Establishing Zion

How should a Zion community think about property rights? The question is more complex than it first appears, because the two dominant Western frameworks for thinking about property — the bundle of sticks approach and the unified ownership model — both fall short of what Zion's stewardship theology requires. Understanding why they fall short, and what the alternative looks like, is the work of this appendix.

​

The bundle of sticks approach treats property as a collection of separable rights — the right to use, the right to exclude, the right to transfer, the right to derive income, and so on. These rights can be unbundled and recombined in different ways: you can own the mineral rights to a piece of land without owning the surface rights, or hold a life estate without the right to transfer. This framework is analytically flexible and has dominated Anglo-American property law for generations. But it treats property as a set of tools to be optimized rather than a relationship with moral dimensions.

​

The unified ownership model — closer to the intuitive understanding most people carry — treats property as a right of dominion: this is mine, and I may do with it as I please within the limits the law imposes. It is closer to the Gerald O'Hara vision of land as the thing that matters most, to be held and defended against all comers. This model captures the emotional reality of ownership but provides no principled basis for the social obligations that stewardship theology insists are built into the ownership right itself.

​

The tree concept offers a third framework, and it is the one most consistent with Zion's principles. Rather than treating property as a collection of separable sticks or a unified right of dominion, the tree concept treats ownership as a living relationship between a person, a resource, and a community — one in which social obligation is not an external constraint on the ownership right but is constitutive of it. You do not own the tree and then have obligations imposed on you from outside. The obligations are part of what ownership means. This is the stewardship theology of D&C 104 expressed in legal terms: the owner is accountable to the master for how the stewardship is managed, and surplus belongs to the master's purposes rather than to the steward's accumulation.

​

The practical implications are significant. Property rights in Zion will not function as unlimited rights to use and transfer without regard to community impact. They will function as covenant inheritances — entrusted to specific families and communities, carrying inherent obligations to use them in ways that serve the broader good, and to pass them on in ways that preserve community integrity across generations. This is not confiscation or state control. It is a different understanding of what ownership means — one rooted in the Abrahamic covenant and the stewardship parables rather than in Anglo-American common law.

​

What remains genuinely open is how these principles translate into specific legal and institutional arrangements for Zion communities. Community land trusts, covenant deed restrictions, and cooperative ownership structures are all instruments that reflect stewardship theology rather than fee simple ideology — and all of them are operating successfully in communities around the world today. The work of developing a full framework for property rights in Zion is one of the genuinely unfinished tasks this book identifies and invites its readers to take up.