Equality would be a central feature of Zion 21.0.

An early revelation instructed, “Wherefore, let my servant Edward Partridge, and those whom he has chosen, in whom I am well pleased, appoint unto this people their portions, every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs.” (Doctrine and Covenants 51:3)

Scholars have written, “This redistribution of wealth was designed to place all family heads on an equal economic footing, considering their respective family obligations, circumstances, needs, and ‘just wants.’ The Law of Consecration and Stewardship was thus a leveler, designed to bring about a condition of relative temporal equality among the early converts to the church . . . The system aimed at equality in consumption . . . . Once the Saints had been placed on an equitable, economic footing, the equality was to be maintained by requiring family heads to consecrate annually all their surplus production to the storehouse provided by the bishop for this purpose.”*

 _______________________
*Leonard J. Arrington, Feramorz Y. Fox and Dean L. May, Building the City of God: Community and Cooperation among the Mormons, 2nd ed. (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992), 16.

Households in Zion 21.0 would be “equal in the bonds of heavenly things.”

“Heavenly things” can be defined in two ways that reinforce one another. First, heavenly things are the things on the earth that have the character of heaven. Elements of the natural world can “gladden the heart” and “enliven the soul” (Doctrine and Covenants 59:18-19). Things and experiences that are “virtuous, lovely, of good report or praiseworthy” (Articles of Faith 1:13) are surely heavenly things. People are equal in obtaining heavenly things in this sense if they have the same ability to purchase material goods and services that are heavenly.

Second, heavenly things are the blessings received in heaven. Ultimately, members of Zion want to qualify through repentance and obedience to be raised by grace to eternal life with Heavenly Father, which “is the greatest of all the gifts of God” (Doctrine and Covenants 14:7). In his parable of sheep and goats (Matthew 25: 31–46), Jesus explained that we prepare to “receive the kingdom prepared . . . from the foundation of the world” through acts of kindness to others. Another way we prepare is to grow in knowledge and intelligence (see Doctrine and Covenants 130:18–19). Opportunities to serve and learn, as well as to do the other things that prepare us for heaven, depend in part on the resources we have on earth. To be equal in obtaining heavenly things in this second sense means to have equal access to material goods and services we choose to help us prepare for heaven and enjoy heaven on earth. 

Households in Zion 21.0 would be equal in earthly things.

In the Lord’s plan, “earthly things” are to be equalized so people have an equal opportunity to seek “heavenly things.” “Earthly things” are the physical things we encounter living on the earth. The natural bounties of God’s creation are described eloquently in scripture:

The beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which climbeth upon the trees and walketh upon the earth; Yea, and the herb, and the good things which come of the earth, whether for food or for raiment, or for houses, or for barns, or for orchards, or for gardens, or for vineyards; Yea, all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man . . . (Doctrine and Covenants 59:16–19).

Earthly things encompass not only sunsets and starry vistas that can be enjoyed for free, but also goods and services that can only be obtained with money. Money is used to purchase basics like food, clothing, shelter, and medical care; comforts like automobiles that make our lives easier; and the means to acquire knowledge and experiences that enrich our lives. 

Equality is adjusted for needs and circumstances.

Needs and circumstances are discussed here.

Income and equalized income.

Income is the flow of wages or salaries and nonwage income such as interest, dividends, and transfer payments from government or other sources that a household receives during a period of time such as a month or year. To read how various types of income would be handled in Zion 21.0, see here. Equalized income is the money that a household in Zion 21.0 would receive each period to spend. Income could be greater than or less than equalized income. 

Property.

Property refers to what a household owns at any given point in time. Before entering Zion 21.0, households may own money, stocks and bonds, land, a house, a vehicle, and clothing and furnishings. To read how various types of property would be handled in Zion 21.0, see here. 

Equality levels.

Zion 21.0 would determine the level of income and property for each household that would make it equal to other households, adjusted for objective measures of needs and circumstances. Such levels are needed to achieve equality and to permit Zion to continue sustainably within its resource limits. To read more about sustainability in Zion 21.0, see here.

