D&C 51:3-20

51:3 - Now we get into the law of consecration part of this revelation, with the Lord assigning Edward Partridge “in whom I am well pleased” to assign “unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” So does this mean that every person is going to get the same amount of land or animals or resources regardless of individual circumstances? The IM teaches, “the law of consecration was designed to make us equal in temporal things, but as President J. Reuben Clark Jr. pointed out, this equality is of a special kind. ‘One of the places in which some of the brethren are going astray is this: There is continuous reference in the revelations to equality among the brethren, but I think you will find only one place where that equality is really described, though it is referred to in other revelations. That revelation (D&C 51:3) affirms that every man is to be ‘equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.’ Obviously, this is not a case of ‘dead level’ equality. It is ‘equality’ that will vary as much as the man’s circumstances, his family, his wants and needs, may vary.’” I’m assuming that in communism everyone is given the same amount of everything, regardless of what that person wants or needs, or what their skills are. Let’s take the example of a doctor, someone who likes working in medicine, does that person need 40 acres of farm land in order to support their family or contribute to the community? No, that person needs medical tools and resources. What about the newlyweds, do they need 40 acres of farm land? Probably not, that’s a lot of land and I would imagine that it would be overwhelming to just those two people. Does a family of 8 need 40 acres of farm land? Maybe. Do they all need a studio apartment? Do they all need huge houses? What if they are a talented artist? Our society isn’t friendly to artists or writers or anything creative really, you have to be absolutely exceptional in order to make a living, and it seems like this system might be a little but more friendly for people to support themselves and their families doing what they love and are good at, instead of grinding, tedious tasks that are not fulfilling.

51:4-7 -  Now the Lord gets into the nitty gritty details. The Lord directs that Bishop Partridge to give “a man his portion” in writing, DJR says that means a deed. If that person “shall transgress,” then they will no longer be eligible to receive the surplus from the Church storehouse, but they will be able to keep what has been deeded to them from the Church, as that is now their own private property. The Lord also directs Bishop Partridge to “let that which belongs to this people be appointed unto this people.” Now DJR gives some interesting insight into what this means saying that this was “probably an instruction to Bishop Partridge to stop holding back on giving deeds and to go ahead and do it. When we get to section 85, we will see that he had deep concerns as to whether it was wise to have private ownership of property, with legal deeds.” The IM explains why is was important to have everything in writing and legalized by quoting President J. Reuben Clark Jr as teaching, “The fundamental principle of this system was the private ownership of property. Each man owned his portion, or in heritance, or stewardship, with an absolute title, which he could alientate, or hypothecate, or otherwise treat as his own. The Church did not own all of the property, and the life under the United Order was not a communal life… The United Order is an individualistic system, not a communal system.” The IM continues, “President Clark further showed that a written title or deed was issued that satisfied the requirements of civil law and secured to an individual the rights of private ownership of property. The importance of such written agreements is evident when it is remembered that people had their agency to leave the united order. A written contract between the bishop and the individual secured the terms of the agreement when the person entered the order. So even though a person acknowledged that all property ultimately belongs to God, for legal and practical purposes his deeded portion because his private property. It did not belong to the Church. This arrangement was true of the initial inheritance of land and buildings given to each person in the order. Any surplus earned from one’ stewardship was given to the Church. ‘If anyone transgressed and was counted unworthy of membership in the Church, he also lost his standing in the society, but in that case he was to retain the property deeded to him, but have no claim of the portion set apart for the maintenance of the poor and needy.’ People to chose to withdraw from the order often ended up with bitter feelings against the Church. Handling the transactions through legally constituted means provided protection for both the individual and the Church. ‘In the community there would always be some who would wish to draw out and, perhaps, embarrass the rest by lawsuits, or otherwise. In order to prevent such designs, just and equitable provisions were to be made and secured by legal agreements.’”

