It has been said that if you want to see what Zion looks like, look in the family. I agree. In a family, ask yourself, which family member exclusively owns the couch? Which member owns the box of crackers in the pantry? Which member owns the walls? When the other family members benefit from use of these, what do they pay the owner in compensation? What do you charge your children or spouse for an hour of couch time? Or a handful of crackers?
Or do these resources all belong to “the family,” being freely used by all members of the family, according to their needs?
I think a good way to describe this approach to resource management is "inclusive ownership." I think this is a core concept which needs to be considered, as I believe it helps with understanding the model of having “all things common.” If you can understand the concept of inclusive ownership at a micro level, then the idea of “all things common” only becomes a matter of scale, and inclusive ownership is infinitely scaleable.
THERE IS ONLY ONE DIFFERENCE
In both inclusive and exclusive ownership, the “owners” have a right to freely use and benefit from what is owned. The sole difference between the two can be summed up as a right to withhold.
In exclusive ownership, once the claim of ownership is established, their rights and privileges are not limited to benefitting from what they own, but extend to making sure nobody else does. If they have more food than they can eat and another is starving, it is their right to allow their fellow man to die because only the “owner” has claim upon it. Their rights even extend to punishing their fellow man, even unto death in cases, for benefiting from those resources without permission. This is evidently the overwhelmingly preferred model for Babylon and her economies (which, in and of itself, should be worthy of note).
If exclusive ownership were a principle of heaven, extended down here to earth and recognized similarly, we run into the problem of death. In death, a person is separated from all property, even the body they dwelt in. If the body and property were actually owned by a man, then God would necessarily be a thief, for separating a man from his rightful property through death. And He would be a liar for claiming all is His, if some things are exclusively owned by men down here. Is God a thief and a liar (Ether 3:12)?
In a model of inclusive ownership, all can rightfully hold property, but no party can rightfully withhold property from another; because those from whom they would withhold it have exactly as much rightful claim upon it. Inversely, none has the right to take from another any property which they are holding, because the one holding it has as much right to it as the one who would take it. All control and compulsion concerning property is simply brought to an end. This could be summed up as inclusive ownership being built on respecting usage rights.
In such a system, the only correct way to resolve any form of dispute over the use of a resource is by mutual agreement, which necessitates that all parties be sufficiently satisfied with the outcome. That might look a number of different ways, but when all parties involved are honestly interested in the benefit of their fellow man it is actually easy to accomplish, as all involved are willing to cheerfully bear some sacrifice to benefit the rest.
Logistically speaking, there is no way to fulfill the injunction to be equal in all our temporal things (D&C 70:14; 78:5-6; 82:17), as a state of being, other than to all have equal claims on all the substance in question. Every other effort to redistribute substance and claims upon substance would necessarily suffer from differences in quality and/or quantity, preventing the “equal” status the Lord expects His people to achieve.
As a greater consideration of the “no poor among them” requirement of Zion, beyond simply eliminating poverty by shuffling private resources around, it actually nullifies poverty among a people if they all share equal claim on all property. Not one soul can be lifted economically above another, when they all “own” the exact same stuff. Economic disparity is simply unable to exist, until the people decide to switch away from inclusively owning all things, which our scriptures point to being a road to disaster (4 Nephi 1:24-49).
Look at the example of our Father. From whom does He seek the right to withhold His abundance? When a person chooses to surrender their blessings by disobedience to the laws upon which those blessings are predicated (D&C 130:20-21), is that the Father choosing to withhold those blessings from them? When one person takes advantage of or robs another, is that the Father choosing to withhold or remove property from them? Or are these instances of the Father respecting the agency of man (D&C 93:30-31)? Does the Father choose to send sunshine or rain only upon the righteous or upon the wicked (Matthew 5:45)? Or does he pour out blessings upon us all, liberally (James 1:5), regardless of whether we “deserve” or “have earned” them?
If the Father blesses us all with His abundance, and invites us to become like Him, and one with Him in that abundance, then are we accomplishing that by seeking to retain the right to take or withhold substance from another?
