Cry Mightily Unto the Lord


BrotherofJaredThe Brother of Jared took sixteen small stones to the mountain. We know they were small because he carried them in his hands. They were certainly smaller than an egg. Perhaps he had eight in each hand. When he came down from the mountain he had eighteen stones. The Lord gave him two more to be used by future prophets to read and translate the words the Brother of Jared would write of the Savior.

After the Brother of Jared cried unto the Lord in a prayer of great faith and sound reasoning, the Lord touched the stones one by one with his finger. The record does not say the Brother of Jared placed the stones on a rock in front of him as we see depicted in the painting by Arnold Friberg. I like to think he held them in his hand as he cried unto the Lord in mighty prayer saying, “Lord, see these stones…”

Assuming he held the stones in his hands, I wonder what that would have felt like as the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched them one by one. The Brother of Jared would have felt the pressure of the Lord’s finger as He touched each one of them. I also wonder at what point the Brother of Jared finally saw the finger of the Lord. Was it on the first stone or did it take sixteen touches before he could see?

Taught by a Servant of the Lord

This is an example of one of the things Denver Snuffer taught us this weekend. I have been a member of the LDS Church all my life and have never heard anyone teach the importance or significance of the phrase to “Cry Mightily.” I am not seeking to point out any deficits in the teachers or the material. This may not be a new idea to you. I can only conclude I was not ready to hear or did not understand before.

I have been praying unto the Lord all my life. I have been asking the Lord to reveal Himself to me from the time I was seventeen when I first entered into His presence. I fasted for three days once thinking the Lord did not hear me or doubted my sincerity. At the end of the fast he reminded me I had not yet been endowed. He invited me to return to my quest in a few years. Thus I continued to study and prepare.

After being endowed, I got busy with my mission. After being sealed, I got busy with building a marriage and responding to the demands of my career. I forgot about the Lord’s invitation. I think I would have appreciated a reminder from those who lead this church of the importance of completing the invitation of the Lord to come into His presence. For some reason it never came up again from our church pulpits.

Reminded of the Promised Invitation

It wasn’t until I was introduced to the writings of Denver Snuffer and read Passing the Heavenly Gift that the Lord visited me again. It was on the night of 25 January 2012. I wrote to my Facebook friends a few days later I hadn’t stayed up until 2:30 in the morning to read a book in many years. I knelt in prayer that night and cried mightily to the Lord asking if the invitation I had received at age seventeen still stood.

He assured me it was an open invitation. From that day to this I have been living in a state of rejoicing and anticipation. Knowing the path I was on, the adversary visited me last year to discourage me. I saw him, or rather his minions with my natural eyes. It was not a pleasant or uplifting experience. It has been a mighty struggle these eighteen months to recover from that experience, walking daily with the Lord.

Even stranger than the opposition from the adversary has been the opposition from those who love me. I find it amazing so many friends have fought against the Lord in their attempts to discourage me from fulfilling my promise to receive Him. It is especially disconcerting to see those who should know better, oppose the Lord and even deny Him by claiming He doesn’t work the same way taught in the scriptures.

Do Not Hinder Members in Their Efforts

If you are a servant of Jesus Christ, you will not oppose his invitation to come unto Him. If you claim to represent Him, or claim to be authorized by Him, or that you hold keys from Him, I know you will not teach those who believe in Him and seek to follow Him that they cannot receive Him. That would be anti-Christ, wouldn’t it? Surely a key holder would not hinder members from crying mightily unto Christ.

I have been counseled to forsake the Lord by those who claim to be His servants. “Come off this path,” I have been told. “You are in the mists of darkness,” when I can clearly see the rod of iron in my hand. How can this be? “For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed.” Surely a priesthood leader would not ask a member of the flock to not heed the shepherd.

Is it possible a humble priesthood leader, in his zeal to follow the handbook could be in the wrong? “. . . they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men” (2 Ne 28:14). Does our handbook contain policies with specific instructions against praying as taught in the temple?

A Sacred Sacrament Meeting

On Thursday evening I met with a number of my fellow travelers who are on the same journey. A small group of some fifteen to twenty of my friends met to take the Sacrament and to teach and testify to one another about the reality of being called of the Lord to come unto Him. The handbook of the LDS Church includes a policy that forbids members from administering the sacrament without a Bishop’s permission.

As instructed in scripture, and in order to not change the ordinance, new wine – not grape juice – was used instead of water. We partook of unleavened bread, as a reminder of the Passover. We had loaves of additional bread, that we all could be filled as we met and talked about the Lord for a few hours. It was a sacred experience. We all knelt. I was honored to bless the bread. Nobody led or controlled us.

I don’t think I have been to a more sacred, uplifting and sweet sacrament meeting in my life. Tears were shed, especially mine, as I realized how much I loved my fellow Saints while I listened to them describe how difficult their journey to Christ was because of the persecutions of their leaders. Some had been excommunicated. Others left voluntarily because they were forbidden to worship in the Lord’s way.

A Meeting With a Prophet

On Friday evening Carol and I enjoyed dinner with Denver and his family. I’ve declared and proclaimed on my blog at least a half dozen times now my conviction, borne of the spirit after years of studying, pondering and praying, that this man is a prophet of the Lord. I have never said he is a prophet of the LDS Church, which some have misunderstood. Nevertheless, he is an authorized messenger of Christ.

I love how many people start their private emails to me writing, “I know something of this man…” and then proceed to share their fears – borne out of love for me – that he is no prophet. I promised I would report on my meeting with him. I specifically asked the Lord for this opportunity some six months ago. Just a few days later Denver called me, without any prompting from me, and asked for this meeting.

I had no desire to ask him anything. I did not want to interview him. I did not want to discuss doctrine. I simply wanted to feel of his spirit and see how he treated his family. I had spoken with the Lord several times about my desire to know the truthfulness of this man’s claims and to know if his witness could be trusted. After all, it’s not every day a man claims to have been visited by the Lord, at least not lately.

A Witness Confirmed – Again

I don’t know how many more times the Lord can tell me Denver Snuffer is His servant before I weary the Lord with my petitions. I do not need to ask again. The matter is closed. There is nothing anyone can say, there is no argument anyone can offer, there is no doubt in my mind. When the Lord tells you he has asked a man to deliver a message, then you reject that message at the peril of your own salvation.

If I haven’t made it clear before, then I do so now. I am a second witness the Lord calls men in this day to do His work. This prophet messenger did not and does not challenge the right of President Thomas S. Monson or the rest of the men we sustain as Prophets, Seers and Revelators to preside over this Church. Denver Snuffer is not claiming that authority. He is doing what the Lord has asked him to do for now.

I know this is a radical claim that causes anger in some people. I have received those angry emails and have read those angry comments on my blog. The only response I can offer is the same one the Lord gave to his disciples when He visited them in the Americas. Contention is the spirit of the devil. If you feel angry because of the message of Denver Snuffer to receive Christ, think carefully about the source.

Excommunicated for Being Visited by Christ

I am grateful Carol agreed to attend the lectures this past weekend. I am grateful she attended the sacrament meeting and the dinner with Denver and his family. I am also grateful she gave me time to meet with other friends in a private setting to discuss changes in the LDS Church over the past few years. She joined us later for dinner on Saturday evening for a wonderful meal and entertainment.

I hope I don’t embarrass Him, but I want to publically thank Will Carter, “Good Will,” for joining us that evening and sharing story after story after story of faith-promoting evidences of the Lord working in his life. I don’t believe I have ever witnessed a man more filled with faith than Will Carter, a man who wants only to do the will of the Lord and come into His presence. For this he was cast out of the LDS Church.

I once originally entitled a post about Max Skousen, “The LDS Church Excommunicates Those who Know Christ.” Because so many LDS members were offended, and told me so, I changed it to something less offensive but just as factual. I wish I had kept the original title. For me, the evidence continues to mount. In spite of claims to the contrary, I can almost promise you will be cast off if you say you have seen Him.

My Witness, My calling and Election

I have shared my witness many times of the reality we can be born of the spirit. I have born witness we can enter the presence of the Lord. I have testified He will converse with us through the veil. I look forward to the day when I fall on my knees to bathe his feet with my tears. I hope to embrace him, in the flesh, and feel the wound in his side and touch the nail marks in his feet and his hands – in this life.

Receiving the Second Comforter is a true doctrine. Having your calling and election made sure is a true doctrine. If you are a key holder in this church and fail to teach these doctrines, you are anti-Christ. You and I have the responsibility to receive these ordinances and to bear witness to others that they can and must receive them in this life as well. If not, we will be held accountable for not performing our duties.

God bless the men who we have placed in leadership positions in this church through common consent. I sustain the fifteen men who lead this church as prophets, seers and revelators. Joseph Smith was and is a prophet of God. He translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. I sustain the local authorities I work with and pray for them every morning and night. God bless us to come unto Christ.

An Open Invitation to the Brethren

Yes, these words are directed at the men who lead this church. I am asking you to do your duty. If you have been in the presence of Christ, the only way you can help stem the tide of young people leaving this church in droves is to bear witness of Christ. Testify you have seen Him. If you haven’t, call mightily unto Him until he comes unto you. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. He works this way.

I know it is considered bad form to counsel those who preside over you. I am sorry if this offends you. I can only do what the Lord has asked of me. I know my words may get me cast off. You are welcome to exercise control and compulsion and domination over me by virtue of your priesthood but you know the results. Amen to the priesthood of the man who does not use kindness, long-suffering and persuasion.

And please stop perpetuating the myth that those who are excommunicated will lose their souls or at least their exaltation. This is false doctrine. You cannot remove a man’s priesthood and you know it. Power in the higher priesthood comes from God, not from man. I have associated with enough of my friends whom you have cast off to know they are happy, they love the Lord and are trying to please Him.

Amen to the Priesthood of that Man

Read the appeal letter carefully: http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013/11/appeal-letter.html. Notice the use of the words, control, compulsion, dominion and Amen. I know all appeal letters are supposed to be read by the members of the First Presidency. I suspect they are not, but are simply delegated to the bureaucracy. If that happened in Denver’s case, I have to wonder whose priesthood was really lost.

155 Responses

  1. Tim I have enjoyed so much your blog. I’m still in Guatemala serving in the temple. I wish I could have come to Denver’s lectures and enjoyed the friendship of the people seeking the same thing which he speaks about The Second Comforter. It has been wonderful reading these lectures on line and learning so much and also your comments have helped me a great deal. Thanks so much. Gary Barlow

    Sent from my iPad

    >

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Beautiful, Tim. I hope if you and Carol attend Phoenix that I can join whatever gathering may take place. What a beautiful experience that must have been. Grateful to receive your report this morning.

    Liked by 1 person

    • We will be in Mesa for the last lecture. Gives me a good excuse to visit my sister who comes to see us in California much more often than we go to visit her in Arizona.

      Like

  3. All in favor, say AYE. AYE.

    Like

  4. I was mortified to see my name mentioned above! I am so unworthy of the honor, Tim, believe me. (My wife and children will attest!)

    I got home very late last night after visiting with friends after attending Snuffer’s talks in Las Vegas and St. George. I was looking forward to apologizing this morning to Tim, Tony, Joe and their families for taking so much of their time Saturday night talking about my experiences! (It’s not polite to dominate the conversation at the dinner table and I surely did! My sincerest apologies to you all!)

    But it felt so good to bear witness of Christ and to acknowledge His power and glory and goodness to me and my family! It felt so good to bear witness of His work and His ministry, even if I am largely a failure! (I wish I had been able to bear that testimony in Church! Or to be a better example and witness of Him during my life!) But I am just a man, with all the weaknesses, frailties and foibles thereof. I’m afraid my enthusiasm for Christ (like that of Ammon) carried me away Saturday night.

    However we need more people willing to “take chances”, to “follow the Spirit” and to become “a fool for Christ’s sake”, even if we make mistakes. Little children make mistakes. That’s because they’re always trying! They want to know! They’re always opening doors, asking questions, getting into things.

    The Lord loves little children.

    The Lord will always bear him up who seeks to do His will, but who nonetheless fails and falls because of his own human weakness. That does not mean the Lord won’t correct or chasten! (Oh, He will! Perhaps even more so! But that’s only because He loves us who serve Him and who seek to honor Him.) But with His reproof, He provides an increase of love. He keeps His own word. (See D&C 121:43-44.) I know that much.

    My voice is not needed here. Tim has said it all (and better than I could say it).

    There is no “cult” of “Snufferites”. We are men and women, mostly, who love the Lord Jesus Christ; who seek Him and strive to serve Him; who are driven to our knees before Him in heartfelt, tearful prayer because of the message Denver Snuffer has borne; who yearn to repent and be cleansed of all our sins by the blood of Christ. We recognize our own utter and complete unworthiness and humbly, regretfully acknowledge, too, the failures of our Church. Yet, strangely, we feel buoyed up and inspired by Snuffer’s message of hope that the Lord has not cast us off forever and that we can come back into His presence if we seek Him with all our hearts and cry unto Him. We are reawakened to the scriptures. We “hear” His “voice”. He is calling us. We are not fanatics, seeking spiritual manifestations or signs, but simply wannabe saints who want to repent, to be made whole and clean again, and to come unto our Savior. We regard not the man nor the messenger, but rather the message, even the Word of Life.

    Denver is inspired of God, perhaps more than any living man I have known. There is a clarity and conviction that comes from entering the Lord’s presence, from receiving the word directly from His lips, and Denver demonstrates that clarity and conviction. One, like Denver, who knows by personal experience does not speak as the scribes and pharisees do.

    Scribes and pharisees quote men. Prophets quote the Lord.

    There is no substitute for saving knowledge, gained by experience. “Book learning” will only get you so far. You must KNOW THE LORD…or unavoidably perish. And when you know the Lord, you will do His will.

    Because you love Him. Because you know Him.

    It’s that simple.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Will, I would have enjoyed meeting you. I ask Tim to point you out but apparently you had not entered the room yet.

      I too confirm what you have said… “We are not fanatics, seeking spiritual manifestations or signs, but simply wannabe saints who want to repent, to be made whole and clean again, and to come unto our Savior. We regard not the man nor the messenger, but rather the message, even the Word of Life”

      Thank you for your testimony

      Liked by 2 people

      • Kathryn,

        I saw you (walking away, on the far side of the room!) and went after you (but you disappeared!). Alas! Maybe I’ll have better luck next time.

        Liked by 1 person

    • I’m sad I didn’t manage to find someone who could point you out to me, Will. I would have liked to shake your hand.

      Keep testifying. This world needs all the witnesses it can get. The words you use are your own, and will speak to some hearts differently than Tim’s will, or anyone else’s.

      (Your comment would make a great blog post, hint, hint.) ;)

      Liked by 1 person

  5. “I know it is considered bad form to counsel those who preside over you”

    Not only is it bad form, but it is contrary to the order of heaven:

    D&C 28:6 And thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church

    How do you suppose you can achieve your goal of entering and abiding in celestial glory if you cannot likewise abide the celestial law?

    Do you believe it is a righteous or wicked spirit that drives you to break this law of the Kingdom – taking it upon yourself to instruct those who hold a stewardship you do not, above your own, on what constitutes true and false doctrine and what is the best course of action to govern the Kingdom?

    Paul and Christ among a wicked and degenerate kingdom still obeyed this law, are you and Denver greater than they?

