LDS Freedom Forum

From Church News

After serious consideration, and several polls conducted by the church's correlation committee, it is hereby announced that two sections of the Book of Mormon are to be removed. They will be 2 Nephi chapters 31 and 32. 3 Nephi 11 was heavily considered, but the polls barely swayed the vote at 53% deciding to keep the chapter in tact. The reasons given for the removal are as follows:

1. It is clear that Nephi states that he has stopped prophesying in (2 Nephi 31:1). Prophecy and revelation is more important than anything in the church, and hearkening to anything less might lead one astray. It's important that we follow the current brethren.

2. Nephi plainly states that he is about to teach Doctrine in (2 Nephi 31:2). Nephi is a dead prophet, and we have prophets now that have a fresh view about changing trends and new doctrine. Doctrine from 2,500 years ago does not adequately suffice in our day and age. Doctrine is not as important as the revelations or prophecies.

3. Nephi speaks of a baptism of fire. This is asking a bit much, and as you know water is sufficient to enter the kingdom of heaven.

4. Nephi clearly doesn't understand the order of God. He alludes to the fact that enduring to the end might have to do with a personal visit from Christ. It is clear from church manuals that enduring to the end is until death.

5. Perhaps Laman and Lemuel were right about Nephi because he seems to think that any lay member can converse with Angels. We know that such visitations are reserved for those in authority. We'll let you know when that happens, until then don't be led astray.

Should we transfigure the Doctrine of Christ? Have we done so? Are we not saying we have the revelations, we need no more doctrine? Yea, wo be unto him that saith: We have received, and we need no more!" Oh wait maybe we have: The Transfigured Doctrine of Christ - 2 Nephi 31-32 Mormon 8 I lamented last year how we have reduced this great Doctrine to a few things. 2 Nephi 31-32 Thread.

“Some have claimed that the removal of the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants constitutes decanonization of material once affirmed by the Church as scripture. Those who take this view see the 1834 vote of the priesthood quorums and the general assembly to accept as true and to publish both the Lectures on Faith and the revelations of Joseph Smith in the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, as putting the Lectures on a par with the revelations, considering both to be canonized scripture (Van Wagoner, et al 72-77). Leaders of the Church, however, have consistently maintained that from the beginning a distinction was made between the Lectures on Faith and the revelations.”

”It can be reasoned then that a distinction was made early between the seven lectures and the revelations, and that the vote to accept the lectures as "judiciously arranged . . . and profitable for doctrine" was not to equate them with the divine revelations. Such is the message in the "Explanatory Introduction" of the 1921 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants:”

I find it interesting that these Lectures on Faith were prepared just two years after the church had been condemned for unbelief. “And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received— Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.”

Faith is preceeded first by desire (Alma 32:27) (1 Nephi 11:11) (Abraham 1:2) (JSH 1:15), followed by belief, followed then by faith. How can we obtain faith if we are dwindling in unbelief? Why are our minds darkened? Why a veil of darkness?

We must follow the path as those who have gone before, desire, believe, obtain faith, rend the veil of darkness, obtain konwledge (Ether 4:13-16) (Ether 12:18-21) Is there any doubt that we are having the rest of the Book of Mormon withheld because we don’t believe the things we already have and we are condemned? (3 Nephi 26:10) (D&C 84:57)

clarkkent14 wrote:From Church News

After serious consideration, and several polls conducted by the church's correlation committee, it is hereby announced that two sections of the Book of Mormon are to be removed. They will be 2 Nephi chapters 31 and 32. 3 Nephi 11 was heavily considered, but the polls barely swayed the vote at 53% deciding to keep the chapter in tact. The reasons given for the removal are as follows:

1. It is clear that Nephi states that he has stopped prophesying in (2 Nephi 31:1). Prophecy and revelation is more important than anything in the church, and hearkening to anything less might lead one astray. It's important that we follow the current brethren.

