are at the top of that movement with the DSA. And I can
bring that up in terms of socialism because it's called the Democratic Socialist Party of America. And the
author of the article in the Salt Lake Tribune brings these individuals up as being a part of that movement. It
continues here, the warning of the First Presidency is timely and to the point.
It distinguishes between communistic enterprise and free political discussion within the bounds of the Constitution.
It recites forcibly that communism is not freedom but surfom. Not the exponent of new political rights for the people.
We hear that a lot. But the enemy of existing governmental guarantees to them. The statement says communism is
not a political party nor a political plan. We've already read this.
Communistic preachment up under the constitution. It is a system of government that is the opposite of our constitutional government. Then he makes
it more practical here and says, "Eestablished communism endures no criticism of its course, of its own course, of what it wants. Such
activities as the Mormon church warns against would be punishable as treason in Russia."
Now, we've been going on for a while here, so I don't want to go take too much more time, but 1942, oh, by the way, what was the world like in 1936?
what what was happening in 1936 that in in the world that would be of consequence at the time, right? 1936 was
a piv p pivotal time for communism and and it kind of ran on on two different tracks inside the USSR. Stalin was fully
in control. He forced collectivization and the 1932 and 1933, this is a few years earlier, that famine, including
the holomore in Ukraine, had killed millions of people, right? Millions of
people. In August 1936, the first great Moscow show trial opened the great purge for Stalin, which over the next two
years killed roughly 700,000 people by execution alone.
That same December, Stalin issued a new constitutional constitution build as the most
democratic in the world. Now notice that that verbiage, the most democratic in the world, Stalin.
Yeah. So when next time you hear the term democratic socialists of America, think about Stalin and what he said or
there's a publication right the democracy now which is hilarious in the United States in 1936. This was
kind of the high watermark of American communism and and any type of respectability that that it had because people again don't really know about all
this till really till the 70s of what's really really going on. But the depression had discredited capitalism to
some point and and so for many people there was there was reason to be is this really going to work? Is this a problem?
Does capitalism is this the right answer? The Communist Party of the United States of America, the CPUSA had
said, its leader had said, his name was Earl Browder. He ran for president 1936 under the slogan communism is 20th century Americanism.
You see what they try to do with this?
Uh, they really just want Sovietism to to come into place, communism to come into place, but it's it's the new 20th
century Americanism. Now, this year FDR wins in a landslide. He's kind of like he's like socialist light with the New
Deal. But you can kind of see what the idea that the soft underbelly that America had at this time to to be to
bring in all this this uh welfare system at the time which has annihilated certain segments of the United States.
Now quickly to the article again.
Bowman concedes that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were reported saying harsh things
about socialism. Remember that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith said harsh things about socialism in 1912, 5 years before the Bolevik revolution.
And then in the article, Bowman kind of frames uh J. Ruben Clark's words in in a way
that make it a world a cold war argument that really we were just American. So we were
pushing against the Soviets in in a cold war. Again, this is 1942. So and that's hard to argue. I think again the these
statements have come out. You had 1936 earlier on here already already being brought about by the first presidency.
You had uh uh definitely in in the book of Freeman Freeman's book, he talks about how how the leadership was very
antisocialist well before this. And they're pointing to doctrine as they make their arguments. So I don't think
it has anything to do with who's ruling Moscow, you know, at the time. And Mary and G. Romney later grounds that distinction in doctrine and covenants, not geopolitics.
And that's important to realize because it's a softer argument if it's geopolitical. Right? That it's just a softer argument.
It's a much stronger argument within the church if it's based on doctrine. Now the discrepancy between socialism and
communism like probably I think in the article Bowman's best move on this is that he distinguishes Debs and Sanders from
Lenin and obviously there there is a distinction there. However, Romney's line that he uses in his talk
later in 1966 between voluntary consecration and compelled redistribution is not between dictatorship and
democracy. I mean, I think that's also a good argument, but it's not the same thing. A majority vote to compel
redistribution is still compulsion, and consecration was entered by covenant and deed. and his argument that that no
one thing is called socialism. I think that this cuts both ways. I mean, if the word socialism is too elastic to
evaluate, it's also too elastic to support a headline and the article saying that Latter-day Saints are no
strangers to socialism. And and can we have a cause and effect uh uh correction here on on all of this, right? Saying
that some members of the church joining socialist parties in the early 20th century does not mean that the church endorses socialism.
It's just it's a I I look at the article and I think I mean I I've read Bowman's stuff before church history and other things and I like it but I don't
understand why he's writing this. What is the purpose of the article? I it looks like misinformation to me.
J. Ruben Clark, who is part of this 1936 statement, becomes the key theorist in in all of this for the church. And in
1942, in a general conference talk, he argued that the welfare plan tithing and
fast offerings brought the church not so far from the great fundamentals of the United Order. And so the the and this
has been gets repeated by Romney. This statement gets repeated by Mary G. Romney in 1966.
all having nothing to do with socialism and and giving these powers to the state.
In a talk titled, "Is socialism the United Order?" Maryan G. Romney in 1966, his core distinction was agency and
ownership. I think it goes well beyond this, but he says agency and ownership.
He says that the United Order rests on the premise that the earth belongs to the Lord and people hold possession as accountable stewards entered by voluntary consecration.
And so it preserves agency while socialism removes it. It's doctrinal.
He calls on members of the church to assue socialism and participate in in tithing and fast
offerings and and in uh welfare programs within the church.
So you know a lot of people refer to Ezra Tapfansson as the guy that talked all about this. He was not alone. He had a lot of precedents already in the
church. There was a lot of talk among the apostles all about this going way back into into the 1910s and 1920s,
but you've got phrases going out there right now today where where this is I think that we're in another phase where we're we're we're looking back at like
the 1920s and 30s where socialism back then people didn't really understand what what this was
about and what was going to happen. We are also now in the United States in a time of of abundance, great abundance.
And we don't understand the difference.
48 minutesWe take for granted the freedoms, liberties, and and and and what our economic system has given to us. And and
the pursuit of technology and and and just everything that has happened is is absolutely unbelievable. And yet people
want to break all of that down. They want to take it down. And I think a lot of this is naive. It is ignorance.
And so you've got younger generations that have never dealt with this type of thing before.
They've been given propaganda over and over again about socialist attitudes.
You've got a media that is very pro-socialist, at least to some degree.
and certainly social media that our kids are being fed constantly the propaganda
of a leftist point of view. And I'm not talking about even just liberal. I'm talking leftist.
Are we paralleling again what happened in the 1920s and 30s within the church?
And are we going to see more and more of this? I think we will. I I think it's important not to put your head in the sand on this.
What percentage of members of the church are going to vote for DSA candidates or those that are espousing the same doctrines, the same political point of view? The numbers are growing more.
The polls are showing higher and higher numbers of younger Latter-day Saints
that are supporting socialism. Even just what was it maybe 10 years ago back at BYU when a poll was done the number one
candidate that was being supported I believe this was 2016 the number one candidate at BYU that was
supported was Bernie Sanders so keep that in mind but the argument comes down to doctrine
it is agency it is power to the state or power to the individual to make their own choices if you've got a system if you're defining socialism differently.
If you are able to fit that into the constitution, okay, if you've got different ideas on
immigration, on tax law, on healthc care, etc., etc. But if your
ideas are outside of constitutional principles, then they're probably outside of church doctrine. Thanks for listening.