The Lord specifies that as the Church members from New York begin to arrive in the Kirtland area they must be organized according to His laws, a likely reference to the law of consecration and other laws revealed a few months earlier (D&C 42). Throughout the history of the Church, the law of consecration has been a dynamic set of principles designed to be adjusted to fit the current needs of Church members. Consecration was not going to be a one-size-fits-all affair. While it is true that the Lord counseled Bishop Partridge to divide resources on an equal basis, He also directs him to make determinations based on a family’s circumstances, wants, and needs (D&C 51:3).

Rather than an arbitrary function, consecration was set up to be a negotiation in good faith between the bishop and the family in need of assistance. Two years later, as Bishop Partridge was laboring to set up the law of consecration in Missouri, Joseph Smith wrote a letter to explain the roles of the bishop and the church member in determining stewardships. He wrote,

I will tell you that every man must be his own judge how much he should receive, and how much he should suffer to remain in the hands of the Bishop. . . . The matter of consecration must be done by the mutual consent of both parties—For, to give the Bishop power to say how much every man shall have and he be obliged to comply with the Bishops judgment, is giving to the Bishop more power than a King has and upon the other hand, to let every man say how much he needs and the Bishop obliged to comply with his judgment, is to throw Zion into confusion and make a Slave of the Bishop. The fact is, there must be a balance or equilibrium of power between the bishop and the people, and thus harmony and good will may be preserved among you. (Letter to Church Leaders in Jackson County, Missouri, 25 June 1833, 2, JSP)

Fundamental to the successful implementation of consecration was honesty on the part of everyone involved. The bishop had to be honest about the available resources. He was also expected to be above reproach in his personal conduct and to model integrity for the people he served. When Edward Partridge was chosen to serve as bishop the Lord had declared that his calling was “because his heart is pure before me, for he is like Nathanael of old, in whom there is no guile” (D&C 41:11).

For consecration to work, honesty was required of Church members as well. Members needed to be clear and honest about their wants and needs. We do not know the particulars about the system of consecration used in the time of Christ, but the book of Acts sternly notes the punishment by death of Ananias and Sapphira when they tried to defraud the leaders of the Church (Acts 5:1–11). Nothing so dramatic happened in the time of the Restoration, but without honesty, jealousy and contention could grow among Church members, and this would be fatal to consecration.

The other churches referred to in these verses (D&C 51:10–12) are other branches of the Church. Consecration asks Church members to maintain a wider perspective and seek after not only the welfare of their own family, or their own Church unit, but the kingdom of God as a whole. Members in more developed congregations and countries sacrifice to assist those in less developed areas. While individual acts of charity are important, the great work is overseen by leaders who see the big picture and can direct the resources of the Church in the most efficient way possible.

The establishment of a storehouse operated and administered by the bishop is mentioned in the original instructions given with the law of consecration (D&C 42:34). The frequent use in these verses of the term wants as opposed to needs emphasizes that consecration was meant to provide the means not only for surviving but also for flourishing. Church members who have consecrated themselves to the Lord enjoy access to the fellowship, talents, and resources of a community. The Lord speaks of organizing according to His laws as “a privilege” (D&C 42:34).

We sometimes speak of consecration from this time as a failed experiment. It is true that the Colesville Saints in particular suffered because of those who refused to live the law of consecration, but many Saints who gathered to Kirtland prospered under the law. Emily M. Coburn Austin was among the members of the extended Knight family who joined the Church in Colesville and then gathered to Kirtland. Though Emily eventually left the Church, she looked back on the system of consecration in Kirtland with fond memories. “The church had become numerous within a year or two after we arrived, and we were in a new country,” she recalled of her first impression upon her arrival. She continued,

Probably it is indispensably requisite to say that all the money belong[ed] to the wealthy members of the church treasury; and one man had the entire charge of financial affairs. Had it not been thus, there would have been great suffering among the poor and aged, who were in this way both fed and clothed. Probably this is the true origin of the report that they had all things in common; and this is true. The poor were provided for, as well as those who had put their money in the treasury. They were all satisfied and happy to all appearance, and all seemed to enjoy themselves (Johnson & Reeder, The Witness of Women, 2016, 82)

The settlement of the Colesville Saints was planned to be “an example . . . in other places, in all churches” (D&C 51:18). The faithful Saints of this branch were intended to set up a covenant community to be replicated in other locations. President Lorenzo Snow, using the terminology common in his time to describe the law of consecration, taught that consecration “was not confined to any particular locality, but in that revelation [D&C 51] it was told to the Bishop that this should be an example unto him in organizing in all Churches. So that wherever Edward Partridge should find a Church, he would have the privilege of organizing them according to the United Order, the Celestial Law, or the Order of Enoch” (Journal of Discourses, 19:344).

Unfortunately, the members of the Colesville Branch stayed in Ohio only a short time. Because of transgression, their covenant community was abandoned in its infancy (see commentary for D&C 54). Instead, the Colesville Branch was commanded to move on to Missouri, and these Saints were among the first members of the Church to live the law of consecration in the land of Zion (D&C 54:8). Joined by Bishop Partridge, the Prophet Joseph Smith, and a small band of missionaries, they would be present when the Lord identified the precise location for the New Jerusalem to “be built up upon this land” (Ether 13:6).