Eating of Blood

[Anddenex]

14 hours ago, iamlds said:

Okay if that is really the case then  Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith received personal revelation about abstinence of blood(just like what other says coz its not  official) what would the Lord will tell the rest then? Eat blood coz its only for Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith? Would the Lord say, "NeedleinA and the rest of the Saints, you can eat blood because the prohibition of eating blood is for Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith only"? Or will the Lord would say the same personal revelation that the Prophet received?

Again please be patient with my English. but I guess its still understandable

Upon reviewing the thread, and the answers provided you have been provided important aspects to ponder. The discussion here reminds me of a few conversations from the mission with Jehovah Witnesses and their interpretation regarding scriptures mentioned.

I don't believe I can add to what others have mentioned; however, this question you ask, "Would the Lord say.....," and the answer is yes at times the Lord has said to some "do this" and to some "don't do this" while others still choose to "do this" and others "don't do this."  You mention a covenant, and provide the thoughts regarding this covenant, while I pretty sure Joseph Fielding Smith was also familiar with the following verse of scripture, 1 Nephi 17: 2:

Quote

And so great were the blessing of the Lord upon us, that while we did live upon raw meat in the wilderness, our women did given plenty of suck for their children, and were strong, yea, even like unto the men; and they began to bear their journeyings without murmurings." (emphasis added)

Raw meat is surely to be filled with "blood."  The sons of Lehi considered this a blessing of the Lord, despite having lived during the Mosaic Law.  In some cultures, a cup of blood after sacrifice was common, and my thoughts have turned toward this tradition in the Lord's commandment and covenant.  We are not to drink the blood from a sacrifice, or to drink blood as we do water, milk, or any other nutrient liquid.  We know the Children of Israel did in fact eat meat, even in light of this covenant.

I also would caution an absolute mentality of "false doctrine" and "true doctrine" regarding every word spoken by the Lord's anointed, for even the Lord's anointed specified that a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such, and has every right to personal thoughts, teachings, and philosophy.  An intriguing aspect of the Book of Mormon is when Alma is speaking to his sons and says, Alma 40:20:

Quote

Now, my son, I do not say that their resurrection cometh at the resurrection of Christ; but behold, I give it as my opinion, that the souls and the bodies are reunited, of the righteous, at the resurrection of Christ, and his ascension into heaven.

Although delivered as an opinion, through Alma's personal studies, this thought is now scripture.  Joseph Field Smith shared many things, many things which he believed to be sure and true principles from his personal studies. Example, purchase a copy of "Doctrines and Salvations," as there are many great and wonderful teachings in these books.  Are they all true sayings?  Are they all false, which appears to be a mentality being shared.  They are true or false, and how can a prophet teach false doctrine?  Or simply, we are to do as we have been commanded by prophets, study it out in our mind and then move forward according to our spirit if something is not cannon.  

How many other prophets taught something similar, and have they professed the same, or like others we now have the Word of Wisdom and have received other insights.  Study in your heart, study in your mind, and move forward according to your thoughts, even if others may disagree, while remembering God has given us our agency and to try to force something on someone else is not Heavenly Father's way.

[Iggy]

First and foremost the questions and answers in this book were when Joseph Fielding Smith was NOT a prophet.

The Norwegians eat blood also, as in blood pudding, blood sausage. It is cooked. My Dad loved it. He made it. He also ate animal brains. Mom and us kids wouldn't touch any of it. We wouldn't eat Gammelost or Lindberger cheeses or pickled pigs feet either.

Me thinks that this subject has been kicked around, asked and answered - ad nauseum.

[iamlds]

17 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Flog that hobby horse of your to death why don't you...  Presuming that you know enough to judge that your leaders are "addicted" is the judgement.  The fact of the matter is you can't understand the real situation... but you appear to be more then happy to think that you can, and come out with judgements against them.  And this is simply because you presume to know better what the Lord wants then the prophet of God.

