D&C 82:17 vs. D&C 49:20

[David Bokovoy]

This is what I meant when I said Nomad made my point.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, but I honestly still have no idea what point you believe Nomad made for you.

You are beginning to agree with the manual which in your Acts thread, you said was in error.

In as much as the manual leads people to the conclusion that private ownership of property exists under the LofC it is in error. I worked on these manuals as a professional curriculum writer for the Church so I'm extremely sensitive to the fact when they lead people to wrong conclusions.

Neither I nor Droopy have disagreed with anything stated in the manual.

I believe you misrepresented/misinterpreted the information.

This leaves the impression that you had not even read the quotes given from it until very recently.

Nonsense. In fact I'm currently preparing a presentation on why the manual should be changed in a future edition. As we have seen by the way you and Droopy have used the source material, it can lead to confusion.

[mercyngrace]

However, it is incorrect to assume that 100% is automatically required under the LoC.

Who ever said this?

The word surplus is, by definition, that which is above the needs of the individual steward and those of his house.

[David Bokovoy]

For those interested, here is BC's answer to question I have asked throughout this thread:

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.

So since you deny that private ownership of property does not truly exist under the LofC, you are in direct opposition to the manual which states "for legal purposes, the stewardship was private property, even though the stewards themselves understood that it ultimately belonged to God

[BCSpace]

However, it is incorrect to assume that 100% is automatically required under the LoC.

Who ever said this?

Anyone who has ever claimed that there is no private property under the LoC.

In as much as the manual leads people to the conclusion that private ownership of property exists under the LofC it is in error.

Ok, so you still think the manuals are in error.

I worked on these manuals as a professional curriculum writer for the Church so I'm extremely sensitive to the fact when they lead people to wrong conclusions.

I still have connections to the COB and am quite certain the Church does not feel this way about it's official doctrine on the LoC.

Neither I nor Droopy have disagreed with anything stated in the manual.

I believe you misrepresented/misinterpreted the information.

Examples?

This leaves the impression that you had not even read the quotes given from it until very recently.

Nonsense. In fact I'm currently preparing a presentation on why the manual should be changed in a future edition. As we have seen by the way you and Droopy have used the source material, it can lead to confusion.

I highly doubt your presentation will be well received by the Church. In fact, I doubt there is anything you can point to that you think needs to be changed that isn't already a doctrinal statement by one of the prophets. Very difficult to change long standing doctrine......

[BCSpace]

For those interested, here is BC's answer to question I have asked throughout this thread:

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.

So since you deny that private ownership of property does not truly exist under the LofC, you are in direct opposition to the manual which states "for legal purposes, the stewardship was private property, even though the stewards themselves understood that it ultimately belonged to God

[David Bokovoy]

Very difficult to change long standing doctrine......

Of course I have no interest in changing any doctrine, long standing or otherwise. In my opinion, the manual is problematic for the very reason that it can be misunderstood.

You stated (erroneously as I have subsequently proven) as fact that private ownership of property did not exist when revealed to JS in section 82. Did you forget that it was also revealed a year earlier in section 51?

So what part of my answer denies "that private ownership of property does not truly exist under the LofC"?

Way too many double negatives here to keep track of.

Do you recognize the fact that private ownership of property did not truly exist under the LofC?

[BCSpace]

Very difficult to change long standing doctrine......

Of course I have no interest in changing any doctrine, long standing or otherwise. In my opinion, the manual is problematic for the very reason that it can be misunderstood.

You've not answered yet how I have misunderstood it.

Do you recognize the fact that private ownership of property did not truly exist under the LofC?

My answer remains the same and I've even enhanced it. It's right here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/52376-acts-432-35/page__view__findpost__p__1208949855

[David Bokovoy]

You've not answered yet how I have misunderstood it.

My answer remains the same and I've even enhanced it. It's right here:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/52376-acts-432-35/page__view__findpost__p__1208949855

So that would be a "yes." BCSpace recognizes that private ownership of property does not occur in the LofC? That all property belongs to God?

[BCSpace]

So that would be a "yes." BCSpace recognizes that private ownership of property does not occur in the LofC? That all property belongs to God?

What does the first sentence of the post I link to say? I notice your question is changing bit by bit.....

[David Bokovoy]

What does the first sentence of the post I link to say? I notice your question is changing bit by bit.....

I'm sorry, you added the link after I posted, so your comment didn't make sense. You should really try and keep your posts on this topic in this same thread. Here is your comment in the other thread:

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.

Not in this case, as I have explained many times. There was a change in procedure to the way the Church practiced the LofC in 1833 due to the famous Bates' lawsuit. In your effort to deny the fact that individuals did not own property under the Law of Consecration, you have referred to D&C 51:5 which states that a person who opts to leave the United Order could do so with that portion of the property that had been deeded to him by the Church.

Since the date for this revelation you

[David Bokovoy]

So we've seen that D&C 51 actually does reflect the later historical move granting a type of ownership deed in order to conform with secular law, and that the Institute manual itself declares that "for legal purposes, the stewardship was private property, even though the stewards themselves understood that it ultimately belonged to God

[David T]

So we've seen that D&C 51 actually does reflect the later historical move granting a type of ownership deed in order to conform with secular law, and that the Institute manual itself declares that "for legal purposes, the stewardship was private property, even though the stewards themselves understood that it ultimately belonged to God

[David Bokovoy]

The concept you're expressing is that the LofC in and of itself in its pure form itself says nothing about private ownership of property, but that the provision of private ownership is a governmental/legal necessity/Add-on that would be unnecessary and moot under an ideal Theocracy/Kingdom of God. Is this accurate as to what you're expressing?

Yes, my brother. That is correct.