    Yes, the fruits of spending even more time with Denver are evident and clear. It’s a sorry thing to witness, but to borrow from my analogy in your last post’s comment section, perhaps you need to go to Canada to realize what you had in Egypt and get to your desired final destination. I hope it is something like this and not an unnecessary fall. I remain optimistic, my best wishes to you in your chosen path.

    Liked by 1 person

    • When the Savior lived on earth he counseled the church leaders all the time, and He was NOT considered one in the ranks. The leaders of the church in His time did not recognize him as an authority of anything, were not teaching correct doctrine, and were not even in the spirit of considering what Christ said to be true.

      Now, I’m not comparing Tim to the Savior in any way, but men are men. Men make mistakes. ANY man can be led astray if he doesn’t follow the spirit. I am sure you will argue that this is the path Tim has gone down, but I am one who will stand up and say that he has not.

      I have felt the spirit more powerfully in my life since studying DS’s books. He is not perfect by a long shot. He’s only telling us that we can have a relationship with the Lord if we work for it. That is what Tim did. I would NOT be surprised to read here one day that it has also happened for Tim. Seek and ye shall find. Knock, and it will be opened unto you. Why do people doubt that promise????

      Anyway, good luck to you on your path.

      Liked by 1 person

    • SteveF,

      I am reminded of Paul “counseling” Peter (who was in error about circumcision); of Jethro “counseling” Moses (who was naive about filling the judgment seat); of an “angel” “strengthening” the Lord. (I know when I have been sick or in sorest need, my mother has been by my side. I wonder who came to comfort Jesus.)

      You speak of “taking it upon yourself to instruct those who hold a stewardship you do not, above your own, on what constitutes true and false doctrine and what is the best course of action to govern the Kingdom?”

      Are you not aware of the controversies, contentions and disputes that have rent the Church and Kingdom from the beginning of the restoration? Just for starters, are you not aware that Brigham Young (as prophet) taught from the pulpit in General Conference at least five “false” doctrines as “gospel truth” that have since been repudiated and rejected as “false”, without doctrinal foundation, etc.? Or that Orson Pratt (his “inferior”) “called” him on many of those false doctrines — and that Orson’s views, not Brigham’s, are now the acknowledge and accepted “doctrines” of the Church?

      Neither Denver nor Tim tell “the Brethren” what to do with regard to the LDS Church or its teachings. But the Spirit is speaking. The LDS Church is an affair unto itself, once organized by the light of men, inspired by the light of heaven and approved by God Himself. Neither Snuffer nor Malone seek any say or authority in that Church or over others, nor is Snuffer or Malone’s “counsel” requested or respected by those in charge. Even so, for those seeking for “motes” and “beams” to remove, sufficient is the day unto the evil thereof (in our own eyes).

      Nevertheless, Tim’s “counsel” is correct. Do the Brethren preach of coming unto Christ in the flesh? How closely do their testimonies mirror those of Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Alma, Amulek, Mormon, Mahonri, or Moroni? Are their experiences really more sacred than those of the prophets of old who testified boldly and in public of their witness of Him? Who among those (among us) has stood in the Divine Council and has received the word of the Lord from His lips (as did they)? Are the experiences of “the Brethren” really “too sacred” to relate to us?

      I doubt it.

      What are the “fruits” of “following” Denver Snuffer? For many, it is greater faith in Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith, and the Book of Mormon (whether one is in or out of the Church).

      How can that be a bad thing?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Good Will & Eric,

        I felt your comments were similar enough that I’d respond just once. Yes, I do feel I see a big difference in the examples you have given, whether a difference in position/authority or in the way the “counseling” is being offered.

        Without authority/keys/stewardship, where then comes the right to publicly and definitively declare a doctrine false that is taught by those who do have authority/keys/stewardship?

        Without authority/keys/stewardship, where comes the right to publicly and definitively declare how the Kingdom ought to be operated?

        Declarations that claim definitively one way is right and the other way is wrong may just as well be commands, because you are declaring the other person wrong before God if they do not follow your “counsel”; it’s effectively drawing the line in the sand. In my mind, true and righteous counsel and admonition can surely be given, and it is that which advises but then allows the ultimate authority to determine the rightness or wrongness of the admonition. This preserves order and unity. It looks more like a kingdom and less like a democracy.

        Liked by 1 person

      • …and yes Good Will (to answer the question I missed) I am and have been aware of for a very long time all the supposed sticky issues of our history. I wish you were in Utah, and we could sit down face to face, I feel we could have a productive conversation.

        I don’t purport to know all things, so I don’t wish to make final judgement in any one situation. If Denver has been / is helpful to you, then I leave that up to you to determine. There are many stages of progression and they’re not all right for everyone; eventually all roads lead through the kingdom of God on earth to the kingdom of God in heaven.

        All the best in your journey.

        Liked by 1 person

    • @SteveF You can’t see a difference between the to quotes you have referenced? Tim offered counsel…DC 28:6 says not to command…
      There is quite a difference. Now if you can reference scripture that says the lesser shall not to counsel the greater, or something to that effect, then you have something. Perhaps you would prefer Tim had used the word Admonish

      Speaking to Oliver about Joseph:

      DC 6:19 Admonish him in his faults, and also receive admonition of him. Be patient; be sober; be temperate; have patience, faith, hope and charity.

      I can see the above attributes in Tim’s post.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ezekiel 34:
      1 And the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
      2 Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?
      3 Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock.
      4 The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them.
      5 And they were scattered, because there is no shepherd: and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were scattered.
      6 My sheep wandered through all the mountains, and upon every high hill: yea, my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them.
      7 ¶Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord;
      8 As I live, saith the Lord God, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock;
      9 Therefore, O ye shepherds, hear the word of the Lord;
      10 Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.
      11 ¶For thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out.

      Ezekiel called the leadership to repentance, under the direction of the Lord. He did not command them, he instructed and warned them. Tim has done the same, there is no commandment in his words, only instruction and invitation. The difference between the two is simple and clear. Misapplying scripture to judge our fellow man is unwise.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I don’t know how much more commanding it can get than “thus saith the Lord”.

        So in my mind, I do see Ezekiel commanding, and I believe he had authority/keys/stewardship to do so.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I think we’ve mangled the understanding of keys/authority/stewardship in the Mormonite traditions of our fathers. In the model you seem to propose, there is not left any room for some of our scriptures:

        D&C 42
        91 And if any one [no mention of chain of command, hierarchy, stewardship] offend openly, he or she shall be rebuked openly, that he or she may be ashamed. And if he or she confess not, he or she shall be delivered up unto the law of God.
        93 And thus shall ye conduct in all things.

        It would appear that people complaining and noting openly the openly embraced and taught errors of leadership is following the counsel of scripture, even if in opposition to the Handbook. Because complaints in search of change are the absolute right of the victim in the Lord’s eyes, and if the argument against the complaint is that the victim lacks “keys” to honestly describe the nature of the offense, well I suppose abused wives and other such victims need to keep their mouths shut too, due to lack of stewardship over their oppressors. Because the parallel is truly the same, sadly perhaps to a lesser degree even, rather than greater. The complaints are against things that damage souls, not just bodies. And they are not an effort by people to command anyone, and don’t fit the ever misused “steadying the ark”. The complaints do not say the leaders have relinquished the keys to the complainers, and that they must now do as the complainer says or their church membership is in jeopardy. That would perhaps be steadying the ark. This is instead calling out to the ark bearers and saying “heads up guys, it’s tipping, YOU may wanna adjust that.”. The Lord not only allows but endorses this type of behavior in our scriptures.

        D&C 107
        82 And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;
        83 And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him.
        84 Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness.

        So the President of the Church is subject to the judgments of those with “less” stewardship/keys of the kingdom? So all are accountable not only to God but our fellow men? Interesting. Its almost as if the Lord anticipated the potential abuse and misunderstanding of authority, and wanted to prevent any sort of tyrannical consolidation from occurring.

        Stewardship and keys have their place, but they were never intended to make the church run like the military, or a business, or any other corrupt Gentile institution. David O. McKay (and earlier leaders) spoke rather strongly against us doing this, but we did it anyway, and now the consequences stare us in the face. Keys and stewardships and the like were intended to prevent what they now, in many ways, are used to justify.

        Liked by 2 people

      • @SteveF

        I agree with most of this. However:

        “for which we would be obliged to look to them as Israel looked to Moses,”

        As I’m sure you are aware, former day Israel rejected, as well as latter day Israel rejects, ascending the mount to converse with God themselves but would rather have the prophet speak to God for them. Joseph, himself even spoke against dependence upon the Prophet. And Remember…Moses would to God that all his people were prophets. God spoke to Joseph from heaven and “gave him commandments; and also GAVE COMMANDMENTS TO OTHERS, that they should proclaim these things unto the world…that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh, but that EVERY MAN might speak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world.” (Sorry about the caps, they are for emphasis, not yelling)

        This is the premiss of Tim’s and DS blogs…ascend the holy Mount and come and see and feel for yourselves. Do not depend upon any man for your salvation and exaltation.

        That people believe DS to be a prophet doesn’t bother me. (The jury is still out on that, for me) I like his message. I think it was -Good Will- who said he was not going to hear a man speak. He was going to hear if God spoke through this man

        At the risk of redundancy…Tim says he (Tim) is doing the Lords will. You think he is on the road to apostasy. You both believe you’re inspired. You both can’t be right. And if Tim is Right. What the Lord wants him to do supersedes anything he is told to do otherwise by those over him. It is the same for anyone who will receive it.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Agreed – that we should all be doing what we can to make the individual ascent up the mount.

          I don’t think we were/are like wicked Israel in terms of rejection of the opportunity since we have not had the Melchizedek priesthood taken from us, neither the ordinances of the Melchizedek priesthood (endowment, etc.) that open the gate to power in the Priesthood to make that ascent possible.

          I also agree with you that people should follow what they believe the Lord is revealing to them, with caution and care, yes, but I definitely agree each person must ultimately follow what they feel God is revealing to them.

          Liked by 1 person

      • @SteveF,
        that was supposed to go under your july 29, 2014, @ 3:57 pm post
        sorry about that.

        Like

    • [If] any member in the Church that has not the Priesthood, should see one doing wrong that had the Priesthood and he should correct him in the spirit of meekness and humility and the man having the Priesthood should rise up in anger and say, “Oh you have no business to correct me, I have the Priesthood and am a great man.” “Well” says the other, “I feel to warn you against evil, but we will wait and see how it will come out.” Which is the most justified? The man without the Priesthood!” (The Teachings of President Brigham Young, vol. 3, 1852-1854, p. 227)

      Like

      • It’s a good quote, I see what you’re getting at. Even still, the way I would interpret a spirit of meekness and humility would be along the lines of the comment I made to Good Will & Eric above.

        I don’t think a spirit of meekness and humility is compatible with publicly and definitively declaring that the doctrines and/or methods of those who hold stewardship/keys as out of the way, while declaring the alternative you purpose as the true and righteous path.

        In my opinion, this post was the first time I saw you cross the line in manifesting the spirit and sign of being on the high the road to apostasy. I do not have stewardship over you, and so don’t wish to make any final declaration, but from my vantage point I believe unless you repent you will apostatize as God lives. At the same time, should that really be a surprise when in this same post you seem to already be coming to terms with the likelihood of excommunication for these things, almost as if you asking for it? And instead of looking inwardly you have already begun justifying your path by pre-blaming others for unrighteous dominion if it comes to that.

        But as you haven’t been able to see these same things in Denver, I would guess it would be doubly as difficult to detect in yourself. There is probably nothing I can say at this point that would persuade you from your chosen path, so again I hope it will all work for your good in the end. I do have a couple other clarifying questions on this post I’d like to ask you at some point.

        Liked by 1 person

      • *propose (not purpose)

        Like

      • But Brigham was a fallen prophet or not a real prophet according to Denver, and his ilk. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either the church has gone astray and all the keys and authority are lost or they are right and you are the ones falling away. Choose ye this day whom you will serve, as for me I serve the Lord and the path that has the means for redemption and exaltation.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Not true. You can have cake and eat it too. How many times has Israel screwed up? How many times did they miss the boat? Can we even count that high? And yet the Lord continued to try to gather Israel in like a mother hen with her chicks.

          It’s the same now. We are the Lord’s church. We do have the Book of Mormon. There is priesthood authority. How much? Not sure. I guess we’ll find out when Christ comes back and restores whatever we are missing.

          Does he talk to the apostles face to face like he did with Joseph Smith? If so, I really wish they’d testify to us about it. That was Joseph’s whole platform! That God lives! That he had seen him. How I wish our church leaders would do that for us! How I yearn to have someone, anyone prophesy like Joseph did!

          And… unlike some people I know, I don’t have a problem with angels or the Savior himself, appearing to normal, everyday people. I believe he does do this still, and I don’t believe it’s only to Latter Day Saints.

          Liked by 1 person

      • @SteveF,
        “I would interpret”, “I don’t think”, “In my opinion”, “I believe”, “I would guess”

        When it comes down to brass tax, in a context such as this, our personal perspective really doesn’t matter all that much, does it?
        What matters is our own individual journey, don’t you think? Perhaps you feel inspired to warn him. Quite the conundrum if that is the case. Yet isn’t that what we see throughout church history; former and latter brethren/leaders claiming the same Spirit of inspiration and yet the latter are denouncing many of the former’s teachings. So who is right?
        Are you right, SteveF or is Tim? Both of you can’t be.

        Tim testifies that the path he’s on is according to the will of the Lord. This most recent post and specifically his “counsel” to those who are over him, he said the has Lord asked him to say. You feel the need to persuade him off his path. Who is right?

        I wonder if we Mormons have regressed to the same state as the christian sects of Joseph’s day in that “[we] teachers/leaders/brethren of religion of the different [Stakes and Wards] understand the same passage of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the [Standard works]“.

        But then again, in a context such as this, what I wonder really doesn’t matter does it. Some reader on here will inevitably find something wrong with this reply. And some may agree. Who is right?

        You know what…I think you get the picture.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Yes, exactly EricDL. I think that’s one of the primary conundrums the restoration solves, with so many opinions in the public sphere who is right?

          The answer is God sets apart authorities with the keys of the kingdom to authoritatively declare and interpret the truth, and the church can consent to have that be the binding accepted truth for that time. Then it is up to all individuals to obtain personal revelation that these authorities do indeed hold authority from God, for which we would be obliged to look to them as Israel looked to Moses, and to further test their words to discover through personal revelation what we accept and believe privately. Of course, since all revelation is a best approximation of truth according to the level we have advanced privately and collectively, hence the need for living authorities to continue this process as great and many truths continue to be revealed as the kingdom of God continues to roll forth rooting out bad branches and grafting in good ones.

          Without authority, there is only a war of words and general chaos – unity will inevitably fail, but since we have the keys/authority from God, and living prophets who hold them, I do not believe we have yet or will fall into the state of general Christianity.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Dear brother SteveF, in sincerity I ask you, was Abinadi following that “celestial law” as you put it? Was Samuel the Lamanite? Was Lehi? Was Paul (who by the way, came to know his Lord before he had met the Apostles), was Moses? The scriptures are full of examples of the Lord calling prophets outside of the established order and hierarchy of the “church” when that order has become corrupted. When one receives an errand from the Lord, he must do as the Lord directs or be condemned. It is incumbent upon the hearer to seek the Spirit to know if that person is a true messenger and not simply to cast the messenger out because of unbelief. By the way, if the “head of the church” is never to be counseled, questioned, criticized, reprimanded (sounds a lot like a pope more than a president of the church), then why is there provision in the D&C for the President to by tried by a body of the priesthood? The Lord has an established order for his kingdom, and part of that order is, when those who lead his people err, he calls servants to go down into the vineyard (often from outside the vineyard) to dig about the trees, to prune the trees and try to preserve the good fruit for the Lord. If we have eyes to see and ears to hear, then we understand. If our necks are stiff then we cannot see nor hear.

