This series is an effort to address the economy of Zion. There are a number of opposing theories floating around out there, some more prevalent than others, and I wanted to evaluate some of the most common against the scriptures.
That said, the economy of Zion has limited importance, in that the refining of the hearts and minds of men is not only more important and necessary, but will naturally lead to the economy which will be present in Zion. But if people have false expectations about what it will look like, then they may be fooled into rejecting Zion when she comes because she doesn't look as expected.
If we entertain some false ideas about Zion, or anything, they may be difficult to eject. Our human capacity for holding to a preferred idea, and rationalizing away any contrary legitimate information, is staggering. We shouldn't become so entangled with any idea that we can't simply let it go when newer, better information warrants an adjustment. Hopefully this series gives you some information worth chewing on and taking to the Lord, to help bring clarity to the topics, even if it means adjusting understanding and beliefs.
All scriptures I use from the D&C will be from the EET version, unless otherwise noted, being a more accurate representation of exactly what the Lord initially gave to/through Joseph. (Joseph’s involvement, or lack thereof, in the editing of these revelations before publication, is a different but worthwhile discussion.) Unfortunately, this means I cannot directly create links to those particular verses, as it has not yet been published online in a manner that would permit this. You will need to download a copy and look up the referenced verses yourself.
With that, let's dive into what I think is the most common understanding of Zion's economy, as found in the LDS church. For some reason, a lot of people seem to mash together Zion, the law of consecration, and the United Firm (aka United Order), as though they are speaking to essentially the same thing.
That said, the economy of Zion has limited importance, in that the refining of the hearts and minds of men is not only more important and necessary, but will naturally lead to the economy which will be present in Zion. But if people have false expectations about what it will look like, then they may be fooled into rejecting Zion when she comes because she doesn't look as expected.
If we entertain some false ideas about Zion, or anything, they may be difficult to eject. Our human capacity for holding to a preferred idea, and rationalizing away any contrary legitimate information, is staggering. We shouldn't become so entangled with any idea that we can't simply let it go when newer, better information warrants an adjustment. Hopefully this series gives you some information worth chewing on and taking to the Lord, to help bring clarity to the topics, even if it means adjusting understanding and beliefs.
All scriptures I use from the D&C will be from the EET version, unless otherwise noted, being a more accurate representation of exactly what the Lord initially gave to/through Joseph. (Joseph’s involvement, or lack thereof, in the editing of these revelations before publication, is a different but worthwhile discussion.) Unfortunately, this means I cannot directly create links to those particular verses, as it has not yet been published online in a manner that would permit this. You will need to download a copy and look up the referenced verses yourself.
With that, let's dive into what I think is the most common understanding of Zion's economy, as found in the LDS church. For some reason, a lot of people seem to mash together Zion, the law of consecration, and the United Firm (aka United Order), as though they are speaking to essentially the same thing.
THE LAW OF CONSECRATION
The law of consecration can, unfortunately, be a bit confusing. Speak of it now, and it’s understood as a temple covenant. Speak of it historically, and it was an economic law the whole church was instructed, yet largely neglected, to engage in. When taught or discussed, it gets a hazy treatment like “we give everything but don't actually give everything, we share everything but we don’t actually share everything, we covenant in the temple to keep this law but don't actually have to keep it right now…” So let’s look into it.
Concerning the temple covenant, if it is meant to be the covenant pertaining to the law of consecration as discussed in the D&C, there is a problem. it doesn't match the covenants found there, and therefore, according to Isaiah, the covenant is broken by alteration (Isaiah 24:5). If it isn’t meant to be that covenant, but another one, then it conflicts with the D&C covenants by requiring you consecrate everything to the LDS church, rather than to God. Therefore, God must excuse Himself for one of these covenants, which He definitively cannot do (D&C 1:38). So the modern temple covenant creates an irreconcilable paradox.
The scriptural law of consecration given to the early church can be found in D&C 42:30-39, and 53-55, as part of a greater revelation originally referred to as The Law. Additional instructions concerning this law can be found elsewhere in the D&C, notably Sections 51 and 70. Below is an outline of what these scriptures commanded.
- The people were to consecrate “all thy properties that which thou hast,” by “a covenant and deed,” unto the Lord (D&C 42:30; 51:2), thereby surrendering all claims of ownership, as it all becomes His property.
- The scriptures and teachings have since been altered, to allow reduction of what was consecrated (D&C 42:30 & 33, modern version), and to redirect our consecrated offerings to the institutional (eventually corporate) church (via the temple ceremony), rather than to the Lord, through those appointed (D&C 51:2 EET).
