Acts 4:32-35

[Ahab]

Despite the obvious condescension, I'm more than happy to point you in the right direction. I would recommend starting with this thread:

http://www.mormonapo...m/page__st__340

Condescension requires someone to be higher up than somebody else, doesn't it?

What made you think I was higher than you are?

I certainly didn't say anything like that, myself, bro. Relax and think of me as an equal.

... and btw, thank you for the link you gave me, out of the charity of your own heart.

[Hannah Rebekah]

From what I understand, the Greek word, "koinos," translated "common" as used in Acts 4: 32-35 is similar to the Greek word, "koinonia" which is in fact a derivative of "koinos." Hopefully a look at the word "koinonia" will shed some light on "koinos." (common)

It is said that the word "koinonia" has a multitude of meanings.

Here are just a few concepts mentioned at Wikipedia about "Koinonia."

New Testament usage of koinonia

The essential meaning of the koinonia embraces concepts conveyed in the English terms community, communion, joint participation, sharing and intimacy. Koinonia can therefore refer in some contexts to a jointly contributed gift. The word appears 19 times in most editions of the Greek New Testament. In the New American Standard Bible, it is translated

[David Bokovoy]

Thank you Hannah Rebekah for contributing this helpful word study. An understanding of koinos adds a lot consider in terms of the spiritual dynamics of this passage from Acts.

Best,

--DB

[Ahab]

Thank you Hannah Rebekah for contributing this helpful word study. An understanding of koinos adds a lot consider in terms of the spiritual dynamics of this passage from Acts.

Best,

--DB

Maybe it would help if someone, maybe you, offered a word study on the word "they" in that scripture, too... you know, where it says "they" had all things in common.

The way I see it, as members of one true Church of Jesus Christ, we are already the "they" referred to in that scripture and as such we are already "one" in some way, even though some of our people don't act that way, and as a brother in the one family we are all a part of, I sometimes want to go bonking some people on their noggin to try to wake some people up!

[Hannah Rebekah]

Thank you Hannah Rebekah for contributing this helpful word study. An understanding of koinos adds a lot consider in terms of the spiritual dynamics of this passage from Acts.

Best,

--DB

You are welcome David. When I first ran across the word Koinonos it's meaning was intriguing to me. From what I have been able to understand, it has significance not only about temporal things such as what we think of when describing the Law of Consecration. But it seems that it also has a deep rich meaning also of spiritual things and becoming one with God. I Googled it and other Christians have written about this word but a search on LDS websites like FARMS, Gospelink and others showed that those words have not been used in an in-depth study to get to the heart of their meaning and really what the scriptures they are used in are trying to convey.

I wanted to write an article on koinonos and frame it through a Latter-day perspective and understanding but have not. But since you are a top rate scholar maybe koinos and koinonos are two words that you may want to write about. Good luck if you do and let me know as I would be very interested in it.

[BCSpace]

Yes, you've cited this all before, but until you can counter the scriptural interpretation presented in this thread, the point remains that in claiming that private ownership of property existed, the manual is clearly in error and much like the updated version of Gospel Principles, needs to be corrected in a new edition.

Yet what I have cited are quotations from the prophets that the Church considers doctrinal. Obviously you think the manual is mistaken, but these are not even conclusions drawn by some manual writer, they are direct quotations of the prophets. So, similar to a question you asked me on another thread, do you accept these statements as inspired teaching?

Btw, Enrichment Section L has been around for a mighty long time and is drawn upon for many lessons on the LoC. I think most would agree that if these teachings were in error, they would've been corrected by now.

[David Bokovoy]

Yet what I have cited are quotations from the prophets that the Church considers doctrinal. Obviously you think the manual is mistaken, but these are not even conclusions drawn by some manual writer, they are direct quotations of the prophets. So, similar to a question you asked me on another thread, do you accept these statements as inspired teaching?

Btw, Enrichment Section L has been around for a mighty long time and is drawn upon for many lessons on the LoC. I think most would agree that if these teachings were in error, they would've been corrected by now.

I addressed this issue in the section 82 thread:

For the record, I believe that when read carefully, the manual teaches the correct concept (though I admit it is a bit confusing and from my perspective probably needs to be changed). Note the following paragraph that introduces the quotes from President Romney that BC and Droopy gave such great emphasis:

[BCSpace]

I addressed this issue in the section 82 thread:

Yes. I recognized your comming around to doctrinal sources. But now you are in my realm and the fact remains that the LoC doesn't work outside capitalism. Notice that agreement with your emphasis does not change what I emphasized which I did only because you were not applying it to your pov.

[David Bokovoy]

Yes. I recognized your comming around to doctrinal sources. But now you are in my realm and the fact remains that the LoC doesn't work outside capitalism. Notice that agreement with your emphasis does not change what I emphasized which I did only because you were not applying it to your pov.

So leaving aside for a moment what the church does or does not teach today, do you acknowledge the historical fact that private ownership of property did not exist under the United Order revealed to Joseph Smith in section 82

[BCSpace]

So leaving aside for a moment what the church does or does not teach today, do you acknowledge the historical fact that private ownership of property did not exist under the United Order revealed to Joseph Smith in section 82

In addition to verse 17, his statements to Edward Partridge not a year later (which have become doctrine) indicate strongly against this being a fact so no, I do not acknowledge this as a fact.

Edit: A year earlier than section 82 is section 51 which explicitly shows private ownership. Are you claiming that over the next year, the Church went from private property to no private property and then again after a year, switched back to private property?

The simplest explaination works well here. They never went away from having private property.