      Like

      • @ SteveF, in response to “The answer is God sets apart authorities with the keys of the kingdom to authoritatively declare and interpret the truth, and the church can consent to have that be the binding accepted truth for that time.”

        It is our tradition (though demonstrably not scriptural doctrine) that the great High Priest who hold all of the keys over the House of Israel will never be permitted to lead the Church astray–this was said by Wilford Woodruff in the wake of the 1890 manifesto and we are left to judge by the Spirit whether he made that statement by the Spirit and in accordance with the Lord’s revealed word and pattern. This tradition is what underpins your above statement. Therefore in the Church today we have a pervasively false doctrine that we bandy about to our peril and it is basically the same as the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope. This statement by Wilford Woodruff has no scriptural authority, has never been established as actual doctrine and defies common sense and reason. It defies agency (on the part of the person chosen to lead Israel) it defies the order of heaven. If that were true today, should that not also have been true of ancient Israel, and also of the Nephites who also had their High Priests whom we should agree led the people astray? So your point at its root is flawed because your point presumes that the “authorities” cannot err as they declare doctrine, interpret the truth, etc. As has been pointed out above, how many times do we need to point out about the a modern “prophet” declaring the “revealed truths” of a former “prophet” to be false? Bruce R. McConkie and Brigham Young can’t both be right–unless of course they were both wrong. Steve, until you acknowledge that your premise is built upon the false doctrine of ‘infallibility’ then there likely can be no reconciliation here between those who believe that Lord can call prophets out of “stones” on the side of the road if He chooses, and those who believe that nothing with occur by the Lord’s hand unless it comes through the chain of command. This I offer in humility and with love and concern for the welfare of your soul as you are concerned for Tim’s.

        Like

        • Sounds more like a response to Wilford Woodruff than to me. I’m not sure why you ascribe a position to me that I never made.

          Like

      • I’ll take you at your word that your questioning is sincere. Yes, I believe they were following (or at least doing their best to follow) the celestial law. I don’t see evidence that the people you listed were sent to call to repentance or command those most likely at their head, Abinadi was not sent to Benjamin, Samuel was not sent to command Nephi what to do, Lehi did not call Jeremiah to repentance, Moses was called to be the head of his day/time, and Paul showed his knowledge of this principle when he discovered the position of the High Priest, and in his position of authority he worked with and next to Peter (where perhaps in the heat of some moments, Paul did overstep his bounds a couple of times, for which I do not doubt reconciliation was eventual made).

        The order and organization of the kingdom in these times and places are not clearly outlined, but I am confident all these prophets held proper authority and keys, and I see no evidence that they went out of bounds of their respective stewardships.

        I don’t recall suggesting the President of the Church should not be “questioned” in the proper time and place. As you rightly point out, the President of the Church is liable to be brought before a disciplinary council, where this designated council has authority if they see fit to remove the President from his position. All done in order and according to the permissible actions of the stewardships of each priesthood holder involved.

        Like

  6. I’m really confused. What do you mean by sustaining leaders? I find it hard to reconcile your statements in this post with sustaining your leaders. Maybe I just have a different definition.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Nonrandom set: I didn’t see any response to your question. Not sure it was directed at me, but I’d like to answer. Sustaining is a) a vote as part of common consent, authorizing or accepting them in the leadership role in this church. It is also b) striving to support and help them in the direction they provide for the church. In other words, helping to get the Book of Mormon into all the corners of the world and providing the funds to do so. Bottom line definition for me as far as what it means to sustain: Pay tithing and pray for the Brethren. but it’s late and I’m tired. I’d enjoy reading your definition if you care to share it.

      Like

      • I’ve always liked what Brigham Young said to those in Kirtland complaining about Joseph Smith:

        “I rose up, and in a plain and forcible manner told them that Joseph was a Prophet and I knew it, and that they might rail and slander him as much as they pleased, [but] they could not destroy the appointment of the Prophet of God; they could only destroy their own authority, cut the thread that bound them to the Prophet and to God, and sink themselves to hell. Many were highly enraged at my decided opposition to their measures. …

        “This meeting was broken up without the apostates being able to unite on any decided measures of opposition. This was a crisis when earth and hell seemed leagued to overthrow the Prophet and Church of God. The knees of many of the strongest men in the Church faltered. During this siege of darkness I stood close by Joseph, and with all the wisdom and power God bestowed upon me, put forth my utmost energies to sustain the servant of God and unite the quorums of the Church.”

        I guess to me supporting our leaders means much more than paying tithing and praying for them (not that I’m discounting those things). I just think about how I hope others would support me in my various callings – and it would mean being patient with me, listening to my counsel, forgiving me my mistakes, loving me, and yes, praying for me.

        Perhaps I am misinterpreting, but when I read this post, all I come away with is various ways the leaders are doing it wrong: warnings against being anti-christ, admonishment to teach true doctrine, speculation about motives, claims (unsubstantiated) about them delegating their duties to the bureaucracy, etc. If that is sustaining, then I hope no one ever sustains me!

        Liked by 1 person

    • @ Nonrandom Set, are you familiar with the context of Tim’s “warnings against being anti-christ, admonishment to teach true doctrine, speculation about motives, claims (unsubstantiated) about them delegating their duties to the bureaucracy, etc”, and why he is speaking so forcefully?

      Like

  7. Well Tim, look at all the rules and regulations you broke or fractured over the weekend, including the Word of Wisdom!

    All I can say is, “When are you going to start your 10 talk tour?” :)

    For this to gain momentum, more witnesses are needed. Looks like your in line. Maybe ya’ll could come to Texas (during the winter would be better) and share some barbecue with us!

    Liked by 1 person

    • He didn’t break the Word of Wisdom, he said they used grape juice. Even if they would have used new wine, they still wouldn’t have broken the Word of Wisdom, they would have been keeping and honoring it.

      5 That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.

      6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.

      (D&C 89:5-6)

      Liked by 1 person

  8. I am so jealous, Tim! I SO wish I could have been there to dine with you all. I wanted to be to the St. George meeting so much, but could not swing it. (Won’t go into the whys) Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your courage. You are SO courageous! I still struggle to say what I feel. I feel like I’m the pariah in RS already with my “radical” views. LOL It’s gotten to the point where I told the Savior if he wants me to say something, he better make it really obvious because I’d prefer not to keep causing waves! At the same time, I have a responsibility to share my feelings on some topics. Sigh… You give me courage! You are a great example of plowing through rocky soil. Keep up the good work!

    Liked by 1 person

    • mjcunningham, I’m beginning to believe, that though our numbers are few, there are many of us out here that feel like you. You’re definitely not alone.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Thank you for your witness of the work and the word. Thank you for sharing your heart and thoughts, honestly and humbly. Sounds like you had some beautiful and sacred moments that have strengthened and nourished you. These are such very interesting times to live in, interesting and frightening yet also so exciting and joyful. Times that will try all of our hearts to see Who’s Side we are really on. God bless you and Carol, Tim.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. There are multiple occasions in the BofM of Prophets preaching above and beyond just the leaders of the Church. This book was written for our day. I fear that too many people will sleep through this because we have a living Prophet. Samuel came preaching while Nephi was the Prophet. Lehi and other Prophets were preaching. There was Alma and others. What makes us so special that it would not happen the same in our day? Who are we to put boundaries on what our Lord can do? Isn’t he the same yesterday, today, and forever? Is this part of why the condemnation has not been lifted from the Church? Is this part of how we are taking the BofM lightly? How many times will the staff be raised and all we have to do is look? I am a man that is lower than the dust, but I am honestly seeking for Truth wherever I can find it. No one can honestly tell me that the people in the Church ( myself included ) are not swallowed up in Pride, do not help the poor, idol worship, the list can go on. Obviously, there comes a time when the leaders need a little outside help to stir us up to remember our Lord. I may be talking out of my rear, but at least I am being honest and not afraid to think these things. The Lord will never fault us for seeking more knowledge.

    Tim… I appreciate your journey and if we all happen to be wrong, well at least we tried.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. Tim, thank you for this post! It was very nice to meet you this past weekend, in front of you in line both times :). I feel the same as you do about the message Denver is giving. I consider it a miraculous blessing to have happened upon his first book a few years ago. I bought it, since the Second Comforter had been a subject about which I had read everything I could find, which was not much. It was pure light and truth to me, as have been the rest of his messages since. I can testify that the message Denver gives is the words of the Savior. The fruits have been wonderful in my life. I am closer to the Savior by far, and my desire to search and study the scriptures is much stronger, as well as my ability to understand them. The message Denver delivers is a vital message, and it breaks my heart that so many refuse to listen to it, either because they don’t like the messenger for whatever reason, or because they think they are fine where they are, that “all is well.”

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Tim

    It looks like the week-end was an edifying experience. It was so nice to meet you and Carol. I hope she enjoyed it as well…. she has been so reluctant about Denver in the past. When I spoke with her she said she cannot read your blog… and we both laughed.

    I was not able to attend in Vegas but I loved my experience in St.George. It was a last minute decision to attend and I am glad I did. I have read so much of Denver’s material but I wanted to hear his words in person. It gave me a better idea of his spirit and energy. As usual, the message was wonderful and I left with a feeling of calmness.

    I’m looking forward to reading his Vegas message to tie the weekend together.

    Does anyone know what the theme is for Phoenix? I hope I can arrange my work schedule so I can attend.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Thank you, Brother Malone. Your words were what the Lord wanted me to hear today. My soul was filled with a warm peace as I read every word aloud for angels to hear. As I read your open invitation to the brethren I grew very emotional. I love this church. I love the people. I have been so blessed to be a member of the Lord’s church. It is sobering to realize the day may come when I could lose my membership. On the other hand, I will joyfully do anything the Lord requires of me to enter again into His presence….and whatever work He may assign me in the days ahead. I have great appreciation for Carol. She is a woman of faith and I am grateful she has stayed by your side on this difficult journey. I will continue to pray for the servants the Lord is raising up to help us. With sincere appreciation, Rebecca

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Thank you Tim for your testimony. We were there too in LV and St Geo. Wish I could have met you and shook your hand, but alas, in the crowd of HUNDREDS of hungry faithful seekers of truth, I did not see you. Your testimony rings so true to those who have taken the Holy Spirit as their guide. I am sorry for those who continue to find fault with your words, and the words of Denver and others who continue to bear testimony of CHRIST. How can people find fault with their brothers who are bearing testimony of the Savior? People, stop fearing and open your eyes and ears! Thank you Tim and Will and Denver.
    JR

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Brother Tim,
    It was good to finally shake your hand and offer a word of thanks and encouragement at Vegas. While DW & I were at StGeo also, we didn’t have the opportunity to attend the “extra-curricular events”. I wish we had.

    We have read your blog for some time, and so much appreciate the simple and humble words of truth you offer. It was through you we were inspired to visit with Mel and Gwena Fish, a more loving and Christ-like couple could hardly be found! Why is it that so many good and humble people, who read the Scriptures and are hungry for a closer relationship with our Savior that all the Scriptures advocate, have to find it in the by-ways, and not in the institutional church — and are increasingly ex’ed for their troubles if they do!

    Ah, these are sad times in so many respects! But there are bright rays of light to be found if one seriously seeks. Denver is certainly one, you are another, and Rock too. Not to forget the humble testimony of GoodWill, who was so seriously abused for loving the Lord.

    As Denver mentioned, and as we ourselves have considered, it may well be sad times ahead too for those of our leaders who seem to have completely forgotten the most serious warnings in D&C 121 against unrighteous dominion! Who among us can honestly now or in the future raise our hand to sustain those placed above us who have apparently lost their priesthood for unrighteous dominion against those who would righteously seek the face of the Lord!

    I try hard to be humble myself and not to judge, but it is with increasing difficulty to avoid the latter. The Lord knows the hearts of all of us, and will Himself do all the necessary righteous judgment. But I cannot avoid fearing for those at any level with stiff necks of brass who do not repent!

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Thank you Tim for your faith and your testimony. I too have had a witness that he is a true messenger and I too pray for the 15 and my local leaders everyday. I pray that they may be strengthened and inspired and that they might have their eyes opened even as William Tyndale prayed that the king of England eyes might be as he was being martyred . I hope for and will pray for the same blessing for your Stake President.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. IF, you’re insecure in your testimony of the restoration, and or, full of pride, the messages delivered this last week in Henderson and St. George are not for you.
    IF, you regard a “knowledge” of the Savior above all else, and look to strengthen your testimony of the restoration and willing to subdue your pride, the message delivered in Henderson and St. George IS for you!
    I have been seeking further light and knowledge for years and trying to do all things the Lord would have me do, but today I awoke with fear and trembling for my salvation. I’m determined to do all possible to succeed and feel I have received in these messages parts to MY puzzle that I lacked in seeking that knowledge!

    Liked by 3 people

  18. I know this Joseph Smith quote has been left in the comments of other posts, but I think it bears repeating: “I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • Then let us be certain to not condemn others, especially the leaders of the church we love. I have no desire to find fault with the church, not do I believe the church is out of the way, but is fulfilling the mission for which it was established – to declare the message of the restored gospel, providing the proof of that restoration in the Book of Mormon. I have heard Snuffer call himself a fool many times. He continuously points us toward the Savior, just as the fifteen men we sustain as the leaders of this church should do and for the most part, I believe they do.

      But let us also remember the difference between apostasy and heresy. Those who leave of their own free will are indeed apostates. They have separated themselves from the church. while heresy, on the other hand, is disagreeing with the official interpretation of the scriptures and of the doctrines as interpreted by the Brethren, which has changed from generations to generation. God bless us as a people to forgive the foibles of men. We are all sinners and come short of the glory of God. Let us seek after Christ and lead and encourage others to do the same.

      Liked by 1 person

      • In that quote, Joseph didn’t make any distinction about leaving the church on one’s own. Perhaps that is the ultimate sign of apostasy, but I believe it’s possible to be on the road to apostasy far before that. I think anyone we begin to think in our hearts that we know better than the leaders of the church, we start on that road. I have certainly been guilty of that – luckily I caught myself and repented.

        I guess we also have different definitions of fault-finding, because as I said in a previous comment, all I come away with from this post is various ways the leaders are doing it wrong: warnings against being anti-christ, admonishment to teach true doctrine, speculation about motives, claims (unsubstantiated) about them delegating their duties to the bureaucracy, etc. If that is sustaining, then I hope no one ever sustains me!

        Liked by 1 person

    • Ironically, this powerful quote has been long misunderstood. When this was spoken, it was directed towards the leaders of the church, (I believe specifically attending the school of the prophets, but I may be incorrect on that point). The “church” was then the body of saints, not the “Church” as in the administration/leadership as we interpret it today. Therefore, if those attending – then considered leaders – were to “rise up” to “condemn” others, saying they are in the way, righteous, while others are out of the way, know *that man* is in the high road to apostasy.