- The consecrated property was to be collected and redistributed through appointed servants (Bishops and Elders). (D&C 42:31)
- Those servants would redistribute the property to people, making them a “steward” over the property. Once everyone had stewardships, with property “amply” sufficient for “their wants & their needs,” remaining property was used to address any additional standing needs, and the final remainder was placed in the storehouse. (D&C 42:31-34; 51:3, 7-8, 13; 70:7)
- Those who received stewardships were to be given written, secure “holding” of the property they were stewards over. It was still the property “of the church,” and the writing only secured their holding of it “until he transgress and is not counted worthy by the voice of the church,” at which point the property was to be reclaimed by the church (D&C 42:37; 51:4). Those cast out “shall not receive again that which he hath consecrated” unto the Lord (D&C 42:37), being “all thy properties” (D&C 42:30).
- Back then, “the church” was understood to mean the body of people themselves, not the fictitious entity of pen and paper now understood as an institution.
- Our modern teachings and D&C have been altered, in part molding “stewardship” into “ownership” and deeding property to stewards. The church could no longer reclaim property from transgressors, dissenters, or apostates (D&C 51:5, modern version), having given them ownership of the property rather than “holding” on the behalf of the church.
- The “benefits” of the storehouse are to belong to all the inhabitants of Zion, as “common property” of the people. (D&C 70:8-9; 82:18)
- The storehouse properties were to be used to aid the poor and needy, and then to purchase land and build up the New Jerusalem. (D&C 42:34-35)
- Alterations added provisions for using funds to purchase general use lands, not only those for New Jerusalem, as well as building houses of worship. (D&C 42:35, modern version)
- Once property has been initially consecrated, collected, and redistributed to stewards, the stewards were then free to engage in trade, so long as neither took advantage of the other, and they respected the rights of an appointed steward to hold their appointed property (D&C 42:54).
- If anyone obtained excess—anything beyond what was necessary for their support—they were to give it to the storehouse (D&C 42:55).
- The people are to become “equal” “in [their] temporal things,” “be alike” and “receive alike”, or they fail to be “one” as the Lord requires. (D&C 51:9; 70:14)
So it seems the law of consecration was an outward law, designed to eliminate poverty, help people begin to detach from the notion of “ownership” of property (seeing as it is all owned by God anyway, Exodus 19:5; Mosiah 4:22; D&C 104:14, 55-57; Moses 1:35), and to require the people to hold no more property than was necessary to sustain them, the rest becoming “common property,” that all needs might be met and all people blessed equally.
In the use of the word “consecration,” it can be understood that we are taking the property and setting it apart from Babylon’s property, making it “sacred,” or in other word’s, the Lord’s. But if you think about it, we aren’t actually surrendering property to Him, because He’s told us repeatedly that it is His already. What we are actually surrendering is our false claims to own what we merely hold, property which already, rightfully belongs to God.
THE UNITED FIRM a.k.a. UNITED ORDER
The United Firm was established in 1832, to be “permanent and everlasting” (whoopsies). It was a small group that received additional laws, atop the law of consecration given to the whole church. Even then, it was still only referred to as a “preparation” (D&C 78:13), meaning they still wouldn’t be living the endgame, even with the combined forces of the law of consecration and the United Firm.
The United Firm had a brief and tumultuous existence, lasting only about two years until 1834, when it fizzled out of existence and into memory. Rather than their history though, I want to focus on the economic instructions to the Firm found in our scriptures, so we can get a picture of the model they were supposed to build.
- Some certain business properties (later including dwelling places), as well as all revenue generated through those properties, were to be held as common property by “all” members, each having “equal claims on the properties”. (D&C 82:17-18; 104:62, 70)
- The stated intent was to help make them “equal in earthly things,” that they might better obtain “heavenly things,” even “a place in the celestial world” (D&C 78:5-7).
- Though the members had “equal claims” upon the property, these were evidently usage claims, not ownership claims. The Lord directly and repeatedly claims ownership of all, and reminds them of their position as “stewards,” holding and using His property, which was to be handled in accordance with His instructions, serving His ends. (D&C 104:13-17, 54-59, 86)
- Stewardships were to be appointed to each member (D&C 104:11-46). Stewardships came with property to hold, and commandments concerning the use of that property (D&C 104:11-18, 58-86).
- The appointed stewardships needed to be approved by the united voice of the Firm (D&C 104:21).
- The property tied to stewardships was intended to provide for the Firm members (D&C 104:71-73), and help fill the storehouse to benefit others (D&C 82:18).
- A sacred treasury was to hold any sacred funds (tithes and offerings, etc.), only accessible by the Firm’s common voice or by the Lord’s commandment. (D&C 104:60-66)
- All non-sacred funds generated through the stewardships were to be held in a common treasury, which was to be equally accessible to all the Firm membership for their needs, through the treasurer, and none were to claim any part or portion of the treasury as their own. (D&C 104:67-73)
- Transgression could cause stewards to be cursed, and lose their stewardships and claims on the property held commonly by the Firm. (D&C 82:21; 104:3-9, 74-77)
- In 1834, the Lord commanded they split the Firm into two, according to locality - one body in Kirtland and one in Missouri. Both bodies were to function the same way, but independent of one another. (D&C 104:47-53)
The United Firm evidently had more required of them than the regular church, moving them deeper into common property territory, asking for greater surrender of ownership notions, greater cooperation, and greater personal sacrifice for the temporal benefit of others.