JOINT-HEIRS AND INHERITANCES
According to the prophets, Christ is the rightful heir of all that His Father has (Matthew 28:18; John 3:35; Hebrews 1:2; King Follett Discourse). And yet, Christ extends this invitation to us:
“and he that receiveth me receiveth my father, and he that receiveth my father, receiveth my fathers kingdom, therefore all that my father hath shall be given unto him” - D&C 84:37-38
But isn’t that all Christ’s? How can it be ours if it is to be His?
Paul makes an interesting observation in Romans 8:16-17.
“The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.”
A joint-heir is one who inherits something in union with others. When we become joint-heirs with Christ, we inherit with Him that which He inherits from His Father.
When Christ inherits this all from the Father, does the Father surrender all claim upon it? Leaving the Father with nothing, displaced, as Christ takes His Father’s throne and honor upon Himself (2 Nephi 24:12-15; Moses 4:1)? Or does Christ join Him, the two becoming one, as He would have us join them and also become one?
But wait, what about the inheritances God gives man in scripture? For example Lehi and Abraham (Genesis 15:7)? Well, the Lord seems to certainly intend for these to be inclusive or joint inheritances, if you just read the scriptures concerning the matter. Let’s look at Lehi.
Lehi is promised a land as an inheritance, for him and for his seed (1 Nephi 5:5, 13:30). So out of the gate, the words concerning this inheritance already point to non-exclusivity. Then, once Lehi has this promised inheritance, what does he do? He turns around and pronounces the selfsame inheritance upon his son Joseph, and his children, in tandem with his brothers (2 Nephi 3:2), including Nephi, who already received a promise from that Lord that he was to inherit the land for himself (1 Nephi 2:20).
But hey, maybe it’s exclusively for his family. They hold it inclusively, but exclusive of anyone else. Well, after promising the land to Lehi and his family, what does the Lord do? Send a bunch of other people over, who aren’t part of Lehi’s family, and expects them to be able to inherit the land too (e.g. Omni 1:15-16). And this isn’t some later alteration of the deal given to Lehi, this shared inheritance was evidently a prospect known to Nephi’s family from the outset (2 Nephi 1:5-6).
Furthermore, after God has promised these inheritances to Lehi, Abraham and others, He still thinks He can claim that all the earth and the fullness thereof is His (1 Corinthians 10:26; D&C 104:14).
All these people—and God—having claim on the same inheritance and being expected to learn to work together to benefit from it? It’s like the Lord and these people just don’t get how ownership is supposed to work!
FEARS CONCERNING INCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP
A major fear of inclusive ownership and the “all things common” model is the idea of lazy asses coming along and feeding off the hard work of others. If you look to the scriptures, and do a little pondering, these concerns should be mollified.
The laborer in Zion will labor for Zion (2 Nephi 26:31). Those in Zion will evidently be expected to labor, to whatever degree they are capable.
The idler will not be granted the privilege of taking from the laborers (D&C 42:42). Lazy folks will not be permitted to gratify their appetites on the backs of others, and must either become laborers or depart.
The sick, the infirm, and others who are limited in their ability to labor, and therefore are a “drain” on resources, are still to be taken care of, as an always-present aspect of the gospel (e.g. Alma 1:27). But this sacrifice and care in their behalf is to one of two ends: either their recovery and resuming of labor, or granting them final comfort until their death. (But also remember, in a people of God, tending to the sick and afflicted may have a different look than how we currently think of it - 4 Nephi 1:5).
The above scriptural injunctions must be met by the individuals who make up Zion prior to their being called “Zion” by the Lord. These things are commandments, and as those in Zion must “dwell in righteousness” (Moses 7:18), then these commandments must be lived, or the people will not be dwelling in righteousness and simply will not be “Zion.”
Some also fear that if people can’t claim property as their own, they won’t take care of it, allowing it to fall into disrepair. Well, inclusive ownership isn’t nobody owns the property, but instead all own the property collectively, and should therefore have an interest in caring for the property, as it is “theirs” as much as it is everyone else’s.
But beyond that, these fears are based on the observation of how Babylon operates. Zion is about escape from Babylon, and will be peopled by those who are interested in becoming more God-like, leaving Babylonian vices behind. I wouldn’t be surprised if Zion is populated by people who not only take care of the property they use so they can use it later, but who take care of property specifically so others can benefit from it after them.
