Was Joseph Smith a socialist? Economist Mark Skousen was surprised—and more than a little irritated—when he discovered that a BYU economics professor had classified the founder of Mormonism as a utopian socialist. But when I challenged Mark about Joseph Smith’s economic teachings, his answer was more complicated than a simple yes or no.
Don’t miss our other conversations with Mark Skousen: https://gospeltangents.com/people/mark-skousen
Copyright © 2026
Gospel Tangents
All Rights Reserved
In Part 3 of our four-part Gospel Tangents interview, Mark Skousen examines the economics of early Mormonism, including the law of consecration, the United Order, private property, and tithing. We also discuss Adam Smith, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, and whether Joseph Smith’s economic experiments were closer to socialism or capitalism.
And Mark offers a surprising criticism of Joseph Smith’s plans for building Zion.
Was Joseph Smith a Socialist? Mark Skousen Responds
The question began with a poster at Brigham Young University.
Mark recalls that economist Val Lamson had created a chart showing different schools of economic thought. To Mark’s astonishment, Joseph Smith appeared among the utopian socialists.
Mark strongly objected.
However, he acknowledged that Joseph Smith briefly experimented with economic arrangements that could be described as utopian socialism.
Early Latter-day Saints sought to eliminate poverty and create a community in which members shared their resources. But according to Mark, Joseph Smith eventually moved toward an economic system that preserved private property and individual stewardship.
So where does Joseph Smith fit economically?
Mark suggests that communitarian may be a better description than socialist.
He points to the work of historian Leonard Arrington and argues that Joseph Smith wanted a cooperative religious society without eliminating individual responsibility.
But that raises another question.
If the early Saints were trying to build Zion, why didn’t their economic system last?
Why Did the United Order Fail?
One of the most interesting parts of our conversation concerns Mark’s explanation for the failure of the United Order.
Under early consecration arrangements, members contributed their property and received stewardships intended to meet their needs. Surplus resources were supposed to support the Church and assist others.
Mark argues that this arrangement created an economic problem.
If people were expected to contribute all their surplus, what incentive did they have to produce more than they needed?
He compares that arrangement to a 100% marginal tax rate.
Mark also notes that many early Church members were poor. There simply wasn’t enough surplus wealth to sustain the system as envisioned.
He contrasts these experiments with tithing, which allows individuals to retain most of their income while contributing a portion to the Church.
From Mark’s perspective, tithing creates a better balance between supporting a religious community and encouraging individual initiative.
Of course, historians and economists may disagree about whether incentives alone explain the difficulties of the United Order. But Mark’s interpretation raises important questions about the practical challenges of communal religious economies.
Was the United Order Really Socialism?
Mark also discusses a distinction emphasized by LDS leader Marion G. Romney: the United Order and socialism were not necessarily the same thing.
One important difference, according to Romney, involved private property and voluntary consecration.
Mark argues that Joseph Smith’s stewardship system preserved an important role for private ownership, even while encouraging members to devote their resources to the common good.
We also discuss the scriptural ideal of having no rich or poor among the people, as described in Fourth Nephi and the New Testament book of Acts.
Was Joseph Smith trying to establish an entirely new economic system?
Or was he adapting biblical principles to the practical needs of a growing religious community?
Mark believes Joseph Smith was searching for a middle ground.
Is Tithing a Form of Capitalism?
This may be the most surprising question of the interview.
When I asked whether tithing was an Adam Smith principle, Mark argued that it was much closer to Smith’s philosophy than to centralized economic planning.
His reasoning is straightforward.
Under tithing, members contribute 10% while retaining control over the rest of their resources. They can save, invest, establish businesses, support charitable causes, or make other financial decisions.
Mark believes that arrangement encourages productivity while still providing resources for shared religious purposes.
He contrasts it with a system in which Church leaders would need to evaluate each family’s finances, businesses, and economic decisions.
Imagine your bishop having to determine how much money you should earn, what investments you should make, or how your business should operate.
Mark argues that such a system would be impractical.