ZION
Now that we’ve taken a look at the law of consecration and the United Firm, we’ll take a look at some attributes and qualifications for the latter-day people that would be “Zion,” and see how they compare.
- There cannot be any poor among Zion (Moses 7:18)
- For a people to be Zion, they must be “of one heart and one mind” (Moses 7:18)
- The latter-day Zion will be a “Holy” city (Moses 7:62), because they dwell “in righteousness” (Moses 7:18), keeping all the commandments of God.
Zion has not only outward qualifications, but express internal measurements by which the Lord assesses whether to grant that title. This already creates a clear and important distinction between Zion and the other two. While there may be outward laws involved in governing the economies of all three bodies, the commandments given to govern the inner man must also be obeyed before a people can be acknowledged as “Zion.” This is not required of the other two bodies, where they are to be working on developing those inner virtues.
NO POOR AMONG THEM
The only obvious economic requirement is that there cannot be any poor among Zion. While eliminating poverty among the people was a goal of both the law of consecration and the United Firm, it is a prerequisite for Zion. It is so important to the Lord that He will not call a people “Zion” until they have already succeeded in this.
If Zion can have no poverty, then things must change, as the status quo is economic disparity with plenty of poverty. To try and bring about the change, the Lord frequently gives people lesser economic laws that are within reach of the people, while being a reasonable stretch. These lesser, preparatory laws both contain a portion of the greater law, and point to that greater law.
These preparatory laws are generally designed around a core concept of those who have more give more, those who have less give less, and those who lack are to receive (e.g. Mosiah 18:27; Alma 1:27; D&C 104:15-18). A storehouse through which the offerings pass to the poor is a common logistical feature (e.g. Malachi 3:10; D&C 42:55, 70:7; JST Genesis 14:36-38).
If the law of consecration and United Firm’s commandments had been readily and consistently followed, they would have eliminated poverty among the people. This qualification of Zion could have been fulfilled. Then, in time, they would have received the greater law, requiring more of them and swallowing up the lesser laws within a greater fulness.
But the higher law of Zion evidently requires still more than the elimination of poverty.
ONE HEART AND ONE MIND
The Father and Son are one, and desire for us to become one with them, even as they are one (John 17:20-23; 3 Nephi 19:23; D&C 35:2). We are also expected to become one with each other (Romans 12:5; Mosiah 18:21; D&C 38:27).
This concept is internal, but when present, it has external manifestations which do affect the people’s economy. Those external manifestations can be used as one measure to evaluate whether the internal growth is occurring. An example of this is found in Acts 4:32:
“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.”
The Lord Himself also ties this “oneness” of the people to their economy in D&C 38:25-27:
“And again I say unto you, let every man esteem his brother as himself. For what man among you having twelve sons, and is no respecter of them, and they serve him obediently, and he saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there—and looketh upon his sons and saith I am just? Behold, this I have given unto you as a parable, and it is even as I am. I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine.”
These scriptures appear to draw direct connections between the oneness expected of those who would be the Lord’s people, and the way they managed their substance. Specifically, according to Acts, surrendering the concept of sole ownership to instead have “all things common.” This concept will be addressed in another post.
THEY DWELL IN RIGHTEOUSNESS
This is the largest umbrella of a qualifier for Zion, in that, if the people are called “Zion” because they “dwell in righteousness,” then they must already be obedient to the Lord’s commandments. This means that any commandment pertaining to economics (and anything else), which is not exclusively designated for a different body, is a commandment Zion heeds. The scriptures give us plenty to consider. Here are just a few more examples:
“But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.” - 2 Nephi 26:31
“nevertheless in your temporal things you shall be equalin all things& this not grudgeingly otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the spirit shall be withheld” - D&C 70:14
“And they taught, and did minister one to another; and they had all things common among them, every man dealing justly, one with another. And it came to pass that they did do all things even as Jesus had commanded them.” - 3 Nephi 26:19-20
While the details of how the Lord would have us initially approach our economic situation may vary slightly by generation or location—to meet us where we stand—the principles those variations are founded upon are unchanging, and so is the goal.
The scriptures reveal a great deal about what to expect with Zion’s return. No more money. “Equal” in their temporal things. No poor among them. All things common. Of one heart and one mind. Dwelling in righteousness. These are the things of heaven. If they seem radical to us, it is only because we’ve gone radically off the reservation, and invested heavily in rationalizations to stay off the reservation, rather than repenting and returning.
The law of consecration and United Firm were preparatory efforts in the direction of Zion, but the final economy of Zion will require people to move beyond such preparations. Both of these efforts failed, as do most, and while the Lord may have called places “Zion” in Mormonism’s early days, the people failed to become “Zion.” This failure is the historical norm. But one of these days, a people will finally rise up and live the preparatory laws they are given, and qualify to receive and become something more.
Zion will return.