Now a days the church has a much tighter control over what General Authorities publish.  This became necessary because of member refusal to follow and understand the pattern God has given for revelation.  Instead of understanding the "Answers to Gospel Questions" should have the subtitle "According the the thoughts and opinions of Joseph F Smith".  Instead they see it as "Answers to Gospel Questions according to Jesus Christ" this is in spite of the fact that it did not follow the pattern the Lord has given for knowing what is his will and what is someone else opinion

What is wrong of saying "ADDICTED" to someone who is addicted? What is that calling evil good and good evil? I hope you understand what I mean.  So I can't understand the real situation and you know? Do you know us? I will say this again to you I WILL MAKE THIS BIGGER FONT SO YOU CAN SEE. I AND MY LOCAL LEADERS ARE FRIENDS. i ALREADY TOLD YOU. AND WE ALSO TROWING JOKES WITH THIS ISSUE. AND WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT, WHEN THEY SAY I SHOULD NOT TELL OR PREACH THIS, THEN I DIDN'T. WHEN WE EAT TOGETHER, THEY EAT BLOOD WHILE I'M NOT, BUT WE DON'T FIGHT ABOUT IT. THEY SHOW ME HOW ADDICTED THEY ARE AND I'M NOT CONDEMNING THEM! I WILL TELL YOU AGAIN AND AGAIN. I AND MY LOCAL LEADERS ARE FRIENDS.

WHY ARE YOU JUDGING ME OF LIKE I'M SPEAKING EVIL TO THEM, I JUST SAY THEY'RE ADDICTED. THEY KNOW IT, AND FOR THE SAKE OF THIS FORUM TO UNDERSTAND I ALSO TELL IT.

SO HOW IN THE WORLD YOU COME UP WITH THIS THAT MADE YOU SAY THAT I KNOW ENOUGH TO JUDGE THEM LIKE I WOULD FIGHT TO IT TO DEATH.  YOU ARE A SENIOR MODERATOR AND YOU ACT LIKE THAT WHICH MAKES ME THINK HOW YOU MODERATE ON SOME POST. 

AGAIN I WILL TELL YOU THIS, I AND THE LOCAL LEADERS (WHICH IS I'M ONE OF THEM) ARE GOOD FRIENDS. WE JUST WANT TO CLEAR THIS THINGS UP. THAT IS WHY I'M ASKING A QUESTION.

Edited February 17, 2016 by iamlds
edit words

[iamlds]

1 hour ago, Iggy said:

First and foremost the questions and answers in this book were when Joseph Fielding Smith was NOT a prophet.

The Norwegians eat blood also, as in blood pudding, blood sausage. It is cooked. My Dad loved it. He made it. He also ate animal brains. Mom and us kids wouldn't touch any of it. We wouldn't eat Gammelost or Lindberger cheeses or pickled pigs feet either.

Me thinks that this subject has been kicked around, asked and answered - ad nauseum.

Ah yes, someone told me that already that he is not yet prophet that time, and maybe the question now would be, was the answer true or false? Fact or Myth? Our reactions to it depend on how we answer it

Thanks Iggy, I know this will always be kicked around around Answered and asked many times and been discussed by other people also. 

I still stand for what I know is true, since there is no doctrine about it(as they say), saying to eat blood or not to eat is non of our business as far as I understand it(base on THEIR comments ) So if we want to eat or not its up to us.  

 

[estradling75]

7 hours ago, iamlds said:

What is wrong of saying "ADDICTED" to someone who is addicted? What is that calling evil good and good evil? I hope you understand what I mean.  So I can't understand the real situation and you know? Do you know us? I will say this again to you I WILL MAKE THIS BIGGER FONT SO YOU CAN SEE. I AND MY LOCAL LEADERS ARE FRIENDS. i ALREADY TOLD YOU. AND WE ALSO TROWING JOKES WITH THIS ISSUE. AND WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT, WHEN THEY SAY I SHOULD NOT TELL OR PREACH THIS, THEN I DIDN'T. WHEN WE EAT TOGETHER, THEY EAT BLOOD WHILE I'M NOT, BUT WE DON'T FIGHT ABOUT IT. THEY SHOW ME HOW ADDICTED THEY ARE AND I'M NOT CONDEMNING THEM! I WILL TELL YOU AGAIN AND AGAIN. I AND MY LOCAL LEADERS ARE FRIENDS.

WHY ARE YOU JUDGING ME OF LIKE I'M SPEAKING EVIL TO THEM, I JUST SAY THEY'RE ADDICTED. THEY KNOW IT, AND FOR THE SAKE OF THIS FORUM TO UNDERSTAND I ALSO TELL IT.

SO HOW IN THE WORLD YOU COME UP WITH THIS THAT MADE YOU SAY THAT I KNOW ENOUGH TO JUDGE THEM LIKE I WOULD FIGHT TO IT TO DEATH.  YOU ARE A SENIOR MODERATOR AND YOU ACT LIKE THAT WHICH MAKES ME THINK HOW YOU MODERATE ON SOME POST. 

