By Ethan McCollum
The United States is facing a crisis of wealth inequality. The top 1% hold more wealth than the bottom 90% combined. Families work multiple jobs to pay rent, while billionaires accumulate fortunes that dwarf entire state budgets. Progressives advocate for policies such as broader safety nets, expanded healthcare, and free school lunches, but the truth is stark: no policy can succeed unless the people follow principles of charity, empathy, and inclusion. Jesus Christ, the religious leader I am most familiar with, taught that “whatever you did for one of the least of these my brothers or sisters, you have also done for me.” Similar ideals are found in religions across the world.
This truth is woven into one of the most challenging and beautiful doctrines of the Latter-day Saint tradition: the law of consecration. Revealed to Joseph Smith in the early 1830s, consecration required members to deed their property to the Church, after which they received back a stewardship sufficient for their needs. Any surplus was then used for the poor and for building up Zion. It was not meant to abolish private property but to transform it into stewardship. Wealth was dedicated to God’s purposes rather than individual accumulation.
In practice, however, consecration proved difficult. Some Saints consecrated willingly, while others held back. Bishops struggled with administration, and constant persecution disrupted efforts to build stable communities. By the mid-1830s, the formal system had largely collapsed. Yet the principle itself was never revoked. Later attempts, such as the United Orders organized under Brigham Young in the Utah Territory, again aimed to live out this higher law, but even these efforts proved short-lived in the face of human weakness, economic complexity, and cultural resistance.
Still, the doctrine endured. Leaders repeatedly taught that while the system might change, the covenant of consecration remained binding. To this day, all Latter-day Saints who enter the temple promise to consecrate their time, talents, and all that God has given them for the building up of God’s kingdom. The form has shifted, but the principle that all things we possess belongs to God remains.
The scriptures could not be clearer about inequality: “It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin” (Doctrine and Covenants 49:20). And again: “If ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things” (Doctrine and Covenants 78:6). In other words, inequality is not just an economic or political problem, it is a spiritual one. To tolerate it without striving for something better is to risk our standing before Deity.
The lesson of history is plain: consecration cannot be imposed by legislation alone. No law can substitute for the change of heart that comes through divinely motivated love. The Christians in Acts “had all things common” (Acts 4:32) because they loved one another, not because Caesar issued a decree. The Nephites in 4 Nephi “had no poor among them” because their hearts were knit together in Christ, not because of a tax policy.
The law of consecration as I’ve described it is not socialism as most of us envision it. In fact, this dialogue is a source of tension in the Latter-day Saint community. Everyone agrees that it is not capitalism, but to what degree is it socialist? Many Latter-day Saints who came of age in the Cold War recoil at the idea a Christian religion that could endorse anything that remotely resembles socialism. My personal opinion is that this argument is a distraction. Politics is the art of the possible, and someone who truly believes the law of consecration will support socialist policies because even though socialism is not a perfect system, it is the closest possible system to consecration we can achieve on this earth.
Perhaps consecration is most at odds with socialism when it comes to the voluntary nature of the system. However, for people across the political spectrum, consecration provides a moral middle ground. To progressives, it underscores the duty to protect the vulnerable and ensure no one is left in poverty. To conservatives, it stresses stewardship, voluntary generosity, and the idea that prosperity comes with obligations. To both, it poses a challenge: are we willing to put aside partisanship and personal gain for the health of the whole?
Our nation’s crises are not just policy problems but moral ones. The principle of consecration reframes these debates. Instead of asking, “What do I deserve?” it asks, “What can I consecrate?” Instead of demanding “my rights,” it emphasizes “our responsibilities.”
Recently, JD Vance and other conservative leaders have stated that empathy can be a sin. This is a frankly disgusting claim, especially from those who make excuses for a rapist and convicted felon. I am disappointed that so many people, including fellow Latter-day Saints, support the MAGA movement. The Book of Mormon tells the story of the king-men, who are dissatisfied with the outcome of an election and attempt to overthrow a legitimate government. I grew up hearing how the king-men were evil because they wanted to take away people's freedom.
I am saddened that so many Latter-day Saints have become king-men themselves. If we took the ideals of pure religion to heart, we would not sacrifice our empathy on the bloody altar of power. Like the people of the Book of Mormon, we have seen “the great wickedness one very wicked man can cause to take place among the children of men.” (Alma 46:9) Religion is not religion without love. The apostle John questioned, “If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person?” (1 John 3:17).
As the Book of Mormon reminds us, even outward acts of consecration are meaningless unless they spring from true intent: “For behold, God hath said a man being evil cannot do that which is good; for if he offereth a gift, or prayeth unto God, except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing” (Moroni 7:6). Redistribution without love becomes resentment. Service without sincerity becomes hollow. Consecration demands more than compliance, it demands a willing heart.
This is why progressive reforms, however well-intentioned, cannot succeed unless people first embrace true charity in its original sense of the highest form of love. Redistribution without consecration feels like coercion. With consecration, sacrifice becomes voluntary and joyful. Until we are willing to see our neighbor as a child of God, inequality will remain entrenched, regardless of what laws are passed.To consecrate is to reorder our lives so that wealth, influence, and ability are used for others, not just ourselves.
If we do not learn to consecrate, we will continue to live in a nation where prosperity pools in a few hands while millions suffer. But if we do embrace consecration, if we take seriously the call to love, then policies meant to lift the poor will not just be sustainable; they will become expressions of a higher covenant.
The Latter-day Saints once dreamed of building Zion, a society without rich or poor. That vision still matters. The United States doesn’t need more billionaire vanity projects. It needs consecration: the courage to love enough to sacrifice, and the humility to see all we have as God’s.
Ethan McCollum is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He lives in Saint Louis, MO, where he teaches youth Sunday school.