      It puts a new spin on it, knowing context. For your viewing pleasure… :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kjnasl1Kyuo :)

      Liked by 2 people

      • I believe it’s a general principle, applicable to all of us. And in fact, in the same discourse, Joseph addresses both apostles and saints. That doesn’t really change the context for me.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I really enjoy what Good Will had to re-share on his blog a few weeks back on this very topic. http://in200wordsorless.blogspot.com/2014/07/upon-this-rock-i-will-build-my-church.html

        Let us soften our hearts and lose all fear.

        Liked by 1 person

        • I find that whenever I start to excuse myself or start to think that some particular thing doesn’t apply to me, that is when I most need that counsel. I’m learning (slowly) to always reflect back on myself when I have critical thoughts of others.

          The quote is so powerful to me because Joseph says it is one of the keys of the mysteries and an eternal principle. It seems like it has very broad applicability to all of us.

          Liked by 1 person

      • An important thing to remember is that this quote specifies that the one condemning also has to claim s/he is “righteous”. That is a rare instance, indeed, with Tim and Denver, and others along those lines. It’s usually, “I know I’m not anyone special, and I make all kinds of mistakes. But this one thing I know . . . ” Those who testify in this way often say “please don’t follow me, I’m nobody special,” and just want to point others to Christ.

        Additionally, those outside of the hierarchy who are testifying are NOT claiming to be righteous, nor are they “finding fault”. Finding fault means manufacturing problems with malicious intent. Those testifying currently are motivated by things like wanting to preach salvation through Jesus Christ, wanting others to realize they can receive the Baptism of Fire, receive their Lord in this life, and more. They want to bring to our remembrance the powerful and salvatory doctrines of the gospel, the first principles and truths, that were commonly spoken of and taught in the early church, and have been shut away in an attic corner for some unfathomable reason.

        It’s not reasonable to take one element of that Joseph Smith quote, eliminate all other requirements, and they apply it to those to whom it makes absolutely no reference.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Just to be clear, I didn’t apply it to anyone (but myself in subsequent comment). I would repeat, however, that whenever I find myself making excuses, rationalizing, thinking something doesn’t apply to me, or otherwise getting legalistic about commandments, etc., that is when I most need to repent and get my heart right. Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like that’s human nature. Just something to think about.

          I don’t think finding fault has to be with malicious intent. It is often with very good intentions, certainly in the mind of the one finding fault. And many of these voices are not simply preaching salvation and the second comforter, etc. They are specifically identifying shortcomings of the leaders of the church. I don’t know what to call that but fault finding.

          Liked by 1 person

  19. Good night all. Carol and I are driving to Salt Lake tomorrow to attend the Sunstone Symposium later this week. I have always wanted to go, but being a California boy, always thought it out of the question. I will not name the individual who made it possible but I am confident this will be a wonderful experience to consider the pertinent issues of the day with my dear wife at my side. Thank you my friend, thank you.

    Like

  20. By the way, did anyone catch the analogy of the sixteen small stones? It was related to Denver’s teaching that the Lord touched the stones while they were in the Brother of Jared’s hand. He felt the pressure each time but it was probably not until the sixteenth stone that he had sufficient faith to see within the veil.

    How many times have we felt the touch of the Lord upon us in slight, imperceptible ways until we have sufficient faith to see his finger and have him show himself unto us? We must continue to try, continue to cry mightily until we have the faith sufficient to part he veil and have the Lord reveal himself unto us. It can be done.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I caught it Tim. I would think some might wonder how a personage of spirit might effect a ‘pressure’ upon the stones… even though in this case we are talking about Jehovah. Personal experience with a personage of spirit has taught me that they indeed can be felt, though I can’t speak to more than that. I thought it was interesting.

      ~Rodney

      Liked by 1 person

      • (I got it…) but not because I was able to participate this past weekend. You said, “Was it on the first stone or did it take sixteen touches before he could see?”, You sometimes lead a thought and I was putting myself in TBoJ’s place,… wondering if I’d have the faith… and I thought of my life and how it took 52 years to be Born of Fire… so,… still working on ‘sufficient’ faith, but your visuals made it for me. Thanks.

        ~Rodney

        Liked by 1 person

  21. Thank you for your profound comments.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Tim, the WORD is good and Denver’s talks were moving as always. I saw you there but remained still and let you be. The Spirit moved me to allow you one less person interrupting your experience.

    I visited my new Bishop on Sunday. The wheels of the institution where already in motion before I walked into his office. He had my record on his desk and my SP and Bishop had called him.

    I briefly went through my story. There was no sympathy for me, my children, or my wife. He could not wait to blurt out “Do you sustain…as the only…for the whole church? I said “Yes, but like I said, I’m here because I believe there are many prophets in the land testifying of the living Christ and crying repentance, Has President Monson ever stated that there no other prophets in the land but himself?” Silence. I said “Bishop, there are prophets in the land preparing the way of the LORD. I will not cast them out or stone them.” He smiled and said “don’t start preaching, I don’t want to excommunicate you.” With that he stood patted me on back, walked me to the door professing his love for me.

    Welcome to the 3rd Ward.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I hope it was not pride and feigned love. What record did he have on his desk? Evidence? From where?

      Like

      • Not sure what paper it was. One page, printed text with lots of blue pen notes written on it. When he mentioned his contact with other priesthood leaders he moved it from plain view to a place under his leather executive folder. I must be on the “Do Not Recommend List”. Because I said I want to go to the temple, he smiled and changed the subject. I said again, “If you want to give me a recommend I will go the temple, if not I’ll go to the mountain to see the LORD.” He rocked back in the chair wringing his hands and nervously laughing “Heh Heh I guess you can…”

        The voice of the LORD tells me to be long suffering. Read Luke 6: 22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake.
        23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is
        great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.

        I proclaimed that I follow Christ only and not a man. I guess I should leap for joy when I am cast out. A fist pump and a “Heck Yeah!” might be misunderstood by “men”, so I smile, slip my scripture backpack on my back and pedal into the warm light of another beautiful Sabbath afternoon smiling and whistling the tune to “in Humility (My) Savior”…

        “Fill (my) heart with sweet forgiving,
        Teach (me) tolerance and Love.
        Let (my) prayers find access to thee
        in thy Holy Courts above.
        Then when (I) have proven worthy of thy sacrifice divine,
        Lord, Let (me) regain thy presence…
        Let thy Glory round (me) shine.”

        Peace brother Geoff. Thx. lb

        Liked by 1 person

    • Lynn, thank you for sharing the latest in your saga. I mentioned you to Denver in our dinner conversation Friday night. he said he is aware of you and many others in similar situations. Is there just something about Utah that some stakes are paranoid about Denver? I had an intelligent two-hour conversation with my Stake President, Bishop and Carol to consider the need to convene a council. We read from the handbook.

      We discussed the possibility of prophets from outside the hierarchy. In the end, all the SP said was, I see no apostasy here. Go back and work it out with your bishop to get your temple recommend back. And we are working it out. Your situation is so similar to that of Will Carter. Why can I write about Denver in my blog yet if a member talks about Denver in the halls of the church to his neighbor he is then subject to disciplinary action? I don’t get it.

      It can’t be because California is more tolerant because Will is from my state. Lynn, my wife and I have prayed for you many times in our family prayers and will continue to do so. God bless you my friend. I don’t know what it is but every time I read something you have shared, my eyes are wet and I feel the love of the Lord for you. I talk to hundreds of online friends but there is just something about your situation that has the Lord’s attention. I am in SLC until Sunday noon for the Sunstone symposium. God bless.

      Tim 818-257-0513

      Like

      • Thanks Tim. Your prayers and a prophet’s love is felt. One interesting emotion I have experienced is the desire to be noticed, acknowledged, embraced. I resisted a public display when gathered with the Saints last weekend, the Holy Ghost moved me to remain alone in that time and place. I like many others must be very cautious about replacing our desire for “oneness” with GOD with the emotion of “belongingness”. Belonging is cheap and fleeting, oneness bears a heavy price but remains when the crowds have withdrawn or worse yet turn to stone you. It has been curious to have those feelings as I cling to the WORD. Respectfully, lb

        Liked by 3 people

      • Lynn,

        I commend you for your valiance! You will stay true to following Christ.

        However, I would recommend, in your case, to “follow the Brethren” inasmuch as they do not counsel you to sin. If they lead you sin, give them no heed! And suffer the consequences (for Christ’s sake!). But if they do not lead you sin, then do as they say, as it is their “right” to lead the Church (and you would want to be shown the same deference if you were thus “called to serve”). That is my counsel.

        Even so, they should NEVER lead by compulsion, control or dominion “in any degree of unrighteousness”. (Note that there must be “righteous” forms of these actions, too, or that modifying clause would not have been included in the scripture.) Only by persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness and meekness, and love unfeigned, kindness and pure knowledge. (This is a GREAT “rule” by which we ought to govern our households, as well.)

        Liked by 3 people

      • In all case, do what Christ commands you to do.

        Otherwise, it is well to “follow the Brethren”…until you are told otherwise.

        Liked by 2 people

      • In my case, quite frankly, they left me no other choice. As far as “false doctrine” is concerned, I admitted that I believe the same things Snuffer believes, more or less. (Is that a “sin”? Apparently so, but in what way, they wouldn’t say.)

        The real “kicker” came, apparently, when one of them announced that Christ does not personally save us. They (practically) demanded that I renounce that He does! (Apparently, Denver’s claim that Christ “saved” him personally is was what got him “booted” from the Church, as well. Apparently, only General Authorities get to meet (and be saved by) Christ…and if they haven’t, you can’t either!)

        Well, I couldn’t do that! I COULDN’T say that! (Didn’t anyone in that meeting remember the scripture saying that those who deny Christ before men He will deny before His Father? Apparently not.)

        Anyway, the proper course, in my opinion, is to stay in the Church until they boot you out! In that, there can be no sin (if you keep the commandments). I would urge you to not “contend” with them. I got upset, raised my voice in anger, practically berated my bishop in his office for his condemning me unrighteously. I should have just “taken it” meekly. I guess the shock that a bishop would do that was just too much for me. Now I know. When we know what’s coming, it’s a lot easier to take.

        Be of good cheer. (It won’t be fun. It will hurt a lot! But you will be closer to the Lord, in the end.)

        Liked by 2 people

  23. D&C 131
    7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;
    8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

    E=mc2 shows that matter and energy are related, similar like ice, water, and vapor. Denver mentioned it in his talk when he referenced these verses and talked about “temperature” and “quickening.” It might be stated this way: all physical (maybe even telestial) matter is energy (think spirit) which has been reduced (or has fallen or condescended) by a factor of the speed of light (186,000 miles/second) squared (a huge factor!). The course matter we are tabernacled in is a very low vibrational/energy state. All spirit/energy is matter; and all matter is energy/spirit. Matter is a kind of manifestation of energy.

    In any case, we are incorrect if we assume that celestial and exalted beings cannot change form (of course they can!). Perhaps they dwell in an extremely fine “matter” state, what we might even consider an energy state, when they are in everlasting burnings (very high temperature/quickening level). The Lord truly condescended (lowered His vibrational/energy state) to come down here and redeem us. It must have been painful just to come down. O how we ought to thank and praise and adore Him!

    Is Denver a true messenger or a deceiver? If any of you lack wisdom (including myself, especially myself), let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him, but let him ask in faith, nothing wavering…

    Liked by 3 people

    • I love love love the way you think and explain things. Right up my alley.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Geoff, you revealed a mystery of godliness that is before us with the scientific evidence of the electric universe. GOD’s prophets have been teaching this for 1000’s of years. It is our turn to understand the truth as it is.

      Liked by 1 person

  24. Tim,

    Aside from the conversation already, 2 questions jumped out at me when I first read the post.

    You declared, “Nevertheless, [Denver] is an authorized messenger of Christ.”

    If he is authorized, what keys/authority does he hold?

    Second, you said, “This is false doctrine. You cannot remove a man’s priesthood…”

    What makes you say this? The Church, having been given the keys of the kingdom, has been given power that whatsoever it binds on earth is bound in heaven, and likewise whatsoever it looses on earth is loosed in heaven. Therefore they can grant priesthood authority in the kingdom on earth that is recognized in heaven, otherwise there would be no kingdom (no way that God could govern and officially operate through here on earth). What makes you believe then that the Church cannot likewise remove that same authority so that it is no longer recognized by heaven?

    Liked by 1 person

    • To make it plain and easy, if a man’s priesthood it “taken” away unrighteously, God probably won’t recognize that act. There are those of us who believe DS was kicked out wrongly. He didn’t do anything wrong but state church history facts that can be found online and in journals.

      Many people in our church don’t want to face that there is some really sketchy history. People are people. We make mistakes. Covering them up does no one any good. DS was just telling the truth about what he’d discovered.

      It helped many people, including me, who felt like something was just not right. I don’t know how to explain it. For me, it gives me understanding and even compassion for past leaders. It would be really hard to run an organization this big. Some of our leaders made mistakes, they argued and disagreed with each other (I’m talking the general authorities here) It isn’t perfect. It never will be until Christ comes, but Denver taught me that we still have a long way to go and that we shouldn’t sit back on our laurels, saying all is well in Zion. It isn’t. We have a TON of work to do still. That’s all. And if the Lord wants to pick Joe Blow to announce his message,(which would be a huge test of faith and would show Him who is really in tune) who are we to tell him he can’t?

      Liked by 2 people

      • My questions were to Tim, but I don’t mind having a side discussion.

        If some things Denver have said have helped you, I don’t have a problem with that. I think most people have some good and some bad in them, so it doesn’t surprise me that you can find good. There are many religious teachers the world over that I would view in much the same way in many respects. But the crux of my question isn’t whether Denver is a person that can have good opinions/thoughts from time to time that may help certain people, but whether he is actually an authorized messenger from God as Tim has declared. I do not believe he is an authorized messenger, and purporting or believing as much if it isn’t true I believe can be damaging.

        I agree that if priesthood authority is taken away unrighteously, it will be remedied in the hereafter where it won’t affect a person when all things are made right in the eternities. But as God has delegated His keys to mortals on earth to operate His kingdom, if they have removed a person’s authority, that removed person no longer has right to exercise authority in or from the kingdom on earth.

        At the very least, Denver’s authority is no longer valid in or by the kingdom established through Joseph Smith on earth. And therefore if it is true that he is authorized by God to act here on earth, he must have attained his authority/keys independent of this kingdom by way of heavenly messengers, which means that God would be setting up another kingdom (divided against the first?).

        Not only does this fly in the face of the prophesies in the D&C that describe the kingdom set up through Joseph Smith as the “last” one, but my understanding is that Joseph Smith also taught in principle that this simply wouldn’t/couldn’t happen in this last dispensation since that authority had already been given him:

        “An angel, said Joseph, may administer the word of the Lord unto men, and bring intelligence to them from heaven upon various subjects; but no true angel from God will ever come to ordain any man, because they have once been sent to establish the priesthood by ordaining me thereunto; and the priesthood being once established on earth, with power to ordain others, no heavenly messenger will ever come to interfere with that power by ordaining any more.” (Millennial Star 8, pg. 139)

        So again, I ask, if Denver is an authorized servant of Christ, by what authority/keys is he acting? And where did he get it?

        God may pick what appears to us to be some random Joe Blow, but he will be Joe Blow given keys/authority to act for God.