Information needed to achieve equality.

On our own, none of us as members of Zion would have the information needed to determine whether what we receive through earnings and nonwage gains is greater than what our household should receive to make it equal with other households, adjusted for need. This can be seen by taking a simple hypothetical case in which there are no differences in needs among households. To determine the income level that would establish equality, one would need to know the total income available for Zion households and divide it by the number of households. Zion’s total income includes the earnings and nonwage gains of all the members of Zion and income from assets that the Storehouse manages. Practically speaking, individual households would not know these amounts; the information would need to be gathered by a central institution such as the Storehouse. When needs differ across households, as they do in the real world, and incomes are adjusted for different levels of need, households on their own would have an even harder time determining the correct income level for themselves and others. How a household’s income should depart from the average, due to the household’s needs and circumstances, should be decided using standards that apply to all of Zion, not based on households’ individual perceptions of those needs in themselves and others. In addition, the amount of Zion’s collective income that should be allocated to the Storehouse for various purposes should also be a collective decision.

Objective definition of surplus.

The system of consecration and stewardship was suspended in 1834 and replaced in 1838 with the law of tithing. The Saints were instructed at the outset to give all surplus property to the bishop (see Doctrine and Covenants 119:1, 5). Brigham Young later gave a humorous account of what happens when people decide on their own what is surplus.

The brethren wished me to go among the Churches, and find out what surplus property the people had with which to forward the building of the Temple we were commencing at Far West. I accordingly went from place to place through the country. Before I started, I asked brother Joseph, “Who shall be the judge of what is surplus property?” Said he, “Let them be the judges themselves, for I care not if they do not give a single dime. So far as I am concerned, I do not want anything they have.”

 

Then I replied, “I will go and ask them for their surplus property;” and I did so; I found the people said they were willing to do about as they were counseled, but, upon asking them about their surplus property, most of the men who owned land and cattle would say, “I have got so many hundred acres of land, and I have got so many boys, and I want each one of them to have eighty acres, therefore this is not surplus property.” Again, “I have got so many girls, and I do not believe I shall be able to give them more than forty acres each.”

 

“Well, you have got two or three hundred acres left.” “Yes, but I have a brother-in-law coming on, and he will depend on me for a living; my wife’s nephew is also coming on, he is poor, and I shall have to furnish him a farm after he arrives here.” I would go on to the next one, and he would have more land and cattle than he could make use of to advantage. It is a laughable idea, but is nevertheless true, men would tell me they were young and beginning the world, and would say, “We have no children, but our prospects are good, and we think we shall have a family of children, and if we do, we want to give them eighty acres of land each; we have no surplus property.” “How many cattle have you?” “So many.” “How many horses, &c?” “So many, but I have made provisions for all these, and I have use for everything I have got.”

 

Some were disposed to do right with their surplus property, and once in a while you would find a man who had a cow which he considered surplus, but generally she was of the class that would kick a person’s hat off, or eyes out, or the wolves had eaten off her teats. You would once in a while find a man who had a horse that he considered surplus, but at the same time he had the ringbone, was broken-winded, spavined in both legs, had the poll evil at one end of the neck and a fistula at the other, and both knees sprung. (“Consecration,” June 3, 1855, Journal of Discourses, 2:306–7)

These Saints understood surplus to be anything beyond what was required to meet their needs. When left to themselves, they decided that their needs would only be satisfied if they kept all their property, regardless of how much property they had. The main problem was not that the people were selfish. Many of them had sacrificed a lot and would sacrifice more in the future. Rather, Brigham Young collected little or nothing for the work of the Church because the people did not have any external standard by which to determine what was surplus.

Distributing surplus.

