the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine

[one4freedomcaptain of 100]

One4 there is a principle in this the Church of Jesus Christ that separates us from all other denominations. We believe in continuous revelation through living Prophets. The Lord has every right to speak through his living Prophet by way of clarification or additional revelation. That is why Joseph told the Saints that Brigham was exactly right in proclaiming to them that the living oracles take precedence over the written word. This is a foundation point of the restoration of the gospel. It is the rock upon which we are built. " Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth ME good.."

Thanks, Mark. I am familiar with and love that we believe in continuing revelation. Do you have a copy of the revelation Grant received which changed the essence of the WoW as revealed to Joseph? I haven't seen it, nor even heard that he received such a revelation and I have looked pretty hard for evidence that he did.

We believe in continued revelation, but we have a tradition of believing that any changes to doctrine/ordinances/practices are ipso facto revelations which I don't believe is correct.

[one4freedomcaptain of 100]

Trying to bring this back on topic. I also accept the challenge to go through the Lectures on Faith again. I just finished 6 and 7 the other day, but wasn't trying to look for things which aren't correct, or which contradict current doctrine. I'll start from 1 and go through them as I can. It will take a while.

[coachmarcMy own worst enemy]

I am definitely keeping my eye on this topic. This has the potential to be a very fruitful discussion.

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

This is quite lengthy, which doesn't matter anyway, except for anyone just a little bit curious. But, hey, concerning my posted info, what you miss won't make or break what you already know, right?

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... hapid=1556

Another tidbit.
http://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/Reconstru ... xander.pdf

[JohnnyLcaptain of 1,000]

I charged the saints not to follow the example of the adversary in accusing the brethren, and said, "If you do not accuse each other, God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven, and if you follow the revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I will take you into heaven as my back load. If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you. If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours-for charity covereth a multitude of sins. What many people call sin is not sin; I do many things to break down superstition, and I will break it down."
I referred to the curse of Ham for laughing at Noah, while in his wine, but doing no harm. Noah was a righteous man, and yet he drank wine and became intoxicated; the Lord did not forsake him in consequence thereof, for he retained all the power of his priesthood, and when he was accused by Canaan, he cursed him by the priesthood which he held, and the Lord had respect to his word, and the priesthood which he held, notwithstanding he was drunk, and the curse remains upon the posterity of Canaan until the present day.

Ok, I get that it might be helpful for us all to think, "Is anyone on this thread, am I, "accusing the brethren"?

If the 20 doctrines changed, who changed them?
Did JS just allow the changes to happen, approve of the changes, or did he actually make them?
Do the scriptures prove the changes wrong?

[JohnnyLcaptain of 1,000]

Discernment seems to be in short supply here if this thread is any indication. Good grief people wake up! The wolves will have you for lunch..

Why do you need discernment to determine if what used to be taught is now no longer taught, or has been altered from what used to be taught?

Take tithing for instance, a popular topic on this forum: it is very clear and can be proved very easily that tithing is not taught as it once was. No discernment is required, just an ability to nod your head and admit it is true.

Take drinking for instance, where Joseph ordered a bottle the night before he died. We all know he rejected some alcohol when his leg was operated on (before the WoW existed), but do we all know he was "depressed" and wanted a drink with his friends before he died? And why could he do this? Because the WoW used to be out there "without constraint". Now, it is anything but. Simply put, it has changed.

There are two examples of things that have changed, and no discernment is required to acknowledge that they have.

So what was it you were trying to say?

No, I don't think it was. I think he was saying that many of the comments were... strongly accusative against the brethren, kinda out there, and people were sucking it up like strawberry milk, and if you were, you currently don't have much of the spirit of discernment to tell a wolf in lamb's clothing, from a lamb.

Change... Are most changes in the Book of Mormon done by clear, direct, certain "REVELATION"? How do YOU (any of you) receive revelation? Do any of US believe WE receive revelation better than the prophets, seers, and revelators?

Perhaps the underlying principles concerning revelation, discussions, decisions, and feedback could be discussed for a more fruitful discussion.

[Matthew.Bcaptain of 100]

Perhaps the underlying principles concerning revelation, discussions, decisions, and feedback could be discussed for a more fruitful discussion.

