the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine

[freedomforall]

Lectures On Faith, another source: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8282012/LecturesOnFaith.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

[Steve Clark]

Lectures On Faith, another source: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8282012/LecturesOnFaith.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

[marc]

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.

[7cylon7]

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.

[marc]

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.

[freedomforall]

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?

[dewajack]

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)

[marc]

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.

[marc]

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.

[freedomforall]

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.

[gruden2.0]

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

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

[marc]

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 Phrase]

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).

[HeirofNumenor]

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?

[HeirofNumenor]

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").

[freedomforall]

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.

You're welcome.

[freedomforall]

Ethereal is being blamed for the actions and words of those who mocked and called names? ("The devil made me do it....")

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.

Some rules are good and some are not so good. Joseph Smith taught that people should be taught true principles and then left to govern themselves.

I think we should have had the opportunity to discern for ourselves what is right and what is wrong with regards to Etherial Blue's information. We should be allowed to use our God-given agency to discuss, accept or reject what we hear through our knowledge of what is or isn't official doctrine. I don't think EB was in any way disseminating his findings as something to cause anyone to fall. An intelligent discussion could have handled this. As it turns out, many on this forum don't see eye to eye with scriptural understanding and interpretation anyway. All scripture is spiritually discerned, so with so many views over many of them, what does this tell us?

A person on this forum who blatantly calls someone else a wolf in sheep's clothing before hearing him out, in my opinion, doesn't understand the principle of charity. That attitude stirs up more discord than does the topic content. Why can't we at least have the respect and love for others that as Mormons we try to make them think we possess, and give them the benefit of doubt? A person trying to cause discord is soon revealed by their own words.

[A Random Phrase]

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.

Ditto. It seems he wasn't even allowed to say what he came to say. So, he didn't word it in a way that pleased everyone - what he had to say may not have been "apostate" in the least. Now, we may never know.

Amen!! Freedomfighter.

[JohnnyL]

As HoN pointed out, and Mark, EB said quite enough to fit the descriptions s/he posted, especially in light of the thread title.

[gruden2.0]

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)

Now these things would actually be something interesting to discuss. How about starting a thread on 1 of those 20 doctrines with scriptural support on why it's false, and moving through all 20, gradually introducing separate threads for each to keep things on track. I have an idea what some of them might be, but simply telling people to read that book probably won't get too far. Laying things out might be more helpful. But then, I like a good debate... :ymblushing:

It's not unreasonable to treat Lectures on Faith as scripture. Joseph taught it in the school of the prophets, which was supposed to be the basis of what they taught as they went out to the world to preach the gospel. We could make it scripture today if it was submitted to the general church for sustaining as canon.

[JohnnyL]

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)

Now these things would actually be something interesting to discuss. How about starting a thread on 1 of those 20 doctrines with scriptural support on why it's false, and moving through all 20, gradually introducing separate threads for each to keep things on track. I have an idea what some of them might be, but simply telling people to read that book probably won't get too far. Laying things out might be more helpful. But then, I like a good debate... :ymblushing:

It's not unreasonable to treat Lectures on Faith as scripture. Joseph taught it in the school of the prophets, which was supposed to be the basis of what they taught as they went out to the world to preach the gospel. We could make it scripture today if it was submitted to the general church for sustaining as canon.

I believe it IS unreasonable to treat it as scripture. We could make *anything* scripture today if it was ... Discussing the lectures, on the other hand, is not unreasonable.

[freedomforall]

This may sound silly but as I pondered the thread subject line I got to thinking. We have scriptures, right? We have the commandment to feast upon the word, right? Then we have all different levels of interpretation of any one scripture, some profound and some extremely erroneous or even silly.

How do we get a group of people to believe scripture as the author intended it to be understood? Better yet, how do we get people to understand scripture the way God wants it understood?

Joseph Smith didn't believe in the doctrine being taught in his youth so he prayed and found out that none of the sects were any good. Now we have people reading scripture and we get so many interpretations that we end up with more confusion. Why? Is it because some interpretations are not believable, or is it that the hearer does not want to accept the true answer because it would interrupt some bad thing they're doing in life and they do not want it brought up to their attention? Could it be that they believe it to be true but are unwilling to change? This could be very disturbing to some folks, right?

Why is it that a lot of "sound doctrine" is not taught in church?

To whom ever wants to participate, just what is sound doctrine in your mind?

[wolfman]

Commandments are based on principles and doctrine. Commandments change, principles DO NOT. According to a GA that visited our stake: "it’s a shame when we have to be given commandments because it’s a sign that we cannot be led by principle" The early saints had breweries, the principle has always been to avoid drunkenness. When the WoW was given it was NOT a commandment and it says so in D&C 89. If "Strong drink" meant "all alcohol" there would be no reason to distinguish between wine and strong drink (hard liquor) and I don't know of any "mild drinks of barley" except beer. We live the WoW in the manner we do today because people CANNOT BE LED BY PRINCIPLE. The difference is that if a pioneer got drunk the horse would take them home. These days your car doesn't do such a good job of getting you home so it’s probably a good thing it was outlawed. Not sure how well it would go over with the State either having 12-18 year old boys handle wine during the sacrament. I don’t think any 12-18 year olds these days have the spiritual maturity to handle it anyhow. For the most part here’s what we have today: On one hand, people who can’t be led by principle and on the other hand pharisaical LDS who won’t even touch soda or kefir because of trace amounts of alcohol shown to be present, with hardly anyone in the middle that’s willing to be led by the spirit. Remember God hated giving the ancient Israelites the strict commandments that he did but he had to because of THEM. Guarantee we’ll be drinking wine during the millennium (at least during sacrament)

When I first read the title to this thread I was thinking more along the lines of this story, separating the wheat from the tares: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/2 ... 37877.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HeirofNumenor]

When I first read the title to this thread I was thinking more along the lines of this story, separating the wheat from the tares: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 37877.html

I borrowed this and gave it is own thread in the Gospel Topics section...

[gdemetz]

Yes, that time has definitely come!