the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine

[HeirofNumenor]

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.

Yes, I have been wondering about this lately. Didn't even the Savior and Apostles drink wine, like with the Sacrament? How was that possible if he was perfect? I'm not quite understanding this one.

How is it possible? He brought the cup to His lips and drank!

Wine has only been verboten since Heber J. Grant's administration. He was a tee-totaler. There actually used to be a winery in Utah owned by the church for purposes of the sacrament, since the Lord required the church to use wine of the members' own making.

When you think about it, wine is actually a superior symbol for the blood of Christ than water (blood is not clear - it's red!), and that is what was used for some time until Pres. Grant stopped the practice.

Wine was used at all times in the scriptures. It's only the last century it's been declared out of bounds. Something worth thinking about.

Actually, it has been out of bounds since August 1830, when an angel appeared to Joseph Smith and commanded him NOT to use wine in the Sacrament (at least not that which is commercially manufactured), and allowed for any liquid to be used:

Doctrine and Covenants 27
1 Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Lord, your God, and your Redeemer, whose word is quick and powerful.

2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.

3 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, that you shall not purchase wine neither strong drink of your enemies;

4 Wherefore, you shall partake of none except it is made new among you; yea, in this my Father’s kingdom which shall be built up on the earth.

[Steve Clark]

How is it possible? He brought the cup to His lips and drank!

Wine has only been verboten since Heber J. Grant's administration. He was a tee-totaler. There actually used to be a winery in Utah owned by the church for purposes of the sacrament, since the Lord required the church to use wine of the members' own making.

When you think about it, wine is actually a superior symbol for the blood of Christ than water (blood is not clear - it's red!), and that is what was used for some time until Pres. Grant stopped the practice.

Wine was used at all times in the scriptures. It's only the last century it's been declared out of bounds. Something worth thinking about.

Actually, it has been out of bounds since August 1830, when an angel appeared to Joseph Smith and commanded him NOT to use wine in the Sacrament (at least not that which is commercially manufactured), and allowed for any liquid to be used:

Doctrine and Covenants 27
1 Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Lord, your God, and your Redeemer, whose word is quick and powerful.

2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.

3 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, that you shall not purchase wine neither strong drink of your enemies;

4 Wherefore, you shall partake of none except it is made new among you; yea, in this my Father’s kingdom which shall be built up on the earth.

This is just not true. Re-read your own cited scripture. The command was to not PURCHASE the wine. A little research around this event will show that Joseph procured some wine to celebrate a special occasion, and was greeted by an angel who said that the wine had been poisoned. Since making wine is a rather long process, he could not use wine that night if it was to be of his own make. Other liquids are permitted, but that does not make wine off limits. As said above, the church owned wineries until after the turn of the century, or some 70 years after this section, for the purpose of making sacrament wine.

[Steve Clark]

Apologies, I missed your portion in parenthesis the first go-round. Yes, wine that was purchased was off-limits. Wine that was made by the saints was still preferred.

[HeirofNumenor]

Apologies, I missed your portion in parenthesis the first go-round. Yes, wine that was purchased was off-limits. Wine that was made by the saints was still preferred.

Accepted...

[HeirofNumenor]

In addition to what one4freedom said: Besides sacramental wine, drinking was very common until the Grant administration. In fact, it is documented in journals that early church leaders used to drink wine and spirits at gatherings and see visions and receive revelation.... look it up

I did not dispute this fact...
I was only referring to the position that somehow Pres. Grant was out of line for making water for the sacrament to be the universal norm - by giving allowance for what the angel said.

As for the Brethren drinking... changes for the better often take hold slowly... Joseph Smith presented the WofW as counsel, Brigham Young made it a commandment, and Heber J. Grant made it a temple recommend requirement. If someone has an issue with that, feeling that these Church Presidents/Prophets (and their supporting counselors and quorums of apostles) are out of line with the Gospel or infringing on their freedoms, instead of these directives being from God - they can take it up with them all in the next life. O:-)

[JohnnyL]

Like I said, a bunch of nonsense here. I say that again for those who chance upon this thread hoping for something better, and might have missed it the first time. This thread feels full enough of the spirit of apostacy. (Ha ha, takes one to know one thing sometimes, eh?)

There are guidelines to commandments, and one is that it's pretty rare to have clear outward manifestations of a "pure" commandment--that is completely unchanged since before the world till now, the same for all, at all times and in all circumstances, unaccording to what people can accept and be saved best by.

Commandments are changed in two ways:
1. The prophet changes it.
2. The Spirit changes it for an occurrence.

I would be much, much more careful of #2 being wrong than #1, though it sounds that many here are much more concerned about #1. (Been there, done that... and almost done that, but luckily the real Spirit stopped a big mistake.)

****
Guess what? Blood would be a much better representation of Christ's blood for the sacrament than wine, because it's... blood! Ha, ha!
Wine is red?? Check what color people are drinking with fish next time you are in a restaurant.

Wine in the sacrament... maybe not so good to have; why?:
--so that those addicted or heavily influenced by it can remember how much they miss it, and hope a little sip won't put them back on the path!?
--so that those who have sinned while drunk, can be reminded of it every Sunday?
--so that those who are abused by those that drink it, can remember their abuse every Sunday?
--so that those who frequent this and many other LDS boards can complain about not being able to drink wine at times other than the sacrament?

[Steve Clark]

Like I said, a bunch of nonsense here. I say that again for those who chance upon this thread hoping for something better, and might have missed it the first time. This thread feels full enough of the spirit of apostacy. (Ha ha, takes one to know one thing sometimes, eh?)

What is the nonsense? Are you saying that the events in our history didn't happen, Joseph didn't drink beer and wine after the WoW, the church didn't have wineries in Utah etc.?

[Steve Clark]

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.

[Mark]

Like I said, a bunch of nonsense here. I say that again for those who chance upon this thread hoping for something better, and might have missed it the first time. This thread feels full enough of the spirit of apostacy. (Ha ha, takes one to know one thing sometimes, eh?)

What is the nonsense? Are you saying that the events in our history didn't happen, Joseph didn't drink beer and wine after the WoW, the church didn't have wineries in Utah etc.?

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.."

[awake]

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.."

Actually that quote is only hearsay and is not proven to have really been said by Joseph. So we must take it with a grain of salt. Plus, it contradicts what Joseph seemed to teach, that the scriptures trump anything even living prophets may say.

Living prophet's can give new counsel, like have food storage, get out of debt, or build an ark, but even today's prophets teach that living prophets can't teach anything that contradicts the scriptures, and if they do we are told to consider it false.

[Steve Clark]

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.

[Steve Clark]

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.

[marc]

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

[freedomforall]

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another tidbit.
http://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/Reconstru ... xander.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JohnnyL]

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?

[JohnnyL]

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.B]

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.

[HeirofNumenor]

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

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another tidbit.
http://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/Reconstru ... xander.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

[freedomforall]

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

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another tidbit.
http://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/Reconstru ... xander.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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?

[ithink]

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.

[HeirofNumenor]

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*

[HeirofNumenor]

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.

[marc]

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 Blue]

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

[marc]

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.