51:8- - Verse 8 brings up a couple  interesting point, that “the money which is left unto this people- let there be an agent appointed unto this people, to take the money to provide food and raiment, according to the wants of this people.” First is the concept of “wants” not necessarily needs, especially when it comes to food and clothing. The individual here matters, the individual’s personality, style, skill, talents, etc. come under the umbrella of “wants.” DJR comments “we are again reminded that ‘wants’ are important too in implementing the law of consecration. Many people have the mistaken notion that living the United Order would be a very basic lifestyle, almost a survival-only type of living. This would not be the case in a successful United Order.” I think about the poverty and suffering that comes under communism, which is a basic survival type of existence, only given what you absolutely need to survive, and compare that to the idea of a society that has a surplus of everything because people take what they need and give the rest to the Church to be distributed to the “poor and needy.” If we were all capable of only using what we needed, then had a place to which we could give the surplus, that we would trust to do righteously with the resources, then our society would grow so wealthy that everyone could have nice watches and clothes and the best schools and gourmet food. Those who were talented shoemakers could make shoes and still put food on the table, everyone could thrive doing what they loved to do, making things and performing tasks that they were good at and that fulfilled them personally and everyone would still have their personal needs met, and then some as the society progressed. I remember hearing the story of the City of Enoch when I was young and thought “sure it was easy to be righteous when there were no poor among them.” But what I didn’t realize until I was much older was that the society wasn’t righteous because they prospered, but that the city prospered because they were righteous, two concepts that it’s very important to get in the right order there. So communism produces a minimalistic, survival type lifestyle, whereas consecration produces and beautiful, fulfilling, and abundant lifestyle. The second point brought up in verse 8 is that of having an appointed agent to receive and distribute the resources, and this goes back to having a place to send the surplus that you trusted to use those resources righteously. The IM teaches, “The community was to be represented by an Agent, whose special duty it would be to handle the money required for food and clothing by the people. There is great wisdom manifested in the distribution of responsibilities. The Bishopric would receive the property, distribute it in ‘stewardships,’ and receive the earnings of each stewardship; the Agent would see to it that property was not unduly accumulated, but that the needs of all were supplied.”

51:9-16 - The Lord continues with some spiritual principles that make the law of consecration work saying, “and let every man deal honestly, and be alike among this people, and receive alike, that ye may be one, even as I have commanded you.” Like we talked about in section 42, the surplus was determined by the individual, not the state. Maybe that’s the difference when they say that the United Order focuses on the individual, not the state. In communism, I believe, the state determines how much each person needs and gives it to them from the confiscated resources, whereas here, the Lord requires that the individual who produces the goods to determine how much their family needs and willingly gives the surplus to the Church, if they don’t or can’t give the surplus to the Church then that is their prerogative to do so. Just like our tithing, at tithing settlement, we don’t bring our paystubs, our bank statements or our tax returns, the bishop isn’t an accountant who verifies that we are full tithe payers. We are asked if we are full tithe payers, and our answer is taken as the truth, this is a similar concept, we give what is excess and we are taken at our word. The IM asks “How were the saints to be alike?” and answers, “Under the united order everyone was alike in that they were independent and had full opportunity to use their gifts and talents in building the kingdom of God. They were also alike in that all had equal opportunity to benefit from whatever talents and abilities existed in the community. The idea that everyone was alike in good possessed or income received is an error. The order was united in love, purpose, and commitment, but unity does not mean sameness. A couple with seven children has needs different from one just beginning married life.” The Lord now, I believe, starts talking about the “stewardships,” saying that any and all goods exchanged between “branches” be done through their agents, but it seems to me similar to the way we do it now, take care of your own ward first, then anything else goes into the general fund, if that’s how they do it, which I believe that it is. He desires that the surplus be kept in a “storehouse” which is what we have today, the Bishop’s Storehouse, and to dispense through there.

51:17-20 - This is the last concept that I’m going to cover in this section, and that is verse 17 where the Lord tells the Saints that they aren’t going to know when it’s time to move, but instead of just waiting “let them act upon this land as for years, and this shall turn unto them for their good.” I know quite a bit about living a life in transition, and this is one of the most comforting pieces of advice that there is. The feeling of living in transition is maddening, but to just accept what it is now, and that I’m not going to know when it’s time to change, and to just live my life as if that’s what I’m going to be doing for years allows me to more fully enjoy the moments that I’m having, not just living in the future when it will be “better.”