2. Nephi plainly states that he is about to teach Doctrine in (2 Nephi 31:2). Nephi is a dead prophet, and we have prophets now that have a fresh view about changing trends and new doctrine. Doctrine from 2,500 years ago does not adequately suffice in our day and age. Doctrine is not as important as the revelations or prophecies.

3. Nephi speaks of a baptism of fire. This is asking a bit much, and as you know water is sufficient to enter the kingdom of heaven.

4. Nephi clearly doesn't understand the order of God. He alludes to the fact that enduring to the end might have to do with a personal visit from Christ. It is clear from church manuals that enduring to the end is until death.

5. Perhaps Laman and Lemuel were right about Nephi because he seems to think that any lay member can converse with Angels. We know that such visitations are reserved for those in authority. We'll let you know when that happens, until then don't be led astray.

Should we transfigure the Doctrine of Christ? Have we done so? Are we not saying we have the revelations, we need no more doctrine? Yea, wo be unto him that saith: We have received, and we need no more!" Oh wait maybe we have: The Transfigured Doctrine of Christ - 2 Nephi 31-32 Mormon 8 I lamented last year how we have reduced this great Doctrine to a few things. 2 Nephi 31-32 Thread.

“Some have claimed that the removal of the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants constitutes decanonization of material once affirmed by the Church as scripture. Those who take this view see the 1834 vote of the priesthood quorums and the general assembly to accept as true and to publish both the Lectures on Faith and the revelations of Joseph Smith in the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, as putting the Lectures on a par with the revelations, considering both to be canonized scripture (Van Wagoner, et al 72-77). Leaders of the Church, however, have consistently maintained that from the beginning a distinction was made between the Lectures on Faith and the revelations.”

”It can be reasoned then that a distinction was made early between the seven lectures and the revelations, and that the vote to accept the lectures as "judiciously arranged . . . and profitable for doctrine" was not to equate them with the divine revelations. Such is the message in the "Explanatory Introduction" of the 1921 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants:”

I find it interesting that these Lectures on Faith were prepared just two years after the church had been condemned for unbelief. “And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received— Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.”

Faith is preceeded first by desire (Alma 32:27) (1 Nephi 11:11) (Abraham 1:2) (JSH 1:15), followed by belief, followed then by faith. How can we obtain faith if we are dwindling in unbelief? Why are our minds darkened? Why a veil of darkness?

We must follow the path as those who have gone before, desire, believe, obtain faith, rend the veil of darkness, obtain konwledge (Ether 4:13-16) (Ether 12:18-21) Is there any doubt that we are having the rest of the Book of Mormon withheld because we don’t believe the things we already have and we are condemned? (3 Nephi 26:10) (D&C 84:57)

Okay, I have been to the website. I have searched for it. Just where is this story?????? Post a link please.

Songbird wrote: Okay, I have been to the website. I have searched for it. Just where is this story?????? Post a link please.

It's a joke. And a bad one at that.

What Songbird said....please give us a link to this.

InfoWarrior82 wrote:

Songbird wrote: Okay, I have been to the website. I have searched for it. Just where is this story?????? Post a link please.

It's a joke. And a bad one at that.

Really bad one. I thought it might be. Really, clarkkent what is your motivation here?

InfoWarrior82 wrote:

Songbird wrote: Okay, I have been to the website. I have searched for it. Just where is this story?????? Post a link please.

It's a joke. And a bad one at that.

It's not necessarily a joke. It just shows how ridiculous the reasoning of removing the DOCTRINE from Doctrine and Covenants.


So yes, removing the Lectures on Faith, by using the reasoning that it's doctrine and not revelation, "is a joke. And a bad one at that."