Maybe on another thread... We don't want to have this thread deviate too much before Etherial is able to return. I want to see this list of 20 doctrines- I am assuming, based on the OP, that they will be well-documented and possibly very enlightening.

The last thing I personally want is to see this thread devolve into accusations of apostasy, bad faith, etc.

[HeirofNumenorthe Heir Of Numenor]

I have read Lectures on Faith many years ago. I hope my volume is not in storage with all my other books.

This is quite lengthy, which doesn't matter anyway, except for anyone just a little bit curious. But, hey, concerning my posted info, what you miss won't make or break what you already know, right?
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... hapid=1556

Another tidbit.
http://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/Reconstru ... xander.pdf

I just finished reading these...a few things of interest stand out for further consideration:

1) The evolution in doctrine about the Godhead & relation of God to Man...
2) The authorship of the Lectures of Faith was much more likely by Sidney Rigdon and not Joseph Smith
3) The heavily Protestant tone of LoF, and apparent thinking among LDS up to 1835
4) The Kirtland High Council (with Sidney Rigdon & Oliver Cowdery the ranking leaders present) authorized the 1835 D&C (Joseph Smith & Frederick G Williams were out of the area)
5) That there was an earlier version of the Doctrine & Commandments prior to 1835 (1833 Book of Commandments)
6) That the 1835 D&C had LoF BEFORE any of the Lord's Revelations to His Prophet of the Restoration
7) That the 1921 D&C edition reverted back to the format of the 1833 D & C, with the Lord's own preface (sec 1) at the start of the book

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

I have read Lectures on Faith many years ago. I hope my volume is not in storage with all my other books.

This is quite lengthy, which doesn't matter anyway, except for anyone just a little bit curious. But, hey, concerning my posted info, what you miss won't make or break what you already know, right?
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... hapid=1556

Another tidbit.
http://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/Reconstru ... xander.pdf

I just finished reading these...a few things of interest stand out for further consideration:

1) The evolution in doctrine about the Godhead & relation of God to Man...
2) The authorship of the Lectures of Faith was much more likely by Sidney Rigdon and not Joseph Smith
3) The heavily Protestant tone of LoF, and apparent thinking among LDS up to 1835
4) The Kirtland High Council (with Sidney Rigdon & Oliver Cowdery the ranking leaders present) authorized the 1835 D&C (Joseph Smith & Frederick G Williams were out of the area)
5) That there was an earlier version of the Doctrine & Commandments prior to 1835 (1833 Book of Commandments)
6) That the 1835 D&C had LoF BEFORE any of the Lord's Revelations to His Prophet of the Restoration
7) That the 1921 D&C edition reverted back to the format of the 1833 D & C, with the Lord's own preface (sec 1) at the start of the book

Thank you HN. And isn't there present day denial of any doctrinal changes? Why? And it was because of doctrinal changes that many members left the church, especially converts. It is also interesting how Mosiah 15:1-4 coincides with LoF. In the end what do we accept as true doctrine, having been taught that it is scripture that is the church's "official doctrine?"

It will be interesting to see what other observations may arise from these accounts. And where are the twenty differences for comparison?

[ithinkcaptain of 1,000]

I am definitely keeping my eye on this topic. This has the potential to be a very fruitful discussion.

Fruitful yes, and if it goes on long enough, it just might ferment itself into a hearty liquor. But I don't drink, so I guess I'm out.

[HeirofNumenorthe Heir Of Numenor]

I am definitely keeping my eye on this topic. This has the potential to be a very fruitful discussion.

Fruitful yes, and if it goes on long enough, it just might ferment itself into a hearty liquor. But I don't drink, so I guess I'm out.

Good observation, iThink

*raises a glass of milk*

[HeirofNumenorthe Heir Of Numenor]

Thank you HN. And isn't there present day denial of any doctrinal changes? Why? And it was because of doctrinal changes that many members left the church, especially converts. It is also interesting how Mosiah 15:1-4 coincides with LoF. In the end what do we accept as true doctrine, having been taught that it is scripture that is the church's "official doctrine?"