        Liked by 1 person

    • SteveF: My long-time friend Bill Mason, who is an instructor of many years in political science, logic and debate, has challenged me to a public duel, I mean debate, er…dialog on this very subject to be conducted before thousands of our friends on my Facebook wall. Don’t know if this link will work, but here it is:

      Maybe I can run some practice responses with you in the days to come. Just to be clear, the two questions to which you would like a response are 1) what authority or power from God does Denver hold? and 2) How can anyone claim that priesthood power given by God cannot be removed by man? Is that a correct summary?

      Like

      • Thanks for the reply. No, those are not quite accurate rephrasings of the questions.

        Question 1 is only about authority, not personal power.

        Question 2 is likewise about authority. And as per the Joseph Smith quotation from the Millennial Star that I’ve shared a few times now, we know that post-Joseph Smith with the priesthood already established with the ability to ordain others, priesthood authority/ordination will not come by way of heavenly messenger – they will not interfere (or if you feel I’m misunderstanding that quote, you can let me know your interpretation). So my question is why do you think authority in the Priesthood, that comes by way of ordination in the Church, cannot likewise be revoked by the Church? (Or please clarify if you don’t believe that).

        Liked by 1 person

      • I was going to comment on your FB thread but did not wish to appear disrespectful. (Hope you didn’t mind my popcorn joke. I truly did enjoy the thread, minus the contention and CAPS that KEPT COMING UP! I wonder if he knows that’s “yelling”?) Your “duel” was exactly what came to mind when I read it. A spiritual duel, surely involving spiritual weapons and defenses, resembling Sherem vs. Jacob, Korihor vs. Alma, and the adversary to Jesus, daring him to cast himself off the mount to prove he was God – to show the world a sign – three in fact, just as you have been challenged. I am surprised you accepted, as that was one of the most controlling, obtuse displays of aggression and attempts at unrighteous dominion I have seen in a semi-public forum, despite all the preceding comments above. Many will be watching, LDS and non. I hope and pray he understands his “priesthood” is on display. The Book of Mormon is alive and repeating itself in our day. May God grant you peace and inspiration in the endeavor. As always, God bless.

        Liked by 1 person

      • On the issue of a person losing their priesthood upon being excommunicated I would cite how the Book of Mormon treated those who had their names crossed out of their church records. They had to be re-baptized. Now I will admit that the baptism used in the time of Alma was used as a sign for a Covenant, but it still sets the precedent that after a person repents they are again admitted to the fold and church of God only after baptism according to the Book of Mormon.

        Secondly, Priesthood authority is not some magical power but is authority (access) to the Holy Spirit. Therefore if a person needs to be re-baptized to be considered back in the fold, by what strain of logic or reason do we think God will allow that man to access the Holy Spirit when they have been removed from the fold?

        Finally all priesthood authority in THIS CHURCH flows from a covenant established by God with this Church. Thus if the church strikes you from its records you are removed from “its” covenant. You have no access codes, passwords, administrator rights, or such, no right to the priesthood granted by the church.

        Another example is where you are released from a calling simply by a vote of thanks. Do you have any right to the former keys and authority, even though they were bestowed by the laying on of hands? No it returns to the source which issued the calling. And I know what you are thinking Bishops and Patriarchs. True they keep the keys but they become dormant.

        The end result is if you are out of the church you no longer have legal claim to the priesthood you once had because you are now out side that covenant. The ONLY way to have that returned is either return to the fold via the requirements of the Covenant or establish your own Covenant with the Lord.

        And that creates a whole new conversation about what is going on.

        Liked by 1 person

    • For SteveF: 1) What authority does Denver hold? Perhaps it might help to contrast my answer with what authority he does not have, according to the church. He has none. He has no authority to act in the church. He cannot exercise his priesthood in the church. Denver cannot bless the sacrament in the church. He cannot stand in a circle to bless, confirm or assist in a setting apart. Side note: In years past, the bishop has allowed me to stand in as my wife was set apart for a calling, even when I wasn’t in the bishopric at the time. Some allow this, some don’t.

      Denver has not directly stated his keys or named the authority by which he delivers his message. He has quoted Joseph, “Those holding the fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood are kings and priests of the Most High God, holding the keys of power and blessings.” Denver has said in multiple places he has received of the fullness. Of course, we would have to come to an agreement on what we are to understand by the “fullness” in order to be in harmony with the subject. Perhaps this quote from the Priesthood lecture in Orem might be helpful:

      “With all the crying of “Lo, keys here!” and “Lo, keys there!” I ask you what do you make of it all? Who is to be believed on these claims? And even what does it mean to have possession of a “key” in the first place? For all the grandeur of the claim, who can explain to me exactly what a “key” is? And exactly what “keys” do you Latter-day Saints possess? How do they help you to be saved? You are told that you must follow them, to obey them, to submit to them, and that you are in eternal peril if you doubt them, and yet who can explain to me what these “keys” consist of and how they are employed in your salvation?…

      “If we allow the claim to have these “keys” as something important then what about the other matters which God cared so much about as to send angels to Joseph Smith to restore them. Joseph’s letter refers in addition to “dispensations” and to “rights” and to “honors” and also to “majesty” and further to “glory” and then also to “power of their priesthood” and all of this was to “confirm hope.” Where is mention of these things? What are they? Joseph apparently needed to receive them, and yet we hear nothing about these other matters. Are they not important for our salvation?

      “Now you tell me, you declare to me, what are your dispensations? (I have one, and Joseph had one, but do you have one also?) Tell me what your rights are? Can you even tell me what your keys are? John Taylor tried to develop The Book of Keys, because he didn’t know what they were and he hoped to be able to parse the matter out so he could understand it better. You tell me what they are. Stop proclaiming that you own them, and tell me in plainness so as to persuade us all they both matter to salvation and you understand them enough to explain exactly what they are!”

      “Tell me what your honors are. Tell me what your majesty is. Tell me what your glory is. Tell me then what the power of your priesthood is. Because if keys alone were sufficient, I rather think that Joseph Smith who understood what he was writing, would not have gone to the trouble of parsing through the words: dispensation, rights, keys, honors, majesty, glory and power, if it was all speaking to exactly the same thing.” (Orem lecture on Priesthood, pp. 32-33 – consolidated)

      As you probably know, Denver does not always come right out and state the obvious. But from the foregoing quotes, most who have studied this lecture conclude Denver has received the fullness of the Higher Priesthood directly from the Lord. This is NOT the same as what we call the Melchizedek priesthood in the LDS Church. We can’t compare apples to apples in this discussion. One would be required to make a paradigm shift to understand the Higher Priesthood which is not the same as the priesthood we call Melchizedek within the church.

      As to question two about removing a man’s priesthood, anyone who has written the letter to the excommunicated brother detailing what he can and can’t do knows we include phrases such as, “You are not to exercise your priesthood within the church.” It does not say the man cannot exercise his priesthood in his home. Excommunication does not remove priesthood. Priesthood comes from the Lord, not the church. I know you said you wanted to focus on authority, but frankly, the only authority held in the church is Aaronic, not Melchizedek. That can only be received directly from the Lord.

      The church relies on the higher priesthood held by men to whom the Lord has given that authority. When we are ordained to an office in what we call the Melchizedek priesthood, it is only an invitation to go and get the Lord to ratify that priesthood. It is the Lord’s priesthood. It is not controlled by the church. As you can see, this is radically different from the narrative you presented in explaining your question. Once again, we are not comparing apples to apples. The priesthood to which you refer is administrative in nature only. It is not the power of God. It is a right within the church to administer in offices in the church.

      I know this is more than you wanted or probably expected. The problem is we who have studied Denver’s writings speak a different language when it comes to the definition of key words such as priesthood – both authority and power. In order to understand it would be helpful to read, study and ponder last year’s Orem lecture. Can you comprehend the higher priesthood is not conferred by the church? If this is something you can never accept, then we have no common ground. To me, it is clear as can be. I can only receive authority to do the work of the Lord from the Lord himself. The power of the higher priesthood cannot be passed from man to man. There is no doubt we have the Aaronic priesthood, but sorry, we don’t have the Melchizedek (See my comment below. I should have written “higher” priesthood.)

      Disclaimer: This is my understanding of a small portion of what Denver has taught about the authority and power of the priesthood. I do not make any claims about being an authoritative source for understanding this knowledge. You must study the material yourself, including the relevant chapters from Passing the heavenly Gift, then decide for yourself if Denver got it right. After all, the man claims to have been taught directly by the Lord. You figure it out. I am satisfied with what my studies have brought to me. The Higher Priesthood was lost with Joseph. He had the Heavenly gift and could not passing it on.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Tim/SteveF
        I tend to keep things simple, for me, his authority, his errand of the Lord, is to return our hearts an allegiance back to the Lord and to reacquaint ourselves with Joseph and the restoration he led.
        Whatever that authority is or keys it provides to fulfill that mission!.

        Liked by 1 person

      • The Church does not have the Melchizedek priesthood? Are you hearing yourself Tim? I’m assuming you have read the Doctrine and Covenants, but you have me wondering at this point.

        So am I to understand that you believe that while baptism, offering the sacrament, ordaining priests, teachers, and deacons are authorized and accepted of the Lord as legally binding; there is no heaven-recognized laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost in the Church? There are no true Elders, no authorized consecrating of oil and anointing of the sick at the hands of the Elders of the Church, no true High Priests, no legally authorized endowment ordinances, no recognized or legally authorized temple ordinances, no true patriarchs by office, no true office of apostle in the Church? And President Monson’s highest ordination from the Church actually recognized by heaven is the office of Priest (since it can’t be High Priest as that is a MP office, and he is not a known descendant of Aaron, so he can’t even be a Bishop)? In short, the Melchizedek Priesthood or keys of the kingdom restored by Peter, James, and John are no longer here because according to you they can’t be passed on from person to person (never mind that Peter, James, and John are personages, that are not God, who passed them on to Joseph Smith, and the D&C records Joseph giving these very keys to others)?

        You really believe all this?

        When you try to prove the teachings and paradigm of Denver Snuffer by quoting the teachings and paradigm of Denver Snuffer, I guess this is where it lands you.

        I would recommend judging his words against the standard works and the words of those who you know have held authority from God, instead of judging Denver by his own doctrine. Many to most of the claims you propose are both unscriptural and unfounded (I can list them if you’d like). Yes it seems Denver Snuffer has invented a whole world of doctrine that unsurprisingly supports his own claims and actions, unfortunately it is incompatible with the revelations of Joseph Smith, whose mission he claims to support.

        Liked by 1 person

      • SteveF,

        You have made a cogent argument!

        But have you considered the following?

        God can (and does) confer the higher priesthood. Angels (even heaven-sent apostles) can (and do) confer the higher priesthood. Men can (and do) confer the higher priesthood…even the gift of the Holy Ghost, sealings, etc!…but in each case the onus is upon the recipient thereof to exercise faith in Jesus Christ to receive what is offered!

        The Aaronic priesthood, as Snuffer recently explained — and Eli and his two sons amply demonstrated — is extremely “perdurable”. It does not depend upon the “righteousness” either of the administrator or of the recipient in order to be conferred or exercised . A wicked priest, for example, may “confer” Aaronic authority and legitimately “act” in the same, even while committing gross wickedness — and the Lord will “accept” it — remarkably! That is why Jesus acknowledged Caiphas as the “legitimate” authority of His day, even as one “sitting in Moses’ seat”, and directed others to “do as they say, but not as they do”.

        The LDS Church largely “pretends” to have Melchizedek priesthood power and authority today. (Elder Packer admitted as much.) There are, undoubtedly, a few who do, in fact, access and exercise this power and authority. But, by and large, this power and authority remain dormant, inanimate, unused, and unreceived. (What we have today is “the form of godliness” while “denying the power thereof”.)

        The Church can “confer” priesthood, by ordination, it is true, but while “many are called, few are chosen”, for reasons stipulated in scripture. We should never confuse or conflate the “power and authority” of priesthood, administered by God and publicly attested to by human ordination in the Church, with the “power and authority” of Church office, hopefully directed by God but administered by men and publicly attested to by setting apart, sustained and voted upon by common consent of the Church. They are two very different things and independent of each other. One may have priesthood power and authority, for example, without having any Church power or authority whatsoever (and even without being a member of the Church!), but never the reverse (as far as the modern Church is concerned), inasmuch as the Church determined to make all of its authority dependent upon priesthood ordination a few years after the Church was established. (Even the Relief Society now operates under the auspices of “priesthood” authority.) We also used to vote as a congregation on who would be bishop, etc., but no more.

        Thus, while Aaronic priesthood is exceedingly durable and independent of righteousness, Melchizedek priesthood power and authority are just the opposite; they are wholly dependent upon personal righteousness — both to confer and to receive — without which nothing of righteousness can be accomplished. Thus, priesthood “power and authority” can be gained and lost, while priesthood itself — or the knowledge of God and godliness — remains. (It is this knowledge, in fact, which exalts and damns a man here and hereafter.)

        In the end, only God confers and sustains each ordination, administration or rite of Melchizedek priesthood, sealing the same by the Holy Spirit of Promise, without which nothing can be done. This “promise” is revelation itself, vouchsafing the efficacy, truthfulness and reality of the same. Thus a man administering a priesthood blessings “knows” the ill shall be healed or that a prophecy shall come to pass, for he “receives” the spirit of revelation testifying to as much — as does the recipient. Without this, a priesthood holder merely spouts vain words and does not do the work of God. (So typical of our day.)

        Furthermore, one who “has” the priesthood had it even before he came into this world. (It is that “preparatory redemption” that has brought him thus far, by the foreknowledge of God, to “receive” it again in this life, with the ordination thereof.) “Priesthood” knowledge being eternal, he cannot “lose” it — but will “find” it again…and be held accountable for it. His priesthood is his knowledge of God — or intelligence, and the power thereof — by which God’s will is exercised in all things. As a man gains greater knowledge (of God and godliness), he gains greater “priesthood”. This knowledge is gained only by experience and by divine approbation (manifest power). Thus, it cannot be “counterfeited”, even if men are “quick” to lay hands on one another.

        Liked by 2 people

    • @ SteveF, the only question that matters is, did Denver stand in the presence of the Lord, speak with Him, presumably touch Him, perhaps have Hands laid upon him, and receive instruction from Him. If so, his is “authorized”. If not he is a deceiver. You seem convinced that his is the latter.

      Liked by 2 people

  25. DS is a prophet just like Joseph Smith said all prophets got the MelchizidekPriesthood .

    “All priesthood is Melchizedek, but there are different portions or degrees of it. That portion which brought Moses to speak with God face to face was taken away; but that which brought the ministry of angels remained. All the prophets had the Melchizedek Priesthood and were ordained by God himself” (TPJS, pp. 180-81).

    Liked by 2 people

    • helorum, that’s an interesting claim. Is it one Denver Snuffer himself has made?

      And if he has, or if you believe your claim is true, how do you reconcile that with the quote from the Millennial Star I gave where Joseph said with the priesthood already established on the earth with power to ordain others, no heavenly messenger would interfere and come to ordain any another, because the authority was already given (restored) through him?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Here is the problem in understanding DS. People want the short cut to knowing if he is a true messenger. There is no short cut. The only way to know if DS is a true messenger is to do what Tim has done: …”years of studying, pondering and praying”.