Songbird wrote:

clarkkent14 wrote:From Church News

After serious consideration, and several polls conducted by the church's correlation committee, it is hereby announced that two sections of the Book of Mormon are to be removed. They will be 2 Nephi chapters 31 and 32. 3 Nephi 11 was heavily considered, but the polls barely swayed the vote at 53% deciding to keep the chapter in tact. The reasons given for the removal are as follows:

1. It is clear that Nephi states that he has stopped prophesying in (2 Nephi 31:1). Prophecy and revelation is more important than anything in the church, and hearkening to anything less might lead one astray. It's important that we follow the current brethren.

2. Nephi plainly states that he is about to teach Doctrine in (2 Nephi 31:2). Nephi is a dead prophet, and we have prophets now that have a fresh view about changing trends and new doctrine. Doctrine from 2,500 years ago does not adequately suffice in our day and age. Doctrine is not as important as the revelations or prophecies.

3. Nephi speaks of a baptism of fire. This is asking a bit much, and as you know water is sufficient to enter the kingdom of heaven.

4. Nephi clearly doesn't understand the order of God. He alludes to the fact that enduring to the end might have to do with a personal visit from Christ. It is clear from church manuals that enduring to the end is until death.

5. Perhaps Laman and Lemuel were right about Nephi because he seems to think that any lay member can converse with Angels. We know that such visitations are reserved for those in authority. We'll let you know when that happens, until then don't be led astray.

Should we transfigure the Doctrine of Christ? Have we done so? Are we not saying we have the revelations, we need no more doctrine? Yea, wo be unto him that saith: We have received, and we need no more!" Oh wait maybe we have: The Transfigured Doctrine of Christ - 2 Nephi 31-32 Mormon 8 I lamented last year how we have reduced this great Doctrine to a few things. 2 Nephi 31-32 Thread.

“Some have claimed that the removal of the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants constitutes decanonization of material once affirmed by the Church as scripture. Those who take this view see the 1834 vote of the priesthood quorums and the general assembly to accept as true and to publish both the Lectures on Faith and the revelations of Joseph Smith in the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, as putting the Lectures on a par with the revelations, considering both to be canonized scripture (Van Wagoner, et al 72-77). Leaders of the Church, however, have consistently maintained that from the beginning a distinction was made between the Lectures on Faith and the revelations.”

”It can be reasoned then that a distinction was made early between the seven lectures and the revelations, and that the vote to accept the lectures as "judiciously arranged . . . and profitable for doctrine" was not to equate them with the divine revelations. Such is the message in the "Explanatory Introduction" of the 1921 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants:”

I find it interesting that these Lectures on Faith were prepared just two years after the church had been condemned for unbelief. “And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received— Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.”

Faith is preceeded first by desire (Alma 32:27) (1 Nephi 11:11) (Abraham 1:2) (JSH 1:15), followed by belief, followed then by faith. How can we obtain faith if we are dwindling in unbelief? Why are our minds darkened? Why a veil of darkness?

We must follow the path as those who have gone before, desire, believe, obtain faith, rend the veil of darkness, obtain konwledge (Ether 4:13-16) (Ether 12:18-21) Is there any doubt that we are having the rest of the Book of Mormon withheld because we don’t believe the things we already have and we are condemned? (3 Nephi 26:10) (D&C 84:57)

Okay, I have been to the website. I have searched for it. Just where is this story?????? Post a link please.

Clarkkent is just mockingly besmirching the Brethren and throwing out condescending insults at them and the Church he claims to be a member of. It comes natural for him. He can't control himself.(see brlenox perceptive post in the Snuffer & PTHG thread) Don't pay it any mind songbird. A whole lot of nothing going on here.

keep the faith wrote:Clarkkent is just mockingly besmirching the Brethren and throwing out condescending insults at them and the Church he claims to be a member of. It comes natural for him. He can't control himself.(see brlenox perceptive post in the Snuffer & PTHG thread) Don't pay it any mind songbird. A whole lot of nothing going on here.

Thanks Mark, I love you too :ymhug:

clarkkent14 wrote:

InfoWarrior82 wrote:

Songbird wrote: Okay, I have been to the website. I have searched for it. Just where is this story?????? Post a link please.