Those articles you listed also show that Joseph Smith himself grew in understanding and expression of doctrine; and later the First Presidency saw the need to seek for additional clarification of doctrine as well...continuing revelation didn't stop with Joseph Smith - or the Manifesto - it just takes different forms...

The key is discernment (along with lots of prayer & humilty), and being able to take all the scriptures, and words of prophets and apostles...and know how to synthesize them together into one great whole....realizing that some parts may be interesting, but they are not essential to understand for our salvation...

That's why I read Jesus the Christ along with the Book of Mormon in the MTC...

I think Mosiah 15: 1-4 was more allegorical/symbolic, with 5-7 being primarily literal

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

6 And after all this, after working many mighty miracles among the children of men, he shall be led, yea, even as Isaiah said, as a sheep before the shearer is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.

7 Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.

[coachmarcMy own worst enemy]

That's why I read Jesus the Christ along with the Book of Mormon in the MTC...

I think Mosiah 15: 1-4 was more allegorical/symbolic, with 5-7 being primarily literal

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

6 And after all this, after working many mighty miracles among the children of men, he shall be led, yea, even as Isaiah said, as a sheep before the shearer is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.

7 Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.

Yes!

[Etherial Bluecaptain of 10]

It occurred to me after getting some hostile comments from members of this forum and after being labeled a "wolf" [in sheep's clothing, etc."] before even presenting the 20 doctrines that I would like people to evaluate and pray about, that perhaps this forum may not be an appropriate place for the supposition that I am presenting.

I must confess, I did not read the forum rules before registering. (shame on me!)

So, I just read them.

Here is a direct quote from them:

"No apostate behavior. No evil speaking of the Lord's Anointed. Do not promote teachings that directly conflict with Church doctrine."

It would appear as if I am in violation of the rules of this forum.

1- Apostate Behavior: I personally do not consider anything in my post to be "apostate behavior", with regard to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

I am simply encouraging people to search the scriptures, search the Lectures on Faith and search the history of the LDS restoration movement to determine if Lectures on Faith are categorically true and if they legitimately qualify as canonized scripture or not.

I have also provided my sincere opinion on how and why the Lectures were downgraded from scriptural status to something with some profitable doctrine mingled with false doctrine. I have presented a very brief summary of the scenario I believe to be true regarding how and why the Lectures were downgraded for people to evaluate.

Nevertheless, I strongly suspect that leaders of the LDS church would consider my statements to be "apostate behavior" and they would caution members of the Church from reading the material I have presented thus far and they would be even more passionate about cautioning members from reading about the 20 false doctrines that most of you have been taught to believe in.

Therefore, in the context and spirit of what is really meant by apostate behavior according to the rules of the forum, I am guilty of breaking that rule.

2-No evil speaking of the Lord's anointed: I personally do not consider my statements to be speaking evil of the Lords anointed because I don't think any presidents of the church that followed after Joseph and Hyrum and their councilors qualify as having been anointed by the Lord. Furthermore, if a true prophet who has been anointed by the Lord makes a doctrinal error and someone points it out, I don't consider that to be speaking evil of the Lord's anointed.

Nevertheless, those who run this forum and who frequent this forum along with the leaders of the Church do consider Brigham Young and every president of the church thereafter to have been anointed of God.

Based on that context, my insinuation that Heber J. Grant may not have been inspired to de-canonize the Lectures on faith, and my insinuation that the original revelations of the restoration and teachings presented by Joseph and Sidney are not congruent with later teachings from presidents of the Church would probably constitute evil speaking of the Lord's anointed.

Therefore, based on the context and spirit in which that rule was written, I am guilty of speaking evil of the Lords anointed servants.

3- Do not promote teachings that directly conflict with Church doctrine:. Frankly, my only concern is searching out the truth pertaining to eternal, unchanging gospel doctrine.

I really don't give a s#*t what the current church doctrine is.

For that reason, I don't feel that my doctrinal views are in conflict with eternal truth.

Nevertheless, the rules of the forum are to limit the doctrinal views to current accepted "church doctrine". That being the case, virtually every one of the associated true doctrines that correspond with the 20 false doctrines that I want to present, would be in violation of the rules of this forum.

Clearly, I am in violation of the rules of this forum.

Since I am in violation of the rules of this forum, I am terminating my participation in this post and till not be listing the 20 doctrines here.