        If DS is really what he says he is, we would be very unwise indeed not to put the effort into finding out for ourselves. He has published over a million words. Yet people want to understand him by reading a few of his blog entries. He has answered all of your questions. He needs no one to defend him. If it is worth it to find out if God has sent a true messenger put in the homework.

        Having said that, no, DS has not explicitly made the claim that he has been ordained by God. He has not shared the specifics of his interactions with God and his Son. However, if you had read his writings the inferences are there. DS shares doctrine through using the scriptures and the writings of Joseph Smith, however, he knows much more that what he shares. He usually shares only what he can teach using already revealed sources. You would know that if you read his writings.

        If you are curious about how priesthood is really obtained read his talk on the Priesthood. Then ask God if what he teaches, using scriptures and the revelations of Joseph Smith, is true. Then you will know how one “receives” the priesthood. Prophets do not receive the highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood from angels. They receive it from God himself. Adam having conversed with the Lord through the veil desires now to enter his presence…Let him enter.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Because I take claims like DS’s seriously, I have spent a probably inordinate amount reading much of what he has written/taught, including PtHG, some of the Second Comforter, and most of his blog and many of the transcripts from his talks.

          I have prayed about it, and I know for myself that Denver is a false prophet, and is caught by a false and lying spirit, which is why I have spent a lot of time here warning others.

          By revelation, I have an understanding of how Priesthood is obtained. On this point Denver teaches many false doctrines that are also contrary to that which Joseph Smith taught.

          Liked by 1 person

      • My comment is actually for SteveF, but it doesn’t give me a place to comment to him. When I read that you have studied extensively about Denver Snuffer and prayed about it, and that your answer is that he isn’t a prophet, I’m stumped. How does anyone comment on something like that? No one has the right to tell you you’re wrong, but it does remind me of my sister telling me that she had read and studied the Book of Mormom, and prayed over and over about it, and the answer she got was that it wasn’t true. It didn’t ring true for her twenty years ago, and it still doesn’t.

        I have no answer for that. It’s just inconceivable to me that she would get an answer like that. Naturally, most of us would say she hadn’t studied enough, prayed hard enough, or wasn’t worthy or something, but that’s just stupid in my opinion. What I’ve come to conclude is that some people are ready for certain things and some people aren’t. That doesn’t mean anyone is better than anyone else, more gifted, more spiritual. It’s just how it is. We are all on different paths, different levels of learning etc…

        Arguing here about it isn’t going to change anyone’s feelings. I’m not going to convince you DS is a mouthpiece for God and you can’t convince me he’s not. We’re at an impasse. ;)

        (I don’t mean you, per se, arguing. I mean the whole comment thread)

        Liked by 2 people

        • I agree with you. We may offer some points we feel could be helpful for one another to consider, but in the end we each need to follow what we feel the Lord has revealed to us personally.

          “What I’ve come to conclude is that some people are ready for certain things and some people aren’t… We are all on different paths, different levels of learning etc…”

          I feel the same way, and couldn’t have said it any better. All the best!

          Liked by 1 person

      • SteveF, then we really are at an impass here.

        I have also read, struggled in the spirit, and have received a witness of the things I’ve learned from the scriptures taught through Denver.

        Neither of us is going to convince the other that the spiritual experiences we have received in relation to this material is something that we should discard. Resorting to logical argument, even based on the scriptures, is going to be fruitless, because the way I understand the scriptures and the things i have received witness of are personal. I cannot properly judge that your experiences are “wrong” anymore than you can judge that mine are “wrong.”

        All religion is necessarily anecdotal and based on personal experience with the spirit.

        You are right, we have all gone the rounds for pages and pages, and neither of us is going to convince the other. The evidence (even scriptural) you use to back up your assertions ring as hollow to me as the ones we use to back our understanding sound to you.

        It feels like groundhog day around here, all we do is go ’round and ’round talking past each other.

        I wish I could’ve been in that room with Tim, Good Will, etc and partaken of that spiritual feast. Here all we get is the constant tearing down (and rising to defense, etc) of what many of us have been enjoying is getting exhausting.

        Liked by 1 person

      • SteveF
        I’m not sure there is a delicate way to say this but.
        Well you’re wrong. I have read all of his works and transcripts, went to the last two talks and can testify that he is a true messenger and on an errand of the Lord.
        I have experienced the baptism of fire, have felt on more than one occasion the love of God wash through my soul, I know the difference, this isn’t a lying spirit, I’ve had experiences with that creature also and this isn’t it!
        Make sure your witness hasn’t been generated by fear or pride or your conviction to the traditions of your fathers!

        Liked by 1 person

        • If you are interested in my background, and the traditions of my fathers, see here, here, and here .

          It’s a bit long winded, but it is my testimony and you will see why this is such a personal thing for me, why I stick around in the face of so many opposing voices. I hope you’ll take the time to see this from an alternate viewpoint. All the best!

          Liked by 1 person

  26. Hello Steve F, Great questions. I dont see the pretext to it though. Denver Snuffer has never said he is a Prophet, never. He has never said he holds any Keys to act. He has asked over and over for us all not to impose those titles upon him, just for this very reason I suspect. But few listen. Authority comes from the Voice of God. That is not what he or any true messenger from God seeks to establish for them selves in my view. The true Key to authority is to wield none. I dont understand what you seek here. But I hope you find the answers you do, David Park

    Liked by 2 people

    • That’s my concern Dave Park, if he hasn’t claimed keys or authority, why are people claiming he is an “authorized” messenger from Christ, or a “prophet” comparable to other prophets who have had authority from Christ. I think Denver has alluded to this claim of authority, but I have never seen him straightforwardly make the claim. So why heap the claim upon him?

      I don’t believe he has authority, and hence believe it is dangerous to assume or believe he does, since it could draw one away from God’s true authority and kingdom on earth. I know God would not establish a new kingdom divided against a first one if He plans to keep the first one standing. Additionally, the D&C makes it abundantly clear that the kingdom established through Joseph Smith would not only be the last, but also that it will fill the whole earth while all other kingdoms will fall. As Joseph declared, “no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing”.

      Liked by 1 person

      • SteveF, good to see you online again. I keep up on Tim’s blog but do not speak up as often these days. I pray you the best, brother. I agree that there is less and less middle ground now when it comes to Denver. He has made some open declarations that his message is directed by the Lord and that he is His servant on His errand, specifically these 10 talks he is delivering, which you owe it to yourself to read if you have not been keeping up and intend to continue to engage in this ongoing conversation about him. Anyway, if you subscribe to what Denver calls the “brethrenite” paradigm, which is a very traditional/orthodox view (what you seem to be advocating), then there is no room for any prophets or true messengers of God from outside the institutional church hierarchy – essentially all is well in Zion, or at least at the top level (see Pres. Uchtdorf’s recent address: https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/all-is-well?lang=eng). Nor would any true messenger/angel from heaven come to a person and reveal anything contrary to current church doctrine, policy, or practice – as this would divide the kingdom, as you say, and would be “out of order” – please correct me if I’m wrong, or clarify. See this post for DS’s definition of the “brethrenite” paradigm vs his paradigm:

        http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2014/04/a-gulf-needing-bridge.html

        I don’t want to assume, so perhaps you could confirm if this description matches your position (from DS’s post linked above), or perhaps clarify which points do not match your view:

        I call the first position the “brethrenites” because it is a shorthand way to capture the view: These Mormons believe that everything done since the death of Joseph Smith through Brigham Young and successors in the Presidency and Twelve of the LDS Church has been entirely conforming to God’s will. They believe “keys” were passed and, as a result, these successors control God’s power and can seal on earth and in heaven. They believe the statements made by the successors are invariably in the status of “prophet, seer and revelator” and therefore inspired by God (or binding upon Him by reason of the “keys” held). The general authorities are able to give binding statements as mentioned in D&C 1: 38. They speak the “mind of the Lord” as described in D&C 68: 4. As part of this construct, any criticism of the Brethren is by definition ‘evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed’ and therefore criticism is apostasy. These people also believe the scriptures are secondary to a “living oracle” and therefore the scriptures are not as important as whatever the president of the church says now.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Yeah, that doesn’t describe my paradigm very well at all (particularly “everything…has been entirely conforming to God’s will”, “are invariably”, “binding on Him”, “criticism is apostasy” – I wouldn’t say apostasy but rather a road thereto, “not as important as whatever…”). I find them to be mostly straw men, because I don’t think most of them are believed by most people in the Church. Under this definition I can’t say I’ve ever met a “brethrenite”.

          Last year I spent a great deal of time putting together some long emails describing my paradigm in pretty great depth. Did you read them? It feels like maybe you didn’t. Or maybe you have just forgotten the things I said?

          Liked by 1 person

      • The D&C “makes it abundantly clear” that no man can see the face of God and live without the Melchizedek priesthood. Denver has stated: “I have seen Him. He has ministered unto me.” I’ll leave the obvious conclusion that can be drawn from those two sentences to you.

        Denver has also stated, over and over, that he only seeks to bring to our remembrance the things Joseph taught, as Joseph taught them. That he is NOT starting another church, and honestly just wants to disappear into the sunset on his Harley and be done with all this.

        In the Wentworth letter, Joseph Smith wrote: “Our missionaries are going forth to different nations, and in Germany, Palestine, New Holland, Australia, the East Indies, and other places, the Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear; till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.”

        “The work” is the “truth of God” going forth. Of COURSE no unhallowed hand can stop that! But unhallowed hands absolutely can make choices that influence earthly organizations. Unhallowed hands can (and have) chosen to disregard the D&C’s clear instructions for how missionary work is to be conducted, how the church is to be run, and many more things.

        If that wasn’t possible, then we wouldn’t have the well-known “Pride Cycle” in the Book of Mormon. The Nephites would never have fallen from righteousness, but would have continued as Nephi began, eventually being taken up into heaven as Enoch’s and Melchizedek’s cities were. The Zoramites’ ramaeupmtom wouldn’t have existed, nor could their hauntingly familiar style of worship. Defining “the work” as the church organization simply doesn’t agree with scripture.

        The Lord’s truth will roll forth . . . with or without any given individual or group. But it does take a messenger whose words are ratified by the Holy Ghost, and the words must bear the fruit promised in scripture.

        It’s up to each individual to investigate for him- or herself, and to make the decision upon which their salvation hangs. It is quite the conundrum, and is as it should be.

        Truth will weather any storm. The question is, will we seek it out as earnestly and relentlessly as the woman in the parable of the lost coin, and then abide in it once it is found?

        Liked by 1 person

        • That may be a sufficient response to the single quote, but the D&C makes it clear that it is the kingdom restored through Joseph Smith (not merely the truth) that will roll forth as the stone cut out of the mountain without hands to fill the earth.

          Liked by 1 person

    • But that is the Point. When a true messenger comes he announces his errand. Moroni, Abinidi, Alma Amulek the list goes on and on. Never does the person obfuscate his commission. He is either sent by God or not. If he is just a guy then why are you throwing away your Covenants? Look at the discord and contention that has been caused by this and other teachings by DS. Correct me if I’m wrong but what does the Book of Mormon say about contention, what fruit is being created by those who follow DS.

      I do not see the fruits of DS having the sealing priesthood, I hear words but no traces of that endowment. I am not looking for a sign but the lord through the scriptures has taught me what to look for in a true messenger. It feels like a flaxen cord to me. I have so many red flags going off I feel like I am at May Day parade.

      We can talk all we want but the core teaching I have been seeing from DS is that the Lord is displeased with us and has sent DS to help us.

      Help us do what?

      If he has received his errand from the Lord and an endowment to enable him to do it, why all the pretense of I don’t want to be here. The only messenger I know who took that position was Jonah. And we all know how that one turned out.

      A true messenger from the Lord stands boldly as Abinidi and confounds the wicked. He stretches for his hand stops them from touching him till he delivers his message. Samuel did the same thing, but he was sent to a city not the Prophet Nephi.

      DS for all his talk tries not to be accountable for his doctrine. If its the Lord he will stand tall and take ownership.

      I can say unequivocally by using the standard of the Book of Mormon and prayer too. Denver Snuffer is NOT a Prophet, but is a man who teaches the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. When you get down to the root of the entire series of talks his main purpose is contention.

      I follow no man, and I include church leaders. I follow the Savior and sustain those he has called with all their faults. I know my Savior and I am not running out to the desert or the Mountains to find him. Lo here Lo there type stuff. I have gone through my own personal Gethsemane in this life and I know this is not the path, so either DS is following the wrong spirit or I am. No two ways about it. There are Only two churches.

      We each must make a choice and live with the ramifications of that choice.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jim,

        There are only two churches (according to 1 Nephi 14:10): those who repent and come unto Christ (D&C 10:67) and those who don’t.

        Members of the LDS Church (and its leadership) are not necessarily included among the former group.

        Snuffer’s ministry is apparently not intended for you. That does not make him a follower of a “wrong spirit” nor does it mean that you are wicked. It may simply mean that his “commission” does not involve you.

        Go in peace.

        Liked by 1 person

      • If he has received his errand from the Lord and an endowment to enable him to do it, why all the pretense of I don’t want to be here. The only messenger I know who took that position was Jonah. And we all know how that one turned out.

        Yes, we do.

        5 ¶So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.

        6 For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.

        7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water:

        8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.

        9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?

        10 ¶And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

        Jonah 3:5-10

        Liked by 1 person

      • (Here’s hoping the blockquote tags work right. If not, please forgive me.)

        Jim wrote:

        But that is the Point. When a true messenger comes he announces his errand. Moroni, Abinidi, Alma Amulek the list goes on and on. Never does the person obfuscate his commission.

        Denver has announced his errand: to bring to our remembrance the things taught by Joseph Smith. He states it often, and has repeated it several times. Have you read his talks? Or his blog? It’s there.

        He is either sent by God or not. If he is just a guy then why are you throwing away your Covenants?

        Covenants made with God cannot be thrown away by anyone but the one who made them. Covenants made to any mortal or organization besides a spouse are looked at askance by God, as that is what secret combinations are founded upon.

        Look at the discord and contention that has been caused by this and other teachings by DS. Correct me if I’m wrong but what does the Book of Mormon say about contention, what fruit is being created by those who follow DS.

        As for discord and contentions, they don’t come from Denver’s teachings. They come from church leadership’s and some members’ *reactions* to Denver’s teachings. The teaching themselves have yielded beautiful fruits in so many lives that I know of, personally. Those who find Denver’s words good are not cutting off their family members or shutting out their wards. But they themselves are all too often the ones being cut off and cast out, even as they entreat those rejecting them to come unto Christ and taste what they have tasted, declaring the love and forgiveness and joy they now know, that the current teachings of the church couldn’t bring them.

        I do not see the fruits of DS having the sealing priesthood, I hear words but no traces of that endowment. I am not looking for a sign but the lord through the scriptures has taught me what to look for in a true messenger. It feels like a flaxen cord to me. I have so many red flags going off I feel like I am at May Day parade.

        What are the “fruits of the sealing priesthood”?

        What is setting off your red flags, specifically?

        We can talk all we want but the core teaching I have been seeing from DS is that the Lord is displeased with us and has sent DS to help us.

        A messenger being sent to tell the people that the Lord is displeased with them is one of the oldest and most well-set-out patterns of the Lord’s interactions with His people in all of scripture. I always scratch my head when people cite the idea that a call to repentance isn’t appropriate nowadays. That was Laman & Lemuel’s position, as well. They said the Jews were a righteous people, that kept the law, and they couldn’t see why on earth their father had to go and risk his life to cry repentance, much less leave the city and drag them away from their inheritances, et al. I’ll spare you the extensive list of other messengers sent to cry repentance. I’m confident you’re familiar with them all.

