Today, we live in an era of intense and rancorous political debate and controversy. A pitched battle rages constantly between the personalities, strategies, and philosophies of the liberals and those of the conservatives. The liberals accuse the conservatives of being heartless, materialistic, inconsiderate, intolerant, and even non- Christian. The conservatives return the criticism by accusing the liberals of being meddlesome, illogical, and foolish. Conservatives claim that liberals promote a political agenda that has never succeeded anywhere in the world and regularly has proved oppressive to the culture—particularly its economic well-being.

The Church has generally avoided inserting itself in this ongoing debate. It is true, in general terms, there is an inclination among the majority saints for conservative leanings. This may be due to a spirit of fierce independence born of our history of being persecuted. It is also true that the Church has occasionally become invested in certain pointed issues such as the legalizing of gay marriage or the uses in our society of elective medical abortions. But most all other political issues are avoided in the interest of separation of church and state. Every church member is left to choose his own political party and platform. Does the church’s reluctance to become involved in politics mean that there exists no spiritual truth that applies to political questions? Are we to suppose that there are simply no absolute truths that apply here? Perhaps there exists an unbridgeable gap between spiritual principles and political positions. The purpose of this brief chapter is to examine the relationship between today’s politics and sound spiritual principle.

The Lord’s “political system.” I will outline the Lord’s own system as it was evidenced among the saints when they were commanded to practice the law of consecration and stewardship in the 1830s. I will not describe the system as it actually happened. Rather, I will briefly outline a hypothetical, idealized version of the “united order” as it was intended to function.

Those individuals desiring to enter the united order varied widely in their material possessions, their education, their occupational skills, and their needs. Some were wealthy and had ample material possessions. Others were economically challenged and had struggled to eke out a living. Some were educated or highly skilled in some particular occupation. Others were less educated and less skilled. Most of this latter group had previously made their living as common laborers or farmers. Their individual needs depended largely on the size of their family. All were honest and righteous and willing and eager to contribute what they could.

The individuals who joined the saints in practicing this system, regardless of their background or work history, possessed a genuinely strong work ethic. Each was anxious that his work—regardless of his education or skills—benefit the whole of the community. He was also completely selfless. He desired that his own needs and the needs of his family be met, but only as required. He had no taste for abundance or luxury. He had no desire for material possessions over and above those necessary to live modestly and carry on his labors. His main concern was for the material and spiritual welfare of his fellow saints.

The individual entering the order first gave over or “consecrated” all his portable material possessions to the bishop who placed them in the storehouse. Those possessions that could not be moved were sold and the money delivered to the Bishop. The bishop then carefully evaluated the individual and his needs and the needs of his family and gave back materials as he saw fit from the store house. This behest was the individual’s stewardship. This stewardship included the supplies and resources he needed to perform his work. Each participant met periodically with the bishop, and the stewardships were reevaluated and reallocated if necessary. Those who produced more goods than they needed contributed the excess to the storehouse.

This system thrived with each worker diligently contributing to the good of the whole. There was plenty of work to do, and the work was productive of all the food, material products, and monetary resources the group needed to thrive and be comfortable. All were happy and fulfilled in their work and in their social interactions with one another.

Inevitably there were those among the participants who fell on hard times. Due to changes produced by age or illness some became unable to work and contribute their share. These were happily supported by the bishop using the materials in his storehouse. None was forced to live a life of deprivation.

People of celestial ilk. The Lord’s system can only succeed when its participants possess much in the way of divine attributes. They must be honest, independent, conscientious, hard working, modest in their tastes and life style, and completely self effacing. The needs of others must come before their own. They must willingly and happily submit to the divine being, or his inspired prophet, who leads them. They must conform their lives in all aspects to the laws of God. These are celestial people who manifest those qualities here on earth, and will surely thrive eternally in that heavenly setting following this life.

Ultimately the actual experience in the Church with the law of consecration and stewardship in the early nineteenth century was a failure. The participants were not sufficiently prepared and qualified. Many lacked the necessary attributes to ensure success in that system. Efforts to perpetuate the united order among the Mormons were eventually suspended. The law of tithing was given by the Lord in place of the law of consecration and stewardship.

Application of these principles to modern day politics. So we may assume it should be possible to design a philosophy of government that would coincide with the Lord’s “politics.” One only need ask: what governmental policies and platforms would provide for each of the governed the ideal way of life described above? If none would, then what system of government would come closest to achieving that goal?

