I think the problem is that "communism" has a ton of baggage that implies a lot of things that aren't actually part of communism. Communism is actually a statel

I think the problem is that "communism" has a ton of baggage that implies a lot of things that aren't actually part of communism. Communism is actually a stateless ideology, which is completely different from the common usage of the term in describing countries like China and the USSR. With the law of consecration, there's a clear, but voluntary state, and the end goal isn't the dissolution of the state, but the ending of the expectation to give up your property (the law would go away, but you'd continue to give because you want to). It's not socialism because it doesn't matter who owns the means of production, it only matters that the production is given to the church to be redistributed. It isn't communism because there is a clear state, but I suppose it's close since ideally there wouldn't be any social classes or coercion. The main similarity is the ideal of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", but I think there are enough differences to make it reasonable to say it's not communism, but it is a collectivist system with similar goals.