        Help us do what?

        Learn the doctrines taught by Joseph Smith that are now ignored and contradicted by the church at large. If you’ve missed that, then you might wish to reexamine what you believe you have seen, because he has repeated this several times, in the plainest of language.

        If he has received his errand from the Lord and an endowment to enable him to do it, why all the pretense of I don’t want to be here. The only messenger I know who took that position was Jonah. And we all know how that one turned out.

        His protestations that he would rather be elsewhere, doing something else, don’t seem to be pretense to me. True messengers don’t glory in the necessity of them being in the spotlight. They don’t cherish adoring followers, or want people to stand when they walk into the room. They abhor idolatry, and do all they can to prevent and/or stop it.

        A true messenger from the Lord stands boldly as Abinidi and confounds the wicked.

        lol Have you read what Denver has written? The man is no pansy, that’s for sure.

        He stretches for his hand stops them from touching him till he delivers his message. Samuel did the same thing, but he was sent to a city not the Prophet Nephi.

        I’m curious to know why you wrote this. Has Denver been attacked and beaten? Has someone successfully stopped him from delivering a message he was supposed to deliver?

        (One thing to note: Samuel was sent to a wicked city that already *had* a righteous priesthood leader.)

        DS for all his talk tries not to be accountable for his doctrine. If its the Lord he will stand tall and take ownership.

        I’ve heard or read Denver say just the opposite. (I can’t remember where. I’d have to do some Googling.) He does ask that people not create metatext around what he has written or said, though. He claims only what he has said & written, and asks people to actually read and/or listen carefully, and not ascribe things to him that he has not said/written.

        I can say unequivocally by using the standard of the Book of Mormon and prayer too. Denver Snuffer is NOT a Prophet, but is a man who teaches the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. When you get down to the root of the entire series of talks his main purpose is contention.

        Which philosophies would those be? I really do want to know, because I haven’t been able to see anything but the opposite: doctrine straight from, and agreeing with, scripture.

        I follow no man, and I include church leaders. I follow the Savior and sustain those he has called with all their faults. I know my Savior and I am not running out to the desert or the Mountains to find him. Lo here Lo there type stuff. I have gone through my own personal Gethsemane in this life and I know this is not the path, so either DS is following the wrong spirit or I am. No two ways about it. There are Only two churches.

        The “lo here, lo there” is about going to find Christ, not someone sent from Him with a message.

        The only sustaining we can do, without risking our eternal salvation, is sustaining others in their righteousness. Scripture speaks pretty clearly about what sustaining others in unrighteousness is, with rather graphic examples of the destruction that follows.

        We each must make a choice and live with the ramifications of that choice.

        Amen. Hence my questions. If you can substantiate some of the things you’ve said here, I really want to know, because salvation DOES hang on making the right choice in situations like this.

        Thanks. :)

        Liked by 2 people

      • Actually Jim, there are not only 2 churches. There is the church of the devil, the churches of men, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and the The Church of the First Born. We are all, or were in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a church whose members are for the most part ignorant of the existence of the higher church and what is required to be a part of it. As far as I can ascertain, DS is not advocating anything but look to Christ (not to himself) and live. He is expounding doctrines (not revealing new ones) already laid out by the Lord’s prophet for this generation. He is simply a second witness for the truth’s already restored. He receives no compensation for his efforts, seeks to establish no church, asks for no following, and as far as I can tell, delivers his messages in meekness and humility. He encourages members to stay in the Church, work and serve within it. He simply speaks what he believes is true about the origins, development, and current state of the church–nothing new here–views that are held by MANY sincere, faithful members (as acknowledged by Pres. Uchtdorf). Above all, he advocates that you and I and any who wish to can have a personal experience with the Savior. What is the error in that? And why are you so concerned? Do you believe all is well in Zion–at least as far as the brethren are concerned?

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ Goodwill I usually try to avoid the back and forth arguments but i just want to be clear. I Did not mean the LDS church and its leaders when I was referring 1 Nephi 14:10, I was referring to all people and all things that either lead to Christ or away from him. Having said that my reasons for saying beware of the Doctrine of DS is entirely personal. When I first heard him I thought it was great but as I listened their were things which did not lead ME to Christ with what was being taught.

        There are some extremely subtle things Denver teaches that I feel are dangerous because they set up a false premises which people can base their understanding on. I say this again from personal experience with my own understanding. And yes I have taken it to the Lord. .And I know it is wrong.

        Now is it wrong just for me and my family,or for you, and your family, or for all others? All I can say is that according to the Book of Mormon there is save one path. The trick in life is to find that path and hang on.

        Even in other areas of the world where the LDS church has little influence the Lord is working to bring those who want the Living waters to the fountain.

        I have no animosity toward you or DS or anyone else, you are free to choose. But I know if I fail to open my mouth after the Lord has saved me (and I don’t mean that in evangelical way) both physically and spiritually. I would not be able to stand before my Lord and Savior and bear to look at him and excuse myself for failing to warn because it was not my place to open my mouth.

        I don’t wish to harm or denigrate anyone, but I must warn.

        Good will, we have never met and we know nothing of each other but that we disagree. I hope you can understand why I have said what I have said. May the Lord Bless you.

        Jim

        Liked by 1 person

        • Jim, please, share what it is Denver has said that led you away from Christ, and how or why it did so. Without explanation, without shining a light into what you are saying is a dark corner, you leave everyone else in the dark as well.

          As I have raised and taught my children, I quickly learned they must gain understanding and experience in order for my warnings to carry any weight. No matter how often or firmly I could warn a small child, “Don’t touch the stove, it’s hot and will burn!”, my warning held little weight for them because the words “hot” and “burn” we’re totally outside of their experience. I care for my little ones’ safety, and so they had no point of experience from which to reckon the import of my warning. They had been protected from being burned, so I spoke from my own experience into their knowledge gap, and my words didn’t mean anything. I could’ve used fear to get them to obey, “for their own good”, by talking up how horrible burns are and threatening punishment if they touched the stove. But that’s not a healthy way to parent. I don’t want my children living in fear . . . not of me, or of anything else. I want them to walk in understanding, and make choices in confidence. And so, I would find a way to help my little child SAFELY learn what “hot” meant, so they could understand why touching something hot isn’t a good idea.

          As things stand, my experience with the things you state have led you away from Christ has been the polar opposite . . . and so I’m asking you, in all sincerity, to help me understand your warning. As it currently stands, it holds no weight of influence. And yet, I have a strong impression of your kind & concerned heart behind what you have written.

          You have responded to others’ questions about your statements, so I have good reason to believe you will see this. Please, help us understand, so if there truly is a burn danger, we can avoid it.

          Like

      • @ Annalea Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. I recognize that many people hear DS and feel lifted by his words. So I know that by taking the opposite side it will cause contention and a visceral reaction.

        So let me first state that I was actually at first taken by the discourses of DS. I tend to want to know all about something when I learn about it. So I bought his books and all the available Cd’s of his talks up to the last two recent ones. I have those two but have not had a chance to listen to them.

        At first I thought yes someone else that gets it, but then I felt and that is the only way to describe it that something was off. I noticed my irritation with the Brethren growing and a defiant spirit beginning to grow with in me. Now a little about me, I never testify the church is true because its made of people who aren’t, I always testify that the Gospel is true which it is. So I am not lemming who just follows what is being taught, In any thing I try it and then take it to the Lord.

        As I was still reading I was asking the Lord about this I began to see things that bothered me, actually raised serious red flags in my mind. The first was in either the first or second talk when DS announced that only on Sunday would he begin his talks with prayer. Now I know that seems simplistic but I always have believed that instead of the Devil being in the details it is actually God who is in the details.

        I use the Book of Mormon as my main primer, regardless what is being taught if you violate that source you are on the wrong path. So what does the Book of Mormon say about Prayer and meetings?

        2 Nephi 32:9
        “But behold, I say unto you that ye must pray always, and not faint; that ye must not perform any thing unto the Lord save in the first place ye shall pray unto the Father in the name of Christ, that he will consecrate thy performance unto thee, that thy performance may be for the welfare of thy soul.”

        This was my first crack in DS doctrine. The next one occurred in the talk about Zion being built in the mountains and how its not Jackson County because there are no Mountains there. Well that’s just plain wrong because there are. The Independence area is connected to the Appalachian Mountains by the Ouachita Mountains which at one point were connected to the Appalachian mountains which are considered the one of the oldest mountain chains on the planet (everlasting Hills). Part of this chain fell creating the Mississippi valley area just as described in the book of Moses when Enoch made a local mountain range flee. These mountains have grown and decreased due to lifting of the New Madrid fault, but have the ability to grow up to two miles high if lifted by the plate..

        Enough of the geology lesson what does it matter? What matters is DS teaches Zion is not there because of the lack of Mountains. But the Mountains are there. So who is wrong DS or the prophets of GOD. If DS is a prophet he would not teach falsehoods but would know the truth because he would have been taught it. But he doesn’t he teaches the opposite. So if he is wrong on these two little points what else is he wrong on.

        His definition of Gentile in the Book of Mormon is wrong and again gives a false premise on who those people are, and their relation to the Kingdom of God (ok people I am not talking political units or even the Church, I am referring to Gods plan for mankind and their redemption). I don’t have the room or time to go into detail here but I can illustrate my point with one question. What did Joseph Smith, George Washington, John Winthropp and even Abraham Lincoln all have in common? They all established Covenants in America that were tied to the Land just as Lehi, Nephi, King Benjamin and King Mosiah did. How could they do that unless they had the Covenant Blood right which gave them the right to do so. Mere occupancy does not give the person the right to invoke that type of Covenant, ask any Palestinian or Hiveite, Hittite or Ammorite, etc. Only the Blood right gives the person the right to establish this covenant. Just ask Moses why it had to be Joshua who established the children of Israel in the original Promised Land. Not only can I show you the covenant blessings and curses still being poured out on the United States today, I can tie it to the Book of Mormon and even Isaiah. This is not insignificant.

        The result is they must be descendants of Lehi, since this is his families Promised Land and only they have the Covenant right to the land. So by definition they are Lamanites not Gentiles. If you use the wrong definition it changes the meaning of what God intended.

        And last but not least his take on Polygamy violates the Book of Mormon where he states that JS only wanted some kind of Spiritual marriage not multiple familes and tons of Kids from those woman as Brigham did. Again in the Book of Mormon, what is the only acceptable form of Polygomy? Jacob 2: 27-30 see verse 30

        27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

        28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

        29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

        30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

        JS and BY were commanded to do this (read the journal of William Clayton JS scrib). And it was done to raise up seed. We have history now on our side and can see that. But for me its a little more personal. My first wife died and was sealed to me. Now I have remarried and my new wife is sealed to me. So I guess its a lot like abortion I can’t have both so I choose which one gets terminated from our family? Not so, that violates the very fabric of God. Oh just a side note for those who feel the church has fallen, both wives are mentioned in my Patriarchal blessing which i got when I was 16. Go figure.

        One final thought and I can keep going even in more detail but all I am doing is showing the cracks in his thesis. A true prophet of God Only teaches that which is given him or Her by the Spirit. If not by the Spirit it is only the philosophies of Men mingled scripture. The Spirit will always tell the truth even in the details and once we spot them search them out they will unfold even more details that we missed the first time through.

        Whether DS is conscious of these deceptions I leave that up to the Lord. As for me I see and know it is false, and will not lead you back to Christ because Christ does not seek to harm us. In fact he told the servant to leave the tares in the field so as to not hurt the young wheat. He loves us and weeps when we weep, and mourns when we mourn.

        He does not seek to sift us as chaff, that the other dude.

        I say these things not to enrage, not to injure, not to inflame but to show that we have to be careful when pledging our hearts and minds to follow some one.

        After going to the Lord these are a few of the things which I was shown to help calm my troubled spirit. And just the other night it was brought home to again He is leading people to mistrust the Lords servants and be defiant to their council.

        Again it not my desire to call any one to repentance just to sound the warning cry that this is not what it appears to be.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @Jim: This is pretty long, but I couldn’t think of a way to post it elsewhere, but still continue the discussion. I hope it’s not too cumbersome in this comment thread format. :)

        @ Annalea Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. I recognize that many people hear DS and feel lifted by his words. So I know that by taking the opposite side it will cause contention and a visceral reaction.

        Actually it doesn’t cause contention or any kind of visceral reaction for me, nor would it for many people I know personally. :) My reaction is one of concern and honest curiosity. Projecting those types of very negative and culturally-weighted reactions onto others isn’t very fair, so I would ask you to please not do it. Thanks! :)

        (Visceral reactions happen when unbelief is an issue. It’s not logical or reasoned, but rather an emotional response triggered by a spiritual or emotional wound, sin, or unbelief in someone. Jesus Christ doesn’t lead us to be controlled by those types of knee-jerk responses, but to open-mindedness, acceptance, love and inquiry. Anytime those kinds of responses happen, there’s something more going on underneath, and it’s time to take lots of deep breaths, and look at things more carefully. It’s usually a “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” moment, and lucifer is not wanting us to know that he has a stake in our hearts somewhere.)

        So let me first state that I was actually at first taken by the discourses of DS. I tend to want to know all about something when I learn about it. So I bought his books and all the available Cd’s of his talks up to the last two recent ones. I have those two but have not had a chance to listen to them.

        Awesome. I love to see someone actually looking into something for themselves. What did you think of his books?

        At first I thought yes someone else that gets it,

        Gets what?

        but then I felt and that is the only way to describe it that something was off. I noticed my irritation with the Brethren growing and a defiant spirit beginning to grow with in me.

        That’s common to anyone who is going through a process of realizing there are issues with the authenticity of things they have been taught were true and trusted totally. It’s part of the emotional and psychological process, to be expected, but to be moved through, reaching a place of love and forgiveness. Irritation and defiance are self-defense mechanisms, and symptoms of unforgiveness.

        Negative feelings are an exceptionally poor gauge of truth. They are, instead, an indicator of the state of our own souls. The devil is evil. That’s pretty widely accepted as truth, no? That said, if I go through my life continually feeling irritated and defiant against the devil, who has won? God or the devil?

        The devil has won, for I harbor feelings that belong to his kingdom, instead of the pure love of Christ.

        Now a little about me, I never testify the church is true because its made of people who aren’t, I always testify that the Gospel is true which it is. So I am not lemming who just follows what is being taught, In any thing I try it and then take it to the Lord.

        :) Wonderful. :)

        In the time of Joseph Smith, going out into the woods to pray and seek a spiritual manifestation was nothing new. Joseph had probably heard stories about people going into the woods, and experiencing exactly what he experienced with the darkness. The difference was that Joseph didn’t give up. He pressed through that darkness until the light descended, instead of running away, or waiting the darkness out and then getting up, brushing off his breeches, and returning to his life feeling pleased he had had an encounter with the unseen world.

        How far are you pressing in to what you are seeking? Have you received only one answer, or have heaven and hell both sounded in your ears?

        As I was still reading I was asking the Lord about this I began to see things that bothered me, actually raised serious red flags in my mind. The first was in either the first or second talk when DS announced that only on Sunday would he begin his talks with prayer. Now I know that seems simplistic but I always have believed that instead of the Devil being in the details it is actually God who is in the details.