It's a joke. And a bad one at that.

It's not necessarily a joke. It just shows how ridiculous the reasoning of removing the DOCTRINE from Doctrine and Covenants.


So yes, removing the Lectures on Faith, by using the reasoning that it's doctrine and not revelation, "is a joke. And a bad one at that."

Excellent! Point well made!!!

clarkkent14 wrote:

keep the faith wrote:Clarkkent is just mockingly besmirching the Brethren and throwing out condescending insults at them and the Church he claims to be a member of. It comes natural for him. He can't control himself.(see brlenox perceptive post in the Snuffer & PTHG thread) Don't pay it any mind songbird. A whole lot of nothing going on here.

Thanks Mark, I love you too :ymhug:

Is that why you have my name on your dartboard along with your couple dozen voodoo dolls? :-ss

keep the faith wrote:

clarkkent14 wrote:

keep the faith wrote:Clarkkent is just mockingly besmirching the Brethren and throwing out condescending insults at them and the Church he claims to be a member of. It comes natural for him. He can't control himself.(see brlenox perceptive post in the Snuffer & PTHG thread) Don't pay it any mind songbird. A whole lot of nothing going on here.

Thanks Mark, I love you too :ymhug:

Is that why you have my name on your dartboard along with your couple dozen voodoo dolls? :-ss

How did you know?

You'll notice my re-marks are directed at the correlation committee. It's amazing that members allow themselves to be led by committees. It's a lot like Washington DC.

I hate these threads.

embryopocket wrote:I hate these threads.

Why?

clarkkent14 wrote:

embryopocket wrote:I hate these threads.

Why?

I don't believe that they uplift and inspire. I don't like how they make me feel. The sentiments expressed by those that hold critical views of the LDS Church and question its leadership go against everything that the record of Heaven within me has brought to my remembrance. Yes, I believe that men make mistakes, Christ is the only perfect Man to have lived here. No, I am not closed-minded. I receive the truth from wherever it comes from...I have wrestled with the Lord in mighty prayer these past couple of months and He has revealed the truth of these things to me. These posts that are critical against the Church have one purpose: to divide, and not in a good way. I am not accusing you or anyone else of intentionally doing this, but this is what is ocurring.

Come on OP that wasn't very nice.

embryopocket wrote:

clarkkent14 wrote:

embryopocket wrote:I hate these threads.

Why?

I don't believe that they uplift and inspire. I don't like how they make me feel. The sentiments expressed by those that hold critical views of the LDS Church and question its leadership go against everything that the record of Heaven within me has brought to my remembrance. Yes, I believe that men make mistakes, Christ is the only perfect Man to have lived here. No, I am not closed-minded. I receive the truth from wherever it comes from...I have wrestled with the Lord in mighty prayer these past couple of months and He has revealed the truth of these things to me. These posts that are critical against the Church have one purpose: to divide, and not in a good way. I am not accusing you or anyone else of intentionally doing this, but this is what is ocurring.

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

Not quite sure yet what to make of this in comparison to the claims that Jesus was the only perfect man to have lived here. But there it is. The JST version is exactly the same.

Here is the Septuagint version:

Job 1:1 There was a certain man in the land of Ausis, whose name [was] Job; and than man was true, blameless, righteous, [and] godly, abstaining from everything evil.

I see these kinds of threads as deceptive. They make it look shocking so people will bite and read their view of things. We all know who the great deceiver is right?

Chicagoelder wrote:I see these kinds of threads as deceptive. They make it look shocking so people will bite and read their view of things. We all know who the great deceiver is right?

are you kidding me??? after your diatribe with the videos??? wow.

BrentL wrote:

Chicagoelder wrote:I see these kinds of threads as deceptive. They make it look shocking so people will bite and read their view of things. We all know who the great deceiver is right?

are you kidding me??? after your diatribe with the videos??? wow.

The videos I made were humorous to me and quite a few others. I admit I got carried but they were not deceptive. Just sayin.