I want to apologize to anyone I have offended by the remarks I have made. You have a right to expect that the rules of this forum are abide by and that this is a safe place for you to visit.

I particularly want to thank those who have accepted my challenge.

As I recall, there were about two or three that stood up to the plate and publicly stated your willingness to accept the challenge.

It is not easy to hang on to the rod when those fingers are pointing at you out of the large and spacious building.

You people are remarkable because you are not threatened by a differing view and you still have a thirst for gaining new perspectives and truth.

You have the humility and self confidence to hear another persons point of view and then determine for yourselves if those views conform to the word of God.

You guys truly follow the admonitions of Paul-

"..prove all things, hold fast to that which is true" (or something like that... I am too lazy to look it up right now LOL BTW as I recall, Paul was speaking to believers, not investigators)

I hope you guys follow through and carefully read and pray about every principle and doctrine contained in Lectures on Faith. I believe you will be blessed and edified for doing it.

I am not disappointed at all about not being able to share the 20 doctrines that I think are false.

Presenting my opinions on those doctrines for your consideration was totally secondary to what I wanted to accomplish.

My main goal was to encourage people to get back into the scriptures, the history of the church and to re-evaluate Lectures on Faith (which I consider to be inspired scripture)

I simply wanted to encourage people to decide for themselves if the Lectures on Faith contains the doctrine of salvation that God commanded his servants to canonize with the revelations.

My objective has been accomplished

[coachmarcMy own worst enemy]

I sent you a PM. Light cleaves to light. If what you have is true, it becomes part of the light. If not, it is discarded.

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

Lectures On Faith, another source: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8282012/LecturesOnFaith.pdf

I completed reading these lectures today. I find them most informative. I often wonder why, as Latter-day Saints, we don't exercise faith to the extent that many people in the past have done.

I hear members say "we can't do this or that because we have to go by the dictates of the Spirit. An example...Home Teachers are called out to bless a very ill individual. He or she wants to be healed. The HT's look at each other and then one of them says "we can't do that, we don't have that kind of faith. But we can bless you with comfort and hope."

The point is this, do we always have to seek the guidance of the Spirit or do we have the power to raise a sick person out of bed? Are we supposed to exercise faith or be guided every step of the way? And how would a sick person feel, that is exercising the faith to be healed, when told "no, we can't do that without the guidance of the Spirit?" How would their faith, the sick person, be sustained thereafter?

I don't think there is enough taught in church about faith and its operation.

[one4freedomcaptain of 100]

Lectures On Faith, another source: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8282012/LecturesOnFaith.pdf

I completed reading these lectures today. I find them most informative. I often wonder why, as Latter-day Saints, we don't exercise faith to the extent that many people in the past have done.

I hear members say "we can't do this or that because we have to go by the dictates of the Spirit. An example...Home Teachers are called out to bless a very ill individual. He or she wants to be healed. The HT's look at each other and then one of them says "we can't do that, we don't have that kind of faith. But we can bless you with comfort and hope."

The point is this, do we always have to seek the guidance of the Spirit or do we have the power to raise a sick person out of bed? Are we supposed to exercise faith or be guided every step of the way? And how would a sick person feel, that is exercising the faith to be healed, when told "no, we can't do that without the guidance of the Spirit?" How would their faith, the sick person, be sustained thereafter?

I don't think there is enough taught in church about faith and its operation.

I think it's a cop-out to say you can't do anything unless told first to do it by the spirit. I believe the spirit can and often does direct things like this, but we tend to use that as a crutch instead of seeking earnestly to have power in the priesthood and obtaining the faith to perform miracles.

[coachmarcMy own worst enemy]

If it is expedient in the Lord, if it is HIs will, and if we seek His will first, then we will know whether to raise someone from his sickbed. Many don't have the faith required to seek the Lord's will through prayer and fasting. It can take hours, if not days to receive the witness. Faith precedes the miracle.

[7cylon7captain of 1,000]

not really too worried about this. It will all be corrected very very soon. The higher law will be given to those that are worthy and live through what is about to befall us. Then as with the Isrealites when God has prepared us for the higher law then he will give it. Sealed portions of the BOM will be opened and we will read it for ourselves the higher laws. This will user in the great millennium. Not going to get my panties in a bunch right before the full truth is about to come forward.

