Why does voting on new doctrine matter?

When the church was new, scriptures were regularly added to the doctrine and covenants. These revelations are considered doctrine and part of the LDS cannon. In 1833 D&C 89 was revealed and in verse 2 it says "To be sent greeting, not by commandment or constraint". D&C wasn't revealed as a commandment everyone needed to follow it was revealed as a suggestion that would result in blessings. The early saints considered it as a suggestion and many didn't follow it. Joseph didn't take it too seriously, he was regularly seen around Nauvoo drunk [1]. He even had wine brought to him in Carthage [2]. Brigham Young owned and ran a brewery in Utah [3]. In 1852 the church did vote on abstaining completely from alcohol and coffee, etc, and depending on which source you read it either passed or didn't pass [4]. If it actually passed then why wasn't the revelation modified or another revelation added to the D&C so that we could know for sure today what the commandment is? As far as we can tell, D&C 89 is optional and "hot drinks" are excluded, so cold coffee should be fine and beer (mild barley drinks) is fine, while "hot drinks" and "strong drinks" are prohibited. We can either listen to God's words as written down in the D&C or we can listen to the voices of men who claim to know God's will but didn't bother following God's outlined procedure of writing it down and approving it by common consent. So this seems to leave us with the same thing the Jew's in Jesus's time had to deal with. The Pharisee's liked making rules so that they had a bar they could use to judge someone's righteousness with. While Jesus was on the earth the bible shows us that the group of people he appeared to like the least were the Pharisees because of their hypocrisy and how they put them selves between people and God. How is that any different from today? We have God's written word which tells us the WOW is optional but then we have men who have put themselves between us and God that tell us we have to keep the commandments their way. If Jesus hated the Pharisees because of their rules and regulations when he was on earth, why would he start acting like them after his death? A suggestion seems more in line with the Gospel Jesus taught, a rule seems less like what the Bible tells us Jesus did. Jesus said the greatest commandments were to love God and love your neighbor. Loving God certainly involves living the way he want's you too but how often will that way be exactly the same for two different people? 10 times for sure, but beyond the 10 commandments does God really want us guiding our lives by hundreds of extra rules? 

A God that doesn't like confusion would make it easy for us to know what he expects, he would either leave D&C 89 as is where cold coffee and beer is ok but hot chocolate isn't, or He would give us a new revelation that would replace D&C 89 and he would have had it voted on and added to the cannon like all other scripture was. By not doing that, new members who just read the scriptures wouldn't know coffee isn't approved, they have to be told by people and every person seems to understand D&C 89 in their own way.

[1] https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-from-parley-p-pratt-3-may-1844/1 to be fair, this document is saying someone is accusing JS of drunkenness along with swearing and having a few extra young wives, however, we know JS did have extra wives so why include a list of things unless they are all true?

[2] https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Word_of_Wisdom/Joseph_Smith_drank_alcohol_prior_to_the_martyrdom

[3] https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj_o67H1aTxAhWFyp4KHYR_BrcQFjAOegQIChAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fscholarsarchive.byu.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D4086%26context%3Dbyusq&usg=AOvVaw13rdUefxMfSMmRn0aoDJDw pg. 11

[4] https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/MStar/id/37435/rec/14 pg. 35 passed, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj_o67H1aTxAhWFyp4KHYR_BrcQFjAOegQIChAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fscholarsarchive.byu.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D4086%26context%3Dbyusq&usg=AOvVaw13rdUefxMfSMmRn0aoDJDw  pg. 8 didn't pass

Why do I feel the Spirit still?

“If you feel the Spirit—when you pray, read the scriptures, teach, testify, or at any other time—then that is your witness that you have been forgiven or, alternatively, that the cleansing process is taking place, for the Spirit cannot dwell in an unholy tabernacle” (see Alma 7:21). In most cases the cleansing process takes time because our change of heart takes time, but in the interim, we can proceed with the confidence that God approves of our progress as manifested by the presence of His Spirit. Tad R. Callister

This quote was once taped to my bathroom mirror as a reminder that I would know that I had been forgiven of my sins if I felt the Spirit. I knew what the Spirit felt like. It was a warmth that flooded my chest and brought tears to my eyes when I was touched at conference or in the temple. It was a thought/reminder that randomly popped in my head to warn me of danger or remind me to grab something I forgot. It was a prompting to text someone to see how they were doing. It was a confirmation given when I bore my testimony on my mission.  It helped me feel like I wasn't alone.