Chicagoelder wrote:

BrentL wrote:

Chicagoelder wrote:I see these kinds of threads as deceptive. They make it look shocking so people will bite and read their view of things. We all know who the great deceiver is right?

are you kidding me??? after your diatribe with the videos??? wow.

The videos I made were humorous to me and quite a few others. I admit I got carried but they were not deceptive. Just sayin.

Are you okay with how the Church really and truly DID remove doctrine from the D&C? The LoF aren't even a part of the correlated materials the Church teaches today. Those who have joined since that doctrine was removed from our Standard Works aren't even going to know it was removed unless they happen across it through some way other than through our standard operating procedures. Is this not deceptive?

The Church removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition with an explanation that the Lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons". This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants which are officially recognized as divine revelation given specifically to the church.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.

b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.

c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.

d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants. [6]

Even hostile readers in 1838 understood that there was a distinct difference between the Lectures and the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants:

The first part [of the D&C] contains seven lectures on Faith, but the second is of most importance, containing what are termed, “Covenants and Commandments of the Lord, to his servants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints.” This part includes one hundred and two sections, ninety-seven of which are occupied by as many professed revelations.

Current Use of the Lectures

Bruce R. McConkie wrote regarding the lectures, "They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars." The 1990 republication of the lectures signals the desire of some LDS scholars to stimulate interest in their historical and doctrinal significance for the Church.

The Lectures on Faith are available through Church-owned Deseret Book in hardcover, softcover, illustrated and audio formats. They are also available in English and Spanish. (See: Deseret Book: Lectures on Faith). If there is an effort by the Church to hide or suppress them in any way, then they are not hiding them very well!

Chicagoelder wrote:The Church removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition with an explanation that the Lectures "were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons". This is in contrast to the remaining pages of the original Doctrine and Covenants which are officially recognized as divine revelation given specifically to the church.

Joseph Fielding Smith said the following concerning their removal:

a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith.

b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine.

c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.

d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants. [6]

Even hostile readers in 1838 understood that there was a distinct difference between the Lectures and the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants:

The first part [of the D&C] contains seven lectures on Faith, but the second is of most importance, containing what are termed, “Covenants and Commandments of the Lord, to his servants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints.” This part includes one hundred and two sections, ninety-seven of which are occupied by as many professed revelations.

Current Use of the Lectures

Bruce R. McConkie wrote regarding the lectures, "They were not themselves classed as revelations, but in them is to be found some of the best lesson material ever prepared on the Godhead; on the character, perfections, and attributes of God; on faith, miracles, and sacrifice. They can be studied with great profit by all gospel scholars." The 1990 republication of the lectures signals the desire of some LDS scholars to stimulate interest in their historical and doctrinal significance for the Church.

The Lectures on Faith are available through Church-owned Deseret Book in hardcover, softcover, illustrated and audio formats. They are also available in English and Spanish. (See: Deseret Book: Lectures on Faith). If there is an effort by the Church to hide or suppress them in any way, then they are not hiding them very well!

We "see" what we want to see. Before 1921, the Lof WERE called, considered, and taught as doctrine.

clarkkent14 wrote:From Church News

After serious consideration, and several polls conducted by the church's correlation committee, it is hereby announced that two sections of the Book of Mormon are to be removed. They will be 2 Nephi chapters 31 and 32. 3 Nephi 11 was heavily considered, but the polls barely swayed the vote at 53% deciding to keep the chapter in tact. The reasons given for the removal are as follows:

1. It is clear that Nephi states that he has stopped prophesying in (2 Nephi 31:1). Prophecy and revelation is more important than anything in the church, and hearkening to anything less might lead one astray. It's important that we follow the current brethren.