[coachmarcMy own worst enemy]

not really too worried about this. It will all be corrected very very soon. The higher law will be given to those that are worthy and live through what is about to befall us. Then as with the Isrealites when God has prepared us for the higher law then he will give it. Sealed portions of the BOM will be opened and we will read it for ourselves the higher laws. This will user in the great millennium. Not going to get my panties in a bunch right before the full truth is about to come forward.

My friend, the "higher law" has always been here. The difference is that we (covenant people) have not always lived it. Long before Moses, Melchizedek paid tithes to Abraham. There is a 'greater priesthood' and a 'lesser priesthood'. Nowhere in any scripture is there found the term "higher law" and "lower" or "lesser law." There have only always been laws, all of which culminate the Law of Christ and the Law of Moses. Because the Israelites were so hard hearted, the higher priesthood was removed from them and so they were left to do all the performances according the laws that Moses gave to them, which over time, they "Pharisaically" corrupted to the point they didn't even know why these performances were necessary and to what end. The Law of Christ is to bear one another's burdens and hence why Christ taught us to love God as we love ourselves and to love one another as Jesus loved us. These "great laws" are the foundation of all other laws and why all the laws and prophets hang upon them. The greater law God grants us according to our desires whether to our salvation or condemnation. When Joseph Smith restored the church and all things, including the greater priesthood (Melchizedek) except the law of Moses, which was fulfilled in Christ, he also restored the Law of Christ and thus instituted the United Order. The early saints, like the Israelites of old could not abide by this and so we are left with performances like tithes, offerings, etc. and even today, we are just barely honoring the spirit of those laws with fasting twelve times per year, etc.

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

If it is expedient in the Lord, if it is HIs will, and if we seek His will first, then we will know whether to raise someone from his sickbed. Many don't have the faith required to seek the Lord's will through prayer and fasting. It can take hours, if not days to receive the witness. Faith precedes the miracle.

By these scriptures are we to seek his will always?

D&C 42:48 (48–52)
48 And again, it shall come to pass that he that hath faith in me to be healed, and is not appointed unto death, shall be healed.
49 He who hath faith to see shall see.
50 He who hath faith to hear shall hear.
51 The lame who hath faith to leap shall leap.
52 And they who have not faith to do these things, but believe in me, have power to become my sons; and inasmuch as they break not my laws thou shalt bear their infirmities

According to this next verse we can exercise faith as long as it is not for the purpose of consuming it upon our lusts.

D&C 46:9
9 For verily I say unto you, they are given for the benefit of those who love me and keep all my commandments, and him that seeketh so to do; that all may be benefited that seek or that ask of me, that ask and not for a sign that they may consume it upon their lusts.

We continue verses 12-26
12 To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby.
13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.
14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.
15 And again, to some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know the differences of administration, as it will be pleasing unto the same Lord, according as the Lord will, suiting his mercies according to the conditions of the children of men.
16 And again, it is given by the Holy Ghost to some to know the diversities of operations, whether they be of God, that the manifestations of the Spirit may be given to every man to profit withal.
17 And again, verily I say unto you, to some is given, by the Spirit of God, the word of wisdom.
18 To another is given the word of knowledge, that all may be taught to be wise and to have knowledge.
19 And again, to some it is given to have faith to be healed;
20 And to others it is given to have faith to heal.
21 And again, to some is given the working of miracles;
22 And to others it is given to prophesy;
23 And to others the discerning of spirits.
24 And again, it is given to some to speak with tongues;
25 And to another is given the interpretation of tongues.
26 And all these gifts come from God, for the benefit of the children of God.

Concerning the differences of administration.

Moro. 10:8
And again, I exhort you, my brethren, that ye deny not the gifts of God, for they are many; and they come from the same God. And there are different ways that these gifts are administered; but it is the same God who worketh all in all; and they are given by the manifestations of the Spirit of God unto men, to profit them.

All this tells me that we have the right, the power and authority to perform these gifts of our own free will and choice...if performed in righteousness. As it is stated "they are given for the benefit of man." Lectures on Faith teaches us how this is done.