His conclusion is that tithing provides a more sustainable economic foundation than the early communal experiments.
Before turning to Joseph Smith, I asked Mark to explain some basic differences between major economic schools.
Mark organizes economic history around three influential thinkers:
- Adam Smith: Associated with markets, limited government, private enterprise, and economic liberty.
- John Maynard Keynes: Associated with government intervention to manage economic downturns and broader macroeconomic policy.
- Karl Marx: Associated with the critique of capitalism and the replacement of private ownership of productive resources.
Mark clearly favors Adam Smith’s approach.
But the comparison becomes especially interesting when applied to early Mormonism.
Joseph Smith encouraged generosity and cooperation, yet he also established individual stewardships and taught principles of personal responsibility.
Does that make him a socialist, a capitalist, or something else entirely?
Perhaps our modern political labels don’t fit the religious and economic experiments of the 1830s particularly well.
Mark Skousen Criticizes Joseph Smith’s City of Zion
Mark’s criticisms aren’t limited to the United Order.
We also discuss Joseph Smith’s proposed City of Zion, with its grid layout and central complex of twenty-four houses of the Lord.
Mark isn’t impressed with the uniformity of the design.
He argues that cities need individuality, variety, and a sense of personality rather than rigid planning.
I bring up David Hall’s NewVistas project, which attempted to develop a modern community inspired by Joseph Smith’s city-planning ideas in Vermont.
The discussion raises an intriguing issue: How much planning is necessary to build an ideal community, and when does planning become too restrictive?
It’s another example of Mark applying economic ideas to subjects that Latter-day Saints usually approach from a religious or historical perspective.
“Teach Them Correct Principles”
One of Mark’s favorite statements attributed to Joseph Smith is:
“I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”
Mark sees this as a powerful expression of individual liberty.
In his interpretation, Joseph Smith wanted people to learn principles such as honesty, thrift, hard work, and responsibility—and then make their own decisions.
That approach fits Mark’s broader economic philosophy.
But it also raises an interesting historical question: How do we reconcile individual self-government with the collective responsibilities envisioned in the law of consecration?
The tension between personal freedom and communal obligation remains relevant to Latter-day Saint discussions of economics today.
What Can We Learn from Mormon Economic History?
Whether or not you agree with Mark Skousen’s conclusions, this conversation offers an unusual perspective on Joseph Smith’s economic experiments.
Rather than discussing the United Order only as a theological ideal, Mark examines the incentives, property arrangements, and practical difficulties involved.
He challenges the idea that Joseph Smith can be neatly classified as a socialist, explains why he believes tithing was more successful than communal consecration, and questions aspects of Joseph Smith’s plans for Zion.
It’s a provocative discussion at the intersection of Mormon history, economics, and theology.
Watch Part 3 of my four-part Gospel Tangents interview with Mark Skousen, and let me know what you think.
Questions for Discussion
- Was Joseph Smith a socialist, a capitalist, or something that doesn’t fit either label?
- Did the United Order fail because of economic incentives, or were other historical factors more important?
- Does tithing represent a successful adaptation of the law of consecration?
- Would Joseph Smith’s City of Zion have been a desirable place to live?
- Can a religious community successfully balance private property with the goal of eliminating poverty?
I’d love to hear your perspective in the comments—especially if you think Mark’s economic interpretation overlooks important historical or theological considerations.
Don’t miss our other conversations with Mark Skousen: https://gospeltangents.com/people/mark-skousen
Copyright © 2026
Gospel Tangents
All Rights Reserved
0:00 Introduction: The Big Three in Economics
1:20 Adam Smith, Keynes and Marx
4:50 How BYU Economics Changed
5:49 Was Joseph Smith a Utopian Socialist?
7:17 Why the United Order Failed
9:34 Was Joseph Smith a Communitarian?
11:21 Stewardship and Correct Principles
13:58 Joseph Smith’s City of Zion
15:04 Is Tithing an Adam Smith Principle?
17:53 Church Welfare vs. Government Welfare
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 20:15 — 18.7MB) | Embed
Subscribe: Email | | More