2. Nephi plainly states that he is about to teach Doctrine in (2 Nephi 31:2). Nephi is a dead prophet, and we have prophets now that have a fresh view about changing trends and new doctrine. Doctrine from 2,500 years ago does not adequately suffice in our day and age. Doctrine is not as important as the revelations or prophecies.

3. Nephi speaks of a baptism of fire. This is asking a bit much, and as you know water is sufficient to enter the kingdom of heaven.

4. Nephi clearly doesn't understand the order of God. He alludes to the fact that enduring to the end might have to do with a personal visit from Christ. It is clear from church manuals that enduring to the end is until death.

5. Perhaps Laman and Lemuel were right about Nephi because he seems to think that any lay member can converse with Angels. We know that such visitations are reserved for those in authority. We'll let you know when that happens, until then don't be led astray.

Should we transfigure the Doctrine of Christ? Have we done so? Are we not saying we have the revelations, we need no more doctrine? Yea, wo be unto him that saith: We have received, and we need no more!" Oh wait maybe we have: The Transfigured Doctrine of Christ - 2 Nephi 31-32 Mormon 8 I lamented last year how we have reduced this great Doctrine to a few things. 2 Nephi 31-32 Thread.

“Some have claimed that the removal of the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants constitutes decanonization of material once affirmed by the Church as scripture. Those who take this view see the 1834 vote of the priesthood quorums and the general assembly to accept as true and to publish both the Lectures on Faith and the revelations of Joseph Smith in the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, as putting the Lectures on a par with the revelations, considering both to be canonized scripture (Van Wagoner, et al 72-77). Leaders of the Church, however, have consistently maintained that from the beginning a distinction was made between the Lectures on Faith and the revelations.”

”It can be reasoned then that a distinction was made early between the seven lectures and the revelations, and that the vote to accept the lectures as "judiciously arranged . . . and profitable for doctrine" was not to equate them with the divine revelations. Such is the message in the "Explanatory Introduction" of the 1921 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants:”

I find it interesting that these Lectures on Faith were prepared just two years after the church had been condemned for unbelief. “And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received— Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.”

Faith is preceeded first by desire (Alma 32:27) (1 Nephi 11:11) (Abraham 1:2) (JSH 1:15), followed by belief, followed then by faith. How can we obtain faith if we are dwindling in unbelief? Why are our minds darkened? Why a veil of darkness?

We must follow the path as those who have gone before, desire, believe, obtain faith, rend the veil of darkness, obtain konwledge (Ether 4:13-16) (Ether 12:18-21) Is there any doubt that we are having the rest of the Book of Mormon withheld because we don’t believe the things we already have and we are condemned? (3 Nephi 26:10) (D&C 84:57)

Couldn't have said it better myself!!!!! Amen Brother! This is so key of a thing to understand that those who mock and ridicule it will look up from hell and wonder why?? They won't get it then any better than they do now.
It is NOT about the brethren!! Can we just stop with that? It's not about whose fault it was or is. It it about KNOWING God! And when DOCTRINE is removed that prevents us from attaining Gods Presence and obtaining salvation, why can't we all see that this is wrong and abhorrent to God??
This is wrong and we should fix it. If enough people let the brethren know we want it, they will return it. It really is a commentary on US as a people, not the brethren, although they did remove it in the first place and will be held accountable.
If it makes you sick or feel bad or like something is wrong, then that's because it IS wrong!! Welcome to the real world! WAKE UP!!!
Awake to YOUR awful situation and repent and arise to meet the God who made you!

jo1952 wrote:We "see" what we want to see. Before 1921, the Lof WERE called, considered, and taught as doctrine.

Joseph Smith declared it is doctrine. I still believe it to be doctrine, even if it is no longer part of canonized scripture.

coachmarc wrote:

jo1952 wrote:We "see" what we want to see. Before 1921, the Lof WERE called, considered, and taught as doctrine.

Joseph Smith declared it is doctrine. I still believe it to be doctrine, even if it is no longer part of canonized scripture.

Me too, Coachmarc! In fact, we are studying it right now.