If it is the will of God that someone were to die after a blessing of healing, then one would know it was God's will according to verse 48 above. This verse refers to the person seeking healing, not the person giving the blessing.

To me, we have already been given permission.

Ya or Nay?

[dewajackcaptain of 100]

Brother Joseph, while in the Spirit, rebuked the Elders who would continue to lay hands on the sick from day to day without the power to heal them. Said he: "It is time that such things ended. Let the Elders either obtain the power of God to heal the sick or let them cease to minister the forms without the power." (Parley P. Pratt, Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, 254-255)

[coachmarcMy own worst enemy]

Freedomfighter, when it's time for God to call someone home, it's time. There's a difference between this and, let's say, catching a cold. Another example is my wife. She was not able to have children and ended up having a full hysterectomy early in life after many surgeries and a tubal pregnancy which could have cost her life. Perhaps my faith was insufficient to heal her. Or perhaps the Lord had something else in mind like sending us two troubled teenagers who we adopted. We brought them into our homes and into our hearts and raised them as our own. Oddly enough, I was told in my patriarchal blessing that I would be blessed to be a father. It just didn't happen the way I imagined. My will and my wife's will wasn't God's will.

[coachmarcMy own worst enemy]

Freedomfighter, one more thing, speaking of gifts. I say this with deep humility so please don't think I am boasting. I am also blessed in my patriarchal blessing with the gift of healing. I have healed a number of people in my life by the laying on of hands. I have rebuked illnesses. I am also mindful of this gift and the power of prayer and fasting to know the Lord's will in each case. I am also keenly aware to seek God's will and not mine when healing someone who asks for a blessing.

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

Freedomfighter, when it's time for God to call someone home, it's time. There's a difference between this and, let's say, catching a cold. Another example is my wife. She was not able to have children and ended up having a full hysterectomy early in life after many surgeries and a tubal pregnancy which could have cost her life. Perhaps my faith was insufficient to heal her. Or perhaps the Lord had something else in mind like sending us two troubled teenagers who we adopted. We brought them into our homes and into our hearts and raised them as our own. Oddly enough, I was told in my patriarchal blessing that I would be blessed to be a father. It just didn't happen the way I imagined. My will and my wife's will wasn't God's will.

After my wife gave birth to our fourth child she started hemorrhaging and it was a dire situation. I placed my hands on her and commanded that the hemorrhaging stop. The next morning she passed a blood clot and was healing nicely. Now had I not exercised that type of faith, she may have bled to death.

As a Home Teacher, I was called upon by a sister wanting a healing blessing. She said "I don't have time to be sick, I got things to do." So I gave her the blessing she wanted and went her merry way...because she was healed. I was merely the instrument by which she received according to her faith.

I do not share these things in a boasting nature, actually I'm humbled by these experiences. I share them as an example that faith can and does help others. Uncertainty and timidness does not. Sometimes an Elder don't have days asking if it is God's will, they do it with faith and then let God honor it or reject it later on. And in this I think there is no condemnation, because of his words concerning gifts.

I believe that God gives us more leeway than we think he does. Why else would he say these gifts are for the benefit of man? And why would he command that we do many things in righteousness of our own free will?

Doctrine and Covenants 58:27
27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

I wonder if sometimes we don't feel worthy enough to perform healings. We let our emotions drive us from the desired result. In other words, we allow Satan to trip us up, more so than whether or not God would heal someone. Our own fear and feelings of unworthiness can cause us to withhold a blessing from someone. And this can have a negative affect on ourselves and the person wanting a blessing. I know because this happened to me.

[gruden2.0captain of 100]

There's a whole thread from a few years ago on this site about wine in the scriptures if anyone wants to make an effort to learn a little about it. Google will bring up a ton of info about it too. Some was non-fermented (they boiled it down to a concentrate and stored it in caves), but most of it was fermented (hint: they had no refrigeration and they lived in a hot desert).

An Old Testament patriarch got drunk on wine. There was a reason Jesus said not to put new wine in old bottles. Only those who took the vows of the Nazarite or were actively engaged in Temple service abstained from wine (and only during that time). Everyone else drank it. It was also sometimes safer than water, which is why Paul recommended it.