When I took off my garments and had my first sip of coffee almost exactly a year ago, I was a little sad that theoretically I would never feel those things again. I mean, if the Spirit was really from God, and I was in direct rebellion of God, wouldn't that mean I would no longer have the companionship of the Holy Ghost?

Turns out, I feel "the Spirit" all the time. I feel a burning in my bosom when I see a movie about a gay teen being embraced and celebrated by his family. I get reminders to grab my keys or to check on my children. I still feel prompted to reach out to people and check on them. I have felt no lapse in spiritual experiences.

But wait...I do not wear garments, I do not follow the word of wisdom, I do not pray or read scriptures, and I definitely do not believe in god.

Why do I still feel the Spirit?

-J.

Faith and Proof

People like to say "God won't prove things because you have to have faith" Well, this https://kutv.com/news/offbeat/ancient-biblical-scroll-fragments-discovered-in-israeli-cave-of-horror is one more proof that the bible was written by real people who lived thousands of years ago. We don't have to have faith that the authors of the bible were real, we do have to have faith that the contents of the bible are real. God can give us proof and require faith at the same time. It's historically been proven that the bible is ancient and was written thousands of years ago, where is this same proof that the book of Mormon was written 2000 years ago? I'm not asking for any more than God is already willing to do when it comes to the bible. We have proof that David was actually king, we have proof that Solomon actually built a temple. We have proof that Jesus was a person. We still have to have faith that David was picked by God or that Solomon's temple meant anything or that Jesus was actually resurrected. Where is the proof for the Book of Mormon? Why aren't there new finds confirming some detail every few years like there are for the bible? The easiest and most straightforward answer of course is that the book of Mormon wasn't written anciently by real people and that's why nothing has been found to corroborate it.

Changing temple promises

Over the years the temple ceremony has changed in more ways than just when you stand up and when you switch shoulders. Up until 1990 the temple ceremony contained a promise to slit your stomach and spill your guts and cut out your tongue if you revealed anything from the ceremony (Here's the former ceremony as documented by Thinker of Thoughts https://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/pre-1990-temple-endowment/ and here's video proof of Jeffrey Holland admitting the temple did have the penalties https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jyU97I12AQ). Then a year or two ago the women stopped having to promise to obey their husbands as they follow the lord and can just obey the lord directly (https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/01/02/lds-church-releases/). So, if you went to the temple for your self in 1989 do you still have to kill yourself if you reveal anything even though people for the past 30 years haven't had to make that promise? If you went for yourself before 2019 and promised to obey your husband do you still have to do that now that women can covenant to obey the lord directly? Why do some people have to obey some covenants but younger people don't have to obey those same covenants? How can God claim to be the same yesterday today and forever but then offer different covenants and require different promises from different generations of people? That, is not an unchanging God. Finally, for a God that claims to do everything in the light and nothing in the darkness (2 Nephi 26:23), why did I have to learn about this from the internet? Why wasn't the church or god open and honest and straightforward with the changes that were made to the temple? If it's no longer necessary to kill yourself for talking about the temple then why can't the prophet just tell people exactly what the changes are and why there are changes and whether or not the changes mean that people with old promises are now bound by the new promises? 

It seems clear to me that the church is run by men and not god. You can find information, including videos online, where people talk about surveys they did for the church (Like this by NemoUK https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cxrf37mTfL8). The church changes according to the the times, the church is typically 20-40 years behind the times according to Jeffery Holland, because it is run by people who are typically 20-40 years older than the average member.

Here's the church's website with links to the video where Holland admits the church changes over time https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/area-devotionals-february-march-2021

Why have all the videos been taken down? Is it because Holland said something phenomenally stupid? Or is it because Sister Cordon lied about being poor? Look at her husband's LinkedIn, he's held positions like Director and Senior Director at Adobe and Domo, in those positions he's making at least 150k a year. They aren't poor, https://www.linkedin.com/in/derek-l-cordon-968b10/

Here's a link to the video where Holland talks about the church changing, Thinker of Thoughts kept it so it wouldn't be lost https://youtu.be/l3Aaf29dDhA?t=182