Establishing Zion

The history of Zion begins not in Missouri or Nauvoo but in the antediluvian world, with two cities that achieved what the scriptures describe as the fullest expression of covenant community. Enoch's city and the city of Melchizedek stand at the opening of the historical record as demonstrations that Zion is possible — that a gathered people can, through righteousness and unity, eliminate poverty, achieve the presence of God, and sustain that achievement across generations.

​

What made these cities possible is not a mystery. In both cases the pattern is the same: the people first received and lived the doctrine of Christ. Enoch preached repentance and faith, and the people responded. The transformation was spiritual before it was social. The city came later, as a consequence of the people's righteousness — not as a mechanism for producing it. This sequence matters enormously. Institutions did not create the Zion people; a Zion people created institutions capable of sustaining what they had become.

​

The practical dimensions of ancient Zion are less fully documented, and the questions they raise are genuinely open. How did Enoch's city — a gathered urban community, not a nomadic encampment — actually function? Who built the walls and managed the water supply? How were disputes resolved? The scriptures tell us the people were "of one heart and one mind" and that "there was no poor among them," but the mechanisms through which that unity and equality were maintained are largely unrecorded. What we can infer is that the five foundation stones — devotion to God and Christ, charity, agency, accountability, and unity — provided the animating principles from which specific institutional arrangements grew.

​

The temple's role in ancient Zion is significant and underexplored. In both Enoch's city and the city of Melchizedek, the sacred center was not merely a place of worship but a practical hub for the redistribution of resources and the administration of covenant obligations. This dual function — spiritual center and economic institution — is not a coincidence. It reflects a theology in which consecration and worship are not separate activities but expressions of the same orientation: all things belong to God, and the community that acknowledges this will organize its material life accordingly.

​

One of the most searching questions the ancient record raises is about "all things common." The phrase has sometimes been read as a description of communal ownership — a kind of ancient communism. A more historically careful reading suggests something different: the people held their possessions lightly, acknowledged God as the ultimate owner of all things, and made what they had available as needs arose. Personal possessions existed, but they were not clutched. This is not a minor distinction. It suggests that the law of consecration is fundamentally an orientation of the heart — a willingness to release — rather than a formal transfer of property title. And it raises the question, with direct implications for today, of what consecration actually requires of those who seek to live it in contemporary circumstances.

​

The discussion questions for this chapter are genuinely open — not rhetorical, not leading. They are starting points for the conversation this site exists to sustain.