Heck, I suppose I shouldn't mention that Joseph Smith drank wine in Carthage with his fellow prisoners in an effort to buoy their spirits while in jail. I have never come across any credible report that Joseph abstained from wine in his lifetime.

Heber J. Grant nixed the wine for his own reasons. He never claimed to have any revelations - he was suspicious of those who had deep spiritual experiences since it was his view those who had them apostatized. I suppose it's up to the individual if they agree with him or not. Pres. Grant, however, was a prohibitionist.

Here's an interesting article about how the WoW came to be enforced:

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-conte ... N03_80.pdf

A passage of interest:
What role did revelation play in the matter? It is clear that Section 89 of
the Doctrine and Covenants was given as a revelation to Joseph Smith. Advice
that the members of the Church adhere to the Word of Wisdom was also
undoubtedly given under inspiration. There is, however, no known contemporary
evidence of which I am aware that a separate new revelation changed
the Word of Wisdom from a "principle with promise" to "a commandment"
necessary for full participation in all the blessings of church membership.
One author on the subject has argued that the vote in 1880 sustaining the
Doctrine and Covenants as binding on church membership was equivalent
to a vote making the Word of Wisdom a commandment. If, however, the
members were voting on the words contained in the book, what they did was
to agree that the Word of Wisdom was "a principle with promise" not a
commandment.28

It is obvious that the Twelve and First Presidency prayerfully considered
the conclusion that the Word of Wisdom ought to be a binding commandment
for church members. Nevertheless, the main problem in interpreting the
influence of revelation in these deliberations is the absence of references to
revelations or even spiritual confirmation of specific positions in the diaries
of those who participated in the meetings. The only references are statements
or reminiscences of statements by previous authorities. It is much easier,
therefore, to find references to previous statements than to see the presence
of new, specific revelation. The inclusion of coffee and tea and the exclusion
of cocoa, for instance, from the prohibited substances can probably be attributed
to statements of Joseph and Hyrum Smith and Brigham Young rather
than to specific revelations.29

[coachmarcMy own worst enemy]

As a Home Teacher, I was called upon by a sister wanting a healing blessing. She said "I don't have time to be sick, I got things to do." So I gave her the blessing she wanted and went her merry way...because she was healed. I was merely the instrument by which she received according to her faith.

I do believe that is the biggest factor. Is the faith of the recipient strong enough? Alma healed Zeezrom as quickly as Zeezrom leaped to his feet. Alma was righteous and faithful. and Zeezrom's faith in Christ was sufficient. On the bright side, my wife is still with me, alive and strong. Thank you for your insight.

[A Random Phrasecaptain of 1,000]

It occurred to me after getting some hostile comments from members of this forum and after being labeled a "wolf" [in sheep's clothing, etc."] before even presenting the 20 doctrines that I would like people to evaluate and pray about, that perhaps this forum may not be an appropriate place for the supposition that I am presenting.

I warned you (at least I tried to).

[HeirofNumenorthe Heir Of Numenor]

It occurred to me after getting some hostile comments from members of this forum and after being labeled a "wolf" [in sheep's clothing, etc."] before even presenting the 20 doctrines that I would like people to evaluate and pray about, that perhaps this forum may not be an appropriate place for the supposition that I am presenting.

I warned you (at least I tried to).

Well, given that the OP presented it as the Church leadership is hiding something/Fallen Prophets & teaching a whole bunch of false doctrine - and well as "the declaration of guilty as charged - I'm leaving"....what did you think would happen?

[HeirofNumenorthe Heir Of Numenor]

How about a simple "I disagree, but let's DISCUSS this"? I haven't finished reading the lectures, so I have no opinion to share yet. But I really don't think Ethereal was given a warm welcome to the forum.

AGREED to the discuss part....

As for how he was treated, for my parts I only commented on links regarding authorship... not on him until my post immediately before yours. Nor did I see anyone bashing him out AT ALL - ....on the contrary, it seemed like several of you were falling over yourselves at the chance to see what he listed as the 20 false doctrines the LDS substituted by "suppressing" the LoF, as well as reveling in his praise as being courageous and unafraid to discover the truth (ie. - what the Church has "suppressed").