Before we attempt to answer these questions, let us bring forward into the light an observation that is obvious to all. The world does not consist of only people of celestial ilk. Many people, in fact perhaps most, lack the necessary attributes to guarantee success of the Lord’s system. The early nineteenth century experiment in the Church demonstrated that clearly. Many are insufficiently honest, not adequately independent, and not consistently conscientious and hard working. Many yearn for material things over and above what is necessary. Many are more concerned about themselves than they are about the needs of others. And many are inadequately humble and obedient. In short, many people were too often takers, and not enought givers. These would be uncomfortable and unhappy in a truly celestial environment.

Liberal or “left wing” politics. The honest goals of left-wing politicians are frankly laudable. It would seem they truly yearn for the ideal existence for all people. They want every person to have the opportunity to work and to have enough food and supplies to live comfortably. They desire that each head of household and his or her family have all the necessities of life including adequate housing, food, clothing, medical care, and education. They feel these same advantages should be made available to all people—even to those who are not able to help provide these same things to others. A government that could guarantee all of these to each individual should be the ideal government.

It is actually possible for a government to guarantee all these advantages, at least some semblance of them, to the governed. But that government, in order to accomplish this, must maintain absolute and totalitarian control over its subjects. It must be, in today’s parlance, “big government.” It must be a socialistic or communistic government. The political history of this earth’s existence has provided abundant empirical evidence as to the results of this type of control—this type of government. Each totalitarian government has been oppressive. It has inevitably had to deny its people the freedoms necessary to govern their own lives as they wish. Also the socioeconomic level of the masses of people living in such a system has invariably sunk to a low level.

The problem with such a system seems reasonably simple enough to discern. The masses of people on the earth are not celestial. They are not all predictably hard working and selfless. When people are guaranteed the benefits of life without having to contribute anything to earn them, they tend to come to yearn for more and more free benefits. They tend to become addicted to “entitlements.” They learn that the necessary things of life do not always require hard work. Their work ethic always suffers. Many people also come to be focused on themselves and not on others. These tend to “look out for number one” and become less solicitous of their neighbors.

The necessities needed for all the masses of people do cost significant money. That money must come from those in the society that are productive. Since the totalitarian government negatively enforces the motivation of its people to be productive and hard working, the required resources for purchasing the guaranteed necessities are usually at a premium, and it is only the relatively few that produce them.

Conservative or “right wing” politics. A conservative government is a smaller government. It provides less regulation. It is therefore apt to spend less money. It leaves people more to fend for themselves. That would seem to be risky, particularly for those of less education or less skill or less physical ability. This governmental philosophy would seem to encourage self-interest. It allows those to work hard and earn more money to keep it. It does not force those with money to give it to those who do not have money. Is this not selfishness? Might it then be that the rich will become richer and the poor poorer?

Is this type of government good or evil? One bit of evidence is that the Lord had a hand in the creating of the Constitution of the democratic republic or representative type of government of the United States of America. Section 101 of the Doctrine and Covenants makes it clear that the Lord deliberately raised up men prepared to create our Constitution (see verse 80). Most would agree that the government originally created shortly following the Revolutionary War and outlined in the Constitution is a more limited government than we have today.

If a more limited government is not evil, but in fact is the government the Lord would choose for us, how does it actually work? When a people are left alone to enjoy the material benefits of their labors, they are encouraged to work harder. If these people are heavily taxed, then may become resentful and less motivated. When the more productive among us are working hard, they employ many others to help in their work. The entire culture then thrives.

Do the disabled and dispossessed suffer under such a government? It has always been that during a thriving economy, the people manage to care for those that are truly deserving of help.

It is both ironic and important to note that the very lifestyle the Lord would most favor us to live here on earth is not mandated by his favored governmental system. It is, in fact, because then it would be mandated. During mortality men must be allowed to exercise their agency. They must have the freedom to choose on their own. If they then choose the course of hard work and charity for others, it will be for their eternal benefit. Forcing men to obey the Lord’s commands is not productive of spiritual growth. It is easily recognized as the system Satan advocated in the premortal existence.

Only celestial people will be invited to live forever the celestial life in the presence of their heavenly parents. Becoming a celestial individual can only occur incrementally, line upon line, and a man must choose his own course each step of the way. He must not be forced to choose. Being forced limits his freedoms and stifles his growth.