AGAIN I WILL TELL YOU THIS, I AND THE LOCAL LEADERS (WHICH IS I'M ONE OF THEM) ARE GOOD FRIENDS. WE JUST WANT TO CLEAR THIS THINGS UP. THAT IS WHY I'M ASKING A QUESTION.

I am saying that addiction is a medical condition... And people like to throw around the word addiction like they are qualified to make that diagnoses.  Second they are your priesthood leader(s) and you throw it out there as an excuse to disregard the simple fact that God called them knowing full well what their weakness and temptations where and are. Third you are so fixated on this one idea that you are ignoring other plain and simple truths of the gospel. 

You have be repeatedly given an answer to your question... You ignore it because it is not what you want to hear.

Edited February 17, 2016 by estradling75

[The Folk Prophet]

This is a weird thread. I haven't read it all in detail...but I'm gathering that, apparently, some church leaders are vampires.

[The Folk Prophet]

6 hours ago, iamlds said:

 I WILL MAKE THIS BIGGER FONT SO YOU CAN SEE.

Incidentally..and for your future posting knowledge, the second you went to all caps I stopped reading. Blah. Way too hard to read. And annoying as all get out. Try, instead, you know...an actually bigger font...next time. So much easier to read. Still annoying and a bit childish (screaming a point louder doesn't give any more validity to it)...but easier to read.

[iamlds]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

I am saying that addiction is a medical condition... And people like to throw around the word addiction like they are qualified to make that diagnoses.  Second they are your priesthood leader(s) and you throw it out there as an excuse to disregard the simple fact that God called them knowing full well what their weakness and temptations where and are. Third you are so fixated on this one idea that you are ignoring other plain and simple truths of the gospel. 

You have be repeatedly given an answer to your question... You ignore it because it is not what you want to hear.

So you insist that saying addicted is speaking evil your definition of addiction is correct but its not the only meaning. Anyway yes I already got the answer and definitely its not from you. All I hear from you is Bias judgmental comment, insisting your understanding about the situation. Just like this comment.  

Answering your accusations: yes they are priesthood leaders (me too), No! I do not disregard their the fact that God called them (us), No, I'm not ignoring simple truths of the Gospel.

What an accusation this is!

I already got the answer(I already said it) I just answering your false accusation. Anyway its just your opinion, Thanks it will not be "official" just keep it to yourself, I can find answers through other users anyway
 

[iamlds]

5 hours ago, Anddenex said:

 

I don't believe I can add to what others have mentioned; however, this question you ask, "Would the Lord say.....," and the answer is yes at times the Lord has said to some "do this" and to some "don't do this" while others still choose to "do this" and others "don't do this."  You mention a covenant, and provide the thoughts regarding this covenant, while I pretty sure Joseph Fielding Smith was also familiar with the following verse of scripture, 1 Nephi 17: 2:

Yes of-course the Lord will give different revelation specially on personal revelation, for example what will you do in a particular situation, or where will you go to school? or whom will you marry, or what will you say, but we are talking about blood. There is difference between them.  I'm not actually mentioning covenant, I'm just quote whats on the article. and I'm pretty sure that the Prophet knows more than we know about that 1 nephi 17:2. and the question is whey then he still said it in the article?

11 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Raw meat is surely to be filled with "blood." 

If its alive maybe yes .  We have a lot of slaughter house here and I know its only a matter of minutes to drain blood on a animal after you slice it and remove the parts that are not edible

11 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I also would caution an absolute mentality of "false doctrine" and "true doctrine" regarding every word spoken by the Lord's anointed, for even the Lord's anointed specified that a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such, and has every right to personal thoughts, teachings, and philosophy.  An intriguing aspect of the Book of Mormon is when Alma is speaking to his sons and says, Alma 40:20:

 

Yes that is right but my question here is that Is  Deseretbook publish false doctrine? The answer is No, I'm not asking if its official i'm just asking if its false or true? or non doctrine? If you say yes its none doctrine then nevermind that, if no its not true then its false, And if Yes its true doctrine but not official then I still believe it.

 

Thank you for your comments

[iamlds]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Incidentally..and for your future posting knowledge, the second you went to all caps I stopped reading. Blah. Way too hard to read. And annoying as all get out. Try, instead, you know...an actually bigger font...next time. So much easier to read. Still annoying and a bit childish (screaming a point louder doesn't give any more validity to it)...but easier to read.

