How Joseph Smith's Teachings on Communal Living Shaped Early Mormon Communities

Joseph Smith's vision of shared property and collective labor created tight-knit settlements that defined early Mormonism and influenced how the faith organized itself geographically.

By Garret Merkley · Explainer · Jun 3, 2026

Branched from Early Mormon Westward Migration: Why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Moved West

Quick take

Smith taught that members should consecrate (give) their property to the church to create economically self-sufficient, religiously unified communities.
This communal model produced dense settlements where church leaders controlled land distribution and members worked for collective benefit, not individual profit.
Persecution and repeated displacement reinforced communal bonds but also made the system fragile—it collapsed when communities faced external pressure or internal dissent.
The communal ideal shaped Mormon migration patterns and settlement strategies, even after the formal system was abandoned in the 1830s.

Joseph Smith taught that early Christians had shared all possessions in common, and that the restored church should do the same. Members were expected to consecrate their property—deed it over to the church—which would then redistribute land and resources according to need and church assignment. This wasn't voluntary charity; it was a binding religious obligation meant to eliminate poverty, prevent greed, and create a unified people living by shared principles. Smith called this the Law of Consecration, and it became the economic and social blueprint for Mormon settlements from Ohio to Missouri to Utah.

The Mechanics: How Consecration Actually Worked

When a convert joined the church, they were encouraged to sign over their property to a church-appointed bishop. The bishop then assigned them a 'stewardship'—typically a plot of land or a trade—which they would work and improve. Any surplus production beyond their family's needs returned to the church to support the poor, fund building projects, or aid new arrivals. Members didn't own their stewardship outright; they held it conditionally, and the bishop could reassign it if the member fell out of favor or the community's needs shifted. This created a system where the church, not individual property owners, controlled the economic foundation of the settlement.

In practice, consecration was most strictly enforced in early Ohio (around Kirtland, 1831–1837) and Missouri (Jackson County and Far West, 1831–1839). Members were organized into cooperative work groups, shared mills and workshops, and pooled labor for church construction. Non-members living nearby often saw these settlements as clannish and economically threatening—they could undercut local prices and operated as a closed bloc. This economic separatism, combined with religious fervor and rapid population growth, fueled tensions that eventually led to violence and expulsion.

Why Communal Living Appealed to Early Mormons

Consecration promised something radical: a society free from poverty and inequality, where the strong helped the weak and everyone had a stake in collective success. For converts—many of them poor or working-class—this was deeply attractive. It also reinforced religious identity; living communally meant you were visibly separate from the corrupt outside world and bound tightly to your faith community. The system created mutual accountability: you lived with, worked beside, and depended on your fellow believers. Dissent or disloyalty wasn't just a personal choice; it threatened the entire community's survival.

Smith also framed consecration as a test of faith. Giving up property was a sign of genuine commitment; those unwilling to sacrifice were suspect. This created spiritual and social pressure to participate, especially as communities faced hardship. When persecution came—mobs attacking settlements, legal harassment, forced evacuations—communal bonds intensified. Shared suffering and collective defense made the system feel essential, not optional.

Why It Collapsed and What Remained

The formal Law of Consecration was abandoned by the mid-1830s, partly because it proved administratively chaotic (bishops disagreed on valuations and reassignments) and partly because many members resisted giving up property unconditionally. Resentment also built among those who felt the system favored church elites or was enforced inconsistently. By the time Mormons reached Utah in 1847, Smith was dead and the church leadership had softened the requirement, though they still encouraged voluntary donations and cooperative labor.

However, the communal spirit never fully disappeared. Utah settlements were organized by the church, with leaders directing where members could settle and how land would be allocated. Cooperative stores, irrigation systems, and community projects remained common. The ideal of a unified, church-directed community persisted even when individual property ownership became the norm. This legacy shaped Mormon settlement patterns for decades—tight clusters of believers, church control over key resources, and suspicion of outsiders.

Why This Matters for Understanding Early Mormon History

Consecration explains why early Mormon communities were so cohesive and why they provoked such fierce opposition from neighbors. It wasn't just religious difference; it was economic separatism backed by religious authority. The system created settlements that looked and functioned like closed societies, which made them targets for suspicion and violence. Understanding consecration also clarifies why Mormons migrated westward repeatedly—they weren't just seeking religious freedom, but trying to find places where they could build economically autonomous communities without interference. The westward journey itself was partly a search for space to implement Smith's vision of a unified, self-sufficient people.

Key Dates in Consecration Practice

1831: Law of Consecration revealed in Ohio; first formal attempts in Kirtland and Jackson County, Missouri
1833–1834: Missouri persecution and expulsion; system strained but intensified communal bonds
1835–1837: Kirtland period; consecration loosened as property disputes and financial failures mounted
1838–1839: Far West, Missouri; brief revival of stricter communal practices before final expulsion
1840s onward: System formally abandoned; cooperative and church-directed settlement remains in Utah

Did everyone actually give up their property?

No. Many members were reluctant or refused outright. Church leaders pressured people to consecrate, but enforcement was inconsistent. Wealthier members sometimes negotiated smaller contributions, and poorer members had little to give. By the mid-1830s, the system had become largely voluntary, which meant it collapsed as a binding economic structure.

What happened if you didn't want to consecrate?

You faced social pressure and spiritual questioning from church leaders. Refusing consecration could result in public rebuke, loss of standing in the community, or even excommunication. However, the church rarely expelled members solely for refusing; instead, they were marginalized or encouraged to leave voluntarily.

How is this different from other utopian communes of that era?

Smith's system was explicitly religious and hierarchical—the church (and Smith personally) held ultimate authority over property and assignments, unlike secular communes that often aimed for democracy or equality among members. Mormon consecration was also tied to an apocalyptic timeline; members believed they were preparing for Christ's imminent return, which gave the system urgency and spiritual weight.

Did consecration ever work as intended?

Briefly and incompletely. In Kirtland's first years (1831–1833) and in Far West (1838–1839), the system functioned well enough to create observable communal settlements with shared labor and pooled resources. But it never achieved full economic integration or eliminated internal conflict. Practical problems—who decides fair stewardship assignments, how to handle disputes, whether surpluses should go to the poor or to building projects—proved difficult to resolve.

Did the communal ideal influence how Utah settlements were organized?

Yes. While formal consecration ended, church leaders in Utah continued to direct settlement patterns, allocate land, and organize cooperative projects. Communities were laid out in grid patterns with the temple at the center, and the church retained significant control over economic life. The spirit of communal unity persisted even without the binding property requirement.

Sources

The Law of Consecration was formally revealed in Doctrine and Covenants 42 (1831) and expanded in subsequent revelations; historical accounts of its implementation appear in Joseph Smith's journals and in records from Kirtland and Missouri settlements.
Scholarly works on Mormon communalism include Leonard Arrington's 'Great Basin Kingdom' (1958) and Terryl Givens' 'The Viper on the Hearth' (1997), which examine both the ideological and practical dimensions of early Mormon economics.
The formal abandonment of consecration is documented in church records from the mid-1830s, with a shift toward voluntary donations and cooperative (rather than communal) economic structures by the Utah period.