The most efficient means of redistributing income among households would be through a centralized system. Achieving equality through spontaneous individual giving presents several problems. To see why this is so, consider the hypothetical Carter family. This Zion household earns $20,000 more than its equalized income level and so has $20,000 in surplus. If the Carters were responsible to redistribute $20,000 on their own, they might first make a list of households they believe will need a supplemental payment to bridge a gap between their earnings and their equalized income. They might approach these households one at a time and ask how much supplement each can accept. The Carters won’t know this amount without asking, because they would not know the income levels of other households or how much the households are already receiving from the surplus of other Zion members. 

For each household, the Carters would write a check for the amount that the household can accept. If they can find enough households that need a supplemental payment, the Carters would continue to this process until the $20,000 had all been given away. Other donor households would have more difficulty. They may not know enough households needing a supplement, or may find that other donors have gotten there first. In either case, if there is no central organization to assist, these donors would have a difficult time finding households to give all their surplus to. This means that there would be Zion households that need a supplement but were not high enough on donors’ lists, if listed at all, to get the supplement they were due.

Redistribution through individual giving would probably be even less attractive to the households that receive a supplement. First, though a donor household may enjoy knowing which households benefitted from its surplus, it is not clear that recipients would want to know who contributed to them. If a household received money from the Carters, for example, there is an implication that the Carters are their benefactors. Actually, the household is entitled to its equalized income as a member of Zion, and it should not feel beholden to the Carters in any way.

Second, it is common for households to experience a significant decrease in their income. When income decreases in a household receiving a supplement, the household would need an increase in supplemental payments. Without a central organization, it could be difficult for such a household to find donors who can contribute surplus that has not already been committed to other households. Households receiving supplements may also suffer when a donor household such as the Carters has a decrease in income. When their income drops, donors have less surplus than they anticipated to distribute to other households. Again, it is not clear how the recipient households would go about finding households that could donate surplus that would make up the difference.

Achieving equality through the charitable gifts of individual Zion households has a certain appeal. We might like giving to be personal, a spontaneous gesture from household to household, rather than impersonal and centralized.

We might like the notion that people with surplus could choose who would receive their gifts. To actually achieve equality in Zion 21.0, however, who gives to whom and how much is given would be determined not by spontaneity and personal concern but by coordinated plans involving many givers and receivers.

Storehouse.

The Doctrine and Covenants provides insight on the sources and purposes of what in the 1830s was called the bishop’s storehouse or the Lord’s storehouse.

Some Zion members consecrated more property than they received as a stewardship. The difference or “residue” went into the storehouse.

And again, if there shall be properties in the hands of the church, or any individuals of it, more than is necessary for their support after this first consecration, which is a residue to be consecrated unto the bishop, it shall be kept to administer to those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants. Therefore, the residue shall be kept in my storehouse . . . . (D&C 42:33-35)

On an ongoing basis, when Zion members produced or received more than they required, the difference was placed in the storehouse.

And if thou obtainest more than that which would be for thy support, thou shalt give it into my storehouse, that all things may be done according to that which I have said. (D&C 42:55)

 

And again, let the bishop appoint a storehouse unto this church; and let all things both in money and in meat, which are more than is needful for the wants of this people, be kept in the hands of the bishop. (D&C 51:13)

And all this for the benefit of the church of the living God, that every man may improve upon his talent, that every man may gain other talents, yea, even an hundred fold, to be cast into the Lord’s storehouse, to become the common property of the whole church. (D&C 82:18)

Resources were taken from the storehouse to provide a stewardship to the poor, widows and orphans, those who did not own sufficient property to provide for their own needs. Storehouse resources were also used to support the operation of the Church.

All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age. And after that, they have claim upon the church, or in other words upon the Lord’s storehouse, if their parents have not wherewith to give them inheritances. And the storehouse shall be kept by the consecrations of the church; and widows and orphans shall be provided for, as also the poor. (D&C 83:4-6)

Therefore, the residue shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer to the poor and the needy, as shall be appointed by the high council of the church, and the bishop and his council; And for the purpose of purchasing lands for the public benefit of the church, and building houses of worship, and building up of the New Jerusalem which is hereafter to be revealed. (D&C 42:35)

To read more about how the Storehouse would reallocate income and property in Zion 21.0, see here.