Oh yes, Thanks for that advice, my mistake

[estradling75]

11 minutes ago, iamlds said:

Yes that is right but my question here is that Is  Deseretbook publish false doctrine? The answer is No, I'm not asking if its official i'm just asking if its false or true? or non doctrine? If you say yes its none doctrine then nevermind that, if no its not true then its false, And if Yes its true doctrine but not official then I still believe it.

 

You say you understand... But then ask question that show you do not understand...

God has set up a pattern for giving revelation to the church as a whole.  That is through the Prophet and 12 Apostles.  Period.  That instruction/direction might then be published Deseret Book or other sources.  But Deseret Book and other sources also publish works of Fiction, and opinions and personal experiences, some of which might contain false doctrine. Some might speculate on things not revealed and might be true or might be false. So it should be very clear that the publishers do not define if something is doctrine.

On your subject matter you have been challenged to find any instance of God using the pattern he set up to declare in this dispensation that consuming of blood is forbidden.  The only thing you have is the work Answer to Gospel Question which has been repeatedly pointed out did not follow the pattern.  Yet the Lord repeated a whole lot of commandments through Joseph Smith that we do follow and even gave new ones like the Word of Wisdom, all through this pattern.

Why did God not repeat the commandment not to consume blood when he was clearly willing to repeat a whole lot of other commandments and bind us to them?  We don't know.  We can presume it was for a wise purpose in him. 

As someone that find the ideas of consuming blood in the manor you describe kinda icky, and as someone that would have no problem with it if it was a command from God, it is clear that if I had a bias in this matter it would be in agreement with yours.  But I find no support for you position in the modern revelations.  And I do have strong objections to people adding "More or Less" to what God has commanded.

 

 

[omegaseamaster75]

On 2/16/2016 at 9:35 PM, iamlds said:

Ah ok it was distributed by deseretbook. Doesn't make any sense, Deserethbook is publishing false doctrine, even-though its not official, deseretbook will not publish false doctrine either? Do you know a book published by deseretbook that contains false doctrine? If no, will you think again if this doctrine is true or false?

This book is not doctrine and for you to think that it is is the mistake. It is a book of JFS opinions about answers to gospel questions

On 2/16/2016 at 11:16 PM, iamlds said:

So what can you say about Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith's article? 

It's like going out to the crowd and not inhaling smoke from cigars you can walk along but don't smoke:) Its recorded in D&C Eat but a VERY LITTLE meat and its clear.  The problem is our local leaders are trying their best not to understand this doctrine because they were addicted to it.  And did even said that "I will leave  the church or go inactive if eating blood is prohibited"   Eating blood is more important to them than their covenant with the Lord. Funny.  So all their answers are motivated by their addiction. I will be more convinced if someone who is not addicted of eating blood says something about this principle

Well for starters it does not say eat very little meat it say to eat meat sparingly which is very subjective. I am not addicted to eating blood although I have eaten blood sausage and other dishes of the like. There is no doctrinal prohibition.

On 2/16/2016 at 9:33 PM, iamlds said:

So to make the story short, the Book entitled ANSWERS TO GOSPEL QUESTIONS is a false Doctrine and not to be shared to others because its a personal revelation of the Prophet

I believe that Prophets are foreordained. And even their early days on this earth, their example and lifestyles are in-harmony with the gospel, that is why you can read books, "FROM THE LIFE OF PROPHET............" 

It is not false doctrine. How can it be? It was never doctrine to begin with. I also don't want to burst your bubble but while foreordination is a "thing" it is not guaranteed that the individual will fulfill the calling that has been placed before them or that they will be called. As it turns out JFS was called to be a prophet, but I see an unhealthy amount of hero worship going on here. Please keep in mind that he was just a man.

Edited February 17, 2016 by omegaseamaster75

[NightSG]

15 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

This book is not doctrine and for you to think that it is is the mistake. It is a book of JFS opinions about answers to gospel questions

This; if Thomas S Monson calls me up and says "Hey, don't sell your Southwest Airlines stock until winter," it may or may not be a good stock tip, but disregarding it is hardly a sin.  Now if he sends me a letter signed by all of the top 15, I'm going to pay attention...though I'll probably burn the letter and scatter the ashes to hide evidence of what really sounds like it came from insider tips.

Quote

Well for starters it does not say eat very little meat it say to eat meat sparingly which is very subjective.

Yup; according to an online thesaurus, synonyms for "sparingly" include:

• casually - don't wear a tie to the barbecue place
• delicately - not like a Saint Bernard
• easily - one would hope
• freely - as you like it
• gingerly - see "delicately"
• mildly - don't beat people up and take their meat, but eat your own however you want
• moderately - pretty subjective
• quietly - hush and eat your meat
• simply - just meat
• slightly - nibble at it
• softly - stop smacking
• subtly - don't tell everybody, just eat
• agilely - I don't want to know
• carelessly - best applied to ribs
• ethereally - uh, yeah, whatever
• flippantly - don't have to care, just eat
• frivolously - chicken fried prime rib
• heedlessly - well, you're obviously not listening anyway
• indifferently - again with the not caring
• nimbly - still don't want to know
• peacefully - yup, keep quiet
• smoothly - again, I hope so

[NeedleinA]

2 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

As it turns out JFS was called to be a prophet, but I see an unhealthy amount of hero worship going on here. 

Agreed.

Also here is an interesting quote:

" An individual may fall by the wayside, or have views, or give counsel which falls short of what the Lord intends. But the voice of the First Presidency and the united voice of those others who hold with them the keys of the kingdom shall always guide the Saints and the world in those paths where the Lord wants them to be. "

- President Joseph Fielding Smith  (link)

[Anddenex]

10 hours ago, iamlds said:

Yes of-course the Lord will give different revelation specially on personal revelation, for example what will you do in a particular situation, or where will you go to school? or whom will you marry, or what will you say, but we are talking about blood. There is difference between them.  I'm not actually mentioning covenant, I'm just quote whats on the article. and I'm pretty sure that the Prophet knows more than we know about that 1 nephi 17:2. and the question is whey then he still said it in the article?

Thank you for the response. There isn't a difference between blood, whom you will marry, whom you will not, or where you will go to school. Each stem from doctrine.  The doctrine of marriage, sealing. The doctrine to educate, or to grow in intelligence, because the principle is whether or not God will instruct one person to do, or not to do, while others are exempt from that commandment/counsel?  That is the question.  This question encompasses doctrine, personal revelation, etc... It is through personal revelation that the Lord instructs, whether collectively by personal revelation to a prophet, then to the Church body, or through personal revelation to an individual (and if personal then only that individual is subject to the counsel). 

We are in agreement that the Prophet would have been familiar, as to knowing more about this verse, there isn't much to it. The family of Lehi ate "raw meat," and they lived during the law of Moses. Why he said it is the article is because he believes what he specified, now it is up to you and I, according to the Spirit in us, as to how we will receive such counsel.  As for me, I will look to other prophets, their habits, their teachings, and whether or not they would provide the same or further instruction. If you feel you must live it, and have received spiritual witness, then live it. 

Quote

If its alive maybe yes .  We have a lot of slaughter house here and I know its only a matter of minutes to drain blood on a animal after you slice it and remove the parts that are not edible

Yes that is right but my question here is that Is  Deseretbook publish false doctrine? The answer is No, I'm not asking if its official i'm just asking if its false or true? or non doctrine? If you say yes its none doctrine then nevermind that, if no its not true then its false, And if Yes its true doctrine but not official then I still believe it.

Thank you for your comments

I have never heard of draining blood from an animal (in totality) ever taken a couple minutes.  The majority of the blood draining, yes, all of it, no.  I have seen too many deer hanging from a tree to drain blood (for days) to know it takes more than a matter of minutes.  Also, in the stake I live in I am able to serve at the local meat packing facility.  The meat is from animals which have had their blood drained and yet every package of meat has blood, and without the clothing they provide for protection I would be covered in blood by the end of the shift.  When we purchase red meat from the store and in the package their still is blood in the meat.  If we were to eat this raw we would be eating blood, and a medium rare cooked steak still has blood.  So then a person must really seek, through spirit and discernment, what is meant. I have already shared what has made sense (to me) according to the era and timeline provided. Until a prophet declares to the Church further information I will continue according to what I have come to understand and let others live according to their knowledge -- in this thing.  Some doctrine is pretty plain and specific, while others may still need line-upon-line knowledge to fully comprehend it.

Desert Book is a store that can, and does publish people's opinions on doctrine all the time.  "Increase in Learning" is a great book sold at Deseret Book by Elder David A. Bednar.  His three book series is awesome; however, I wouldn't say everything in this book would be considered "doctrine", or better said "cannon." So, yes, depending on who wrote the book, who the author is, yes, indeed a book sold at Desert Book could have false doctrine.

If you believe it, then live it according to the knowledge you have. I wouldn't agree with the interpretation you have provided and the feelings you have regarding your local leaders regarding this teaching; however, live according to your spirit and then move forward while allowing others the same privilege.

[LeSellers]

25 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I wouldn't say everything in this book would be considered "doctrine", or better said "cannon."

With apologies to Ogden Nash

One n'ed canons are sacred tomes.
Two-n'ed cannons hurl great bombs.
But I will bet my stunted banyun
You'll never find a three-n'ed cannnon.

Lehi
 

[The Folk Prophet]

52 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

yes, indeed a book sold at Desert Book could have false doctrine.

Without a doubt.

[Guest]

I think a look at the concentric circles model would be beneficial.  Does anyone have a good graphic?

[Guest]

I'm quite certain that Deseret Book sold copies of Saturday's Warrior, while we're talking about false doctrine. 

[beefche]

56 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

I'm quite certain that Deseret Book sold copies of Saturday's Warrior, while we're talking about false doctrine. 

I have never seen this, but from all the stupid things some of my friends and roommates have shared from it over the years makes me absolutely hate this show. I just cannot believe how much false doctrine is actually taught from this show. In its defense, maybe the false doctrine was around before it was written, but that's no reason to perpetuate it.  

I'm stepping down off my soapbox now.....

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, beefche said:

I have never seen this, but from all the stupid things some of my friends and roommates have shared from it over the years makes me absolutely hate this show. I just cannot believe how much false doctrine is actually taught from this show. In its defense, maybe the false doctrine was around before it was written, but that's no reason to perpetuate it.  

I'm stepping down off my soapbox now.....

There is nothing wrong with Saturday's Warrior. It is an old stake-level roadshow blown up into a ninety-minute production. It has a few catchy songs, a sort of generic Mormon-y folk idea of premortality, and some people experiencing evil and temptation but trying to do what's right. It has some silly stereotypes and some broad, heavy-handed humor, but some parts that are touching and a few that rise to real emotion.

The main thing "wrong" with Saturday's Warrior is people's unrealistic expectation that it will be a doctrinal treatise offering a realistic assessment of our premortal covenants and how they influence our mortal probation. My advice would be: Relax. It's just a show. You might like it, you might not, but it's not worth getting worked up over in any case.

[Guest]

I wonder what the reboot will be like. I'm watching it for Alex Boye', and out of morbid curiosity.

[The Folk Prophet]

I defy anyone to "prove" that Saturday's Warrior had false doctrine.  

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I defy anyone to "prove" that Saturday's Warrior had false doctrine.  

FP,

If it weren't for that smiley face, I'd be rolling my eyes and saying "Here we go again..."  But come to think of it, I'm doing that anyway.

[iamlds]

23 hours ago, estradling75 said:

You say you understand... But then ask question that show you do not understand...

God has set up a pattern for giving revelation to the church as a whole.  That is through the Prophet and 12 Apostles.  Period.  That instruction/direction might then be published Deseret Book or other sources.  But Deseret Book and other sources also publish works of Fiction, and opinions and personal experiences, some of which might contain false doctrine. Some might speculate on things not revealed and might be true or might be false. So it should be very clear that the publishers do not define if something is doctrine.

On your subject matter you have been challenged to find any instance of God using the pattern he set up to declare in this dispensation that consuming of blood is forbidden.  The only thing you have is the work Answer to Gospel Question which has been repeatedly pointed out did not follow the pattern.  Yet the Lord repeated a whole lot of commandments through Joseph Smith that we do follow and even gave new ones like the Word of Wisdom, all through this pattern.

Why did God not repeat the commandment not to consume blood when he was clearly willing to repeat a whole lot of other commandments and bind us to them?  We don't know.  We can presume it was for a wise purpose in him. 

As someone that find the ideas of consuming blood in the manor you describe kinda icky, and as someone that would have no problem with it if it was a command from God, it is clear that if I had a bias in this matter it would be in agreement with yours.  But I find no support for you position in the modern revelations.  And I do have strong objections to people adding "More or Less" to what God has commanded.

 

I can read this post different from your other posts More kinder and more clearer

Yes I said I understand and I Believe, and it doesn't mean that my understanding is correct that's why I'm asking questions. And if you wonder why I keep on asking? coz I need answers to keep coming I don't need insulting or miss interpreted comment, but this comment of yours is much better than the others