        I use the Book of Mormon as my main primer, regardless what is being taught if you violate that source you are on the wrong path. So what does the Book of Mormon say about Prayer and meetings?

        2 Nephi 32:9
        “But behold, I say unto you that ye must pray always, and not faint; that ye must not perform any thing unto the Lord save in the first place ye shall pray unto the Father in the name of Christ, that he will consecrate thy performance unto thee, that thy performance may be for the welfare of thy soul.”

        This was my first crack in DS doctrine.

        You might want to listen to the last two talks. Denver talked about this in St. George. The transcript isn’t yet released, or I would quote it for you.

        When Christ was with the Nephites, how many times did He pray with them? In the chapters in 3 Nephi that record His visit (11-30), two prayer events are recorded, one each in chapters 17 & 19. He teaches them how to pray in one chapter, but that is a sermon on prayer, not a prayer. There’s also the command that we are to pray always in our hearts. 2 Nephi 32:9 is talking about personal prayer, not corporate prayer in meetings. The D&C instructs us to conduct our meetings according to the Holy Spirit, whether to teach, preach, exhort, pray, etc. (D&C 46:2 & Moroni 6:9)

        The next one occurred in the talk about Zion being built in the mountains and how its not Jackson County because there are no Mountains there. Well that’s just plain wrong because there are. The Independence area is connected to the Appalachian Mountains by the Ouachita Mountains which at one point were connected to the Appalachian mountains which are considered the one of the oldest mountain chains on the planet (everlasting Hills). Part of this chain fell creating the Mississippi valley area just as described in the book of Moses when Enoch made a local mountain range flee. These mountains have grown and decreased due to lifting of the New Madrid fault, but have the ability to grow up to two miles high if lifted by the plate..

        Enough of the geology lesson what does it matter? What matters is DS teaches Zion is not there because of the lack of Mountains. But the Mountains are there. So who is wrong DS or the prophets of GOD. If DS is a prophet he would not teach falsehoods but would know the truth because he would have been taught it. But he doesn’t he teaches the opposite. So if he is wrong on these two little points what else is he wrong on.

        What of Joseph Smith’s many mentions of the Rocky Mountains? Why were he and Hyrum instructed to flee there?

        And, if mountains can exist underneath a valley floor, then pretty much anywhere there is a geologic fault line there are mountains. They just haven’t been pushed up from under the ground yet. Except, the very definition of mountain is not “a former large natural elevation of the earth’s surface rising abruptly from the surrounding level, that has since been made flat”, but “a large natural elevation of the earth’s surface rising abruptly from the surrounding level”. (Definition courtesy of Google.)

        “Everlasting” means without end.

        ev·er·last·ing

        ˌevərˈlastiNG
        adjective
        1.
        lasting forever or for a very long time.
        “the damned would suffer everlasting torment”
        synonyms: eternal, endless, never-ending, perpetual, undying, abiding, enduring, infinite, boundless, timeless
        “everlasting love”
        constant, continual, continuous, persistent, relentless, unrelieved, uninterrupted, unabating, endless, interminable, never-ending, nonstop, incessant
        “his everlasting complaints”

        (Google’s definition, search terms “define everlasting”.)

        The Appalachian Mountains truly are one of the oldest mountain chains on the planet . . . but they have not weathered their eons well. As you said, those that used to be in the Independence area are there no longer. That would seem to imply that they are not everlasting, but have decayed and are on their way to being mountains no more.

        There’s also the elevation angle. The Rockies are more than twice as high as the Appalachians (just over 14,400’, as opposed to the Appalachians’ peak height of just under 6,700’). If the Lord wants to establish His people in a secure place, the higher the better.

        Or, based on the synonyms listed above, we could consider the definition of “everlasting” to be similar to “endless” and “eternal” as defined in the D&C by the Lord as elements of His name. In that case, the everlasting hills could also be called God’s Mountains, (i.e. where Zion is to be established), or even mountains that were created as a result of the events of His life. The Book of Mormon records that mountains were thrown up at the time of Christ’s death, which means the Rockies could also fit that description.

        His definition of Gentile in the Book of Mormon is wrong and again gives a false premise on who those people are, and their relation to the Kingdom of God (ok people I am not talking political units or even the Church, I am referring to Gods plan for mankind and their redemption). I don’t have the room or time to go into detail here but I can illustrate my point with one question. What did Joseph Smith, George Washington, John Winthropp and even Abraham Lincoln all have in common? They all established Covenants in America that were tied to the Land just as Lehi, Nephi, King Benjamin and King Mosiah did. How could they do that unless they had the Covenant Blood right which gave them the right to do so. Mere occupancy does not give the person the right to invoke that type of Covenant, ask any Palestinian or Hiveite, Hittite or Ammorite, etc. Only the Blood right gives the person the right to establish this covenant. Just ask Moses why it had to be Joshua who established the children of Israel in the original Promised Land. Not only can I show you the covenant blessings and curses still being poured out on the United States today, I can tie it to the Book of Mormon and even Isaiah. This is not insignificant.

        The result is they must be descendants of Lehi, since this is his families Promised Land and only they have the Covenant right to the land. So by definition they are Lamanites not Gentiles. If you use the wrong definition it changes the meaning of what God intended.

        This reasoning feels pretty flawed to me, since the Mulekites and Jaredites had the same covenants with the Lord as Lehi’s descendants did, and they weren’t Lehites. It was the fact of their occupancy (having been brought by the Lord, which is His m.o. for this land) that allowed them the chance to enter into that covenant, along with their association with the Lord, Himself. It is this land, itself, that carries the promise and curse, not the people that inhabit it. God can establish His covenant through anyone who chooses to follow Him, just as He can raise up seed unto Abraham from the very stones.

        But even if Joseph Smith carried Lamanite blood, what of the thousands of Welsh converts, the countless British and Eurpoean converts that flooded the early church? If they aren’t Gentile (and as a result a great number of the main body of US saints, as well), then I don’t know who is. Joseph Smith being Israelitish by blood doesn’t mean all, or even any, of the church itself must be.

        And last but not least his take on Polygamy violates the Book of Mormon where he states that JS only wanted some kind of Spiritual marriage not multiple families and tons of Kids from those woman as Brigham did. Again in the Book of Mormon, what is the only acceptable form of Polygamy? Jacob 2: 27-30 see verse 30

        27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

        28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

        29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

        30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

        You’re leaving out the rest of the context here, Jim.

        31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

        32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

        33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

        34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.

        35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

        Verses 22-29 talk about how abominable polygamy is in the sight of God. Verse 30 says if He wants to raise up righteous seed, He will command His people. Then verses 31-35 go on to scold the Nephites for disregarding a commandment they’ve had for a long time, and very well know better than to break.

        The idea that the Lord could go on at length about how abominable multiple wives are to Him, and really get after the Nephites for doing it, and the contradict Himself in the middle of it all doesn’t seem like a coherent understanding of those verses. You also left out 23-26:

        23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

        24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

        25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

        26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

        If the whole point of bringing the monogamous Lehites out of Jerusalem was to raise up a righteous branch from Joseph’s seed, and they were commanded in the firmest and clearest of ways “For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none,” in the very time when they were told that the Lord took them out of Jerusalem in order to raise up righteous seed, how on earth can we think the Lord will allow something He clearly calls abominable, how can we think He would command His people to do something that so commonly leads to whoredoms and broken hearts and sobbings that rise up to Him, in order to raise up righteous seed?

        JS and BY were commanded to do this (read the journal of William Clayton JS scrib). And it was done to raise up seed. We have history now on our side and can see that. But for me its a little more personal. My first wife died and was sealed to me. Now I have remarried and my new wife is sealed to me. So I guess its a lot like abortion I can’t have both so I choose which one gets terminated from our family? Not so, that violates the very fabric of God. Oh just a side note for those who feel the church has fallen, both wives are mentioned in my Patriarchal blessing which i got when I was 16. Go figure.

        I have no idea how these kinds of things will be worked out. Maybe it has more to do with having only one wife at a time while we are limited, mortal, imperfect creatures. Jesus Christ made it abundantly clear in His message to the Nephites in Jacob 2 that multiple wives and concubines was an abomination because it was wickedness to treat women that way, not because it was wrong for a man to ever be married to more than one woman.

        And what of young widows who are sealed to a now-deceased man? I’ve read their stories . . . of being told that they’re undatable, that they’d better get used to being alone until they’re old enough to marry a widower who already has children, because very few single LDS men are willing to marry a woman for time only. It’s causing not only heartbreak and hurt, but a lot of LDS widows are marrying outside of the church because non-members aren’t prejudiced in that way. That pattern seems to violate the very fabric of God, as well.

        One final thought and I can keep going even in more detail but all I am doing is showing the cracks in his thesis. A true prophet of God Only teaches that which is given him or Her by the Spirit. If not by the Spirit it is only the philosophies of Men mingled scripture. The Spirit will always tell the truth even in the details and once we spot them search them out they will unfold even more details that we missed the first time through.

        Agreed. A prophet is only a prophet when he is speaking as such. Hence the very real responsibility to seek these things out for ourselves. I respect that you feel you are doing that, and I really appreciate the opportunity to continue this discussion. You seem to imply that Denver has done this, (taught other things than what he has been given by the Holy Spirit) and yet I can’t think of a single time that he has. He does speak his own thoughts, as well. As does every person on the earth. Can you point some instances out to me?

        So far you haven’t yet brought up anything that seems out of place, but rather your ways of looking at things that don’t agree with scripture. You say you have further things you could say . . . I would love to hear them. I would also love to hear any rebuttals you have to things I’ve responded with, so I can see if they have holes in them I’m not aware of.

        Whether DS is conscious of these deceptions I leave that up to the Lord. As for me I see and know it is false, and will not lead you back to Christ because Christ does not seek to harm us. In fact he told the servant to leave the tares in the field so as to not hurt the young wheat. He loves us and weeps when we weep, and mourns when we mourn.

        Christ most definitely does not seek to harm us. That is the work of the adversary.

        I’ve been brought closer to Christ than I’ve ever been in my life, and there have been miraculous breakthroughs and transformation in my own family and home, because of Denver’s labor. There have been miraculous healings, as well, because of the greatly increased faith we all have received because of these things. That’s not fruit I can deny, nor can I deny the personal communications and miracles that have come because I have tested what he has taught. That is fruit that the Lord can gather into His garners against the end.

        He does not seek to sift us as chaff, that the other dude.

        Clarify, please? :)

        I say these things not to enrage, not to injure, not to inflame but to show that we have to be careful when pledging our hearts and minds to follow some one.

        Again, no rage, no injury, no emotional inflammation here. I’m good. :D

        I may not be adding emoji to every sentence I write, but I assure you, I have written every sentence with honest curiosity, earnestness, kindness and openness. I hope they can be read that way, as well.

        After going to the Lord these are a few of the things which I was shown to help calm my troubled spirit. And just the other night it was brought home to again He is leading people to mistrust the Lords servants and be defiant to their council.

        By “He”, I’m assuming you meant Denver, and not Christ? ;)

        Denver hasn’t taught defiance. He has taught service, love, kindness, and staying in the church to perform those labors as directed by God. A read-through of his talk transcripts might be something to consider. I find that I notice and remember different things when reading, as opposed to listening.

        Prey animals (such as horses) spook easily. When they encounter anything that might signal danger, they explode into flight. We are not prey, but rather Children of the King, and heirs to far more power and protection than that.

        As far as trusting in men: anyone who mistrusts the arm of flesh is in good company.

        Jeremiah 17:5 ~ Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.

        2 Nephi 4:34 ~ O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.

        2 Nephi 28: 31 ~ Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.

        There are things Denver has said that I trust . . . but I do not trust him. I trust the things concerning which I have received a witness of truth. I do not trust the man behind the message, any more than I would trust any other person. Mortals have no salvific power. Just Christ alone.

        Again it not my desire to call any one to repentance just to sound the warning cry that this is not what it appears to be.

        Which I appreciate, including your willingness to share specifically why you feel the way you do.

        Have a wonderful day, and may you be deeply blessed by an outpouring of the love of Jesus Christ into your soul. :)

        Like

      • @ Annalea It appears you have practically taken issue with every word I have written. I feel as if you have miss understood several of my comments though.

        Contention is apparent all over this blog and others dealing with DS from both sides. To ignore it or make it coming from only one side is disingenuous. The term Visceral in my lexicon means a gut reaction – relating to deep inward feelings not based on logic. The term draws its origins from the visceral fat found in your stomach area. This type of reaction is totally apparent from your reaction by intimating the following: “Projecting those types of very negative and culturally-weighted reactions onto others isn’t very fair” All I was saying was that some might take issue with my answers and reasoning. I did not imply or wish to cast them as anything. You on the other hand have done that.

        I will attempt to respond to your comments below; it is long, so I will apologize to Tim for taking up so much room on his blog.

        1. I thought the statement “Someone else gets it” was self evident; the church is not going to get you into the Celestial Kingdom. That is required of you to work out your relationship with the Father and the Son. The church sets the foundation and establishes the initial Covenants for the individual to begin his/her path back to the Father. But having said that, you can’t toss the church out since all of our initial Covenants stem from the Covenant the Lord made with the church. This also goes to question on Priesthood; if you are removed from that Covenant you lose the right to its line of authority, period. Now if you establish your own Covenant with the Lord then you are fine with the Priesthood you are given with that New Covenant.

        2. As for your comments about Zion and the mountains I didn’t choose the location for Zion/New Jerusalem, GOD did in the Book of Either, the Book of Moses and in the D&C and by the voice of JS. Have you never heard of the low places being made high and the high places being made low? Arguing about which is higher is specious, you missed my point again which is DS not only claimed, but proclaimed it had to be in the West, he is flat out wrong! So either Ds as a prophet and is right about where Zion will be found or he is wrong. If he is wrong then how can he call the brethren to repentance since he also is also wrong. Something in the scriptures about a divided house I think.
        Sorry but I choose the Lord and the scriptures over DS.

        The area selected by the Lord is in Missouri and meets all the criteria as described in the scriptures including the mountain range which fled/collapsed, by the word of Enoch.

        This is a detail you cannot over look. A servant of the Lord on his errand called to recover his people would know that. As for the height issue it would only take a tectonic event for those mountains to return to their full height, as I stated before they can rise as much as two miles 10,000 feet plus if the New Madrid fault really slips. Who am I to tell God it can’t work because my understanding is limited. The comments by Joseph and Hyrum were not for the creation of Zion but for getting the church out before the US imploded. JS was well aware of the curses about to be unleashed on the US because of Slavery and how the people were grinding not only the poor, but the church and all others whom they disagreed with which violated the Covenant of the Land. For a great treatise on the cause of the Civil war read Timothy Ballards “The Lincoln Hypothesis”.

        3. Now Concerning Covenants. They are all not the same. That is the primary problem we are having here because there is a difference in how the Lord extends and honors these different Covenants.

        The Jaredites had a Conditional Covenant with the Lord for this Land of Promise according to the Book of Ether and The prophet Zenos in his allegory. They lost that Covenant because of wickedness.

        Lehi’s Covenant is an Eternal Covenant regardless of his posterity’s actions; this Promised Land was given to his posterity forever at least according to the Book of Mormon.

        There is no mention of the Muliketes having a Covenant in the land. The Mulekites and any others who might have made it to the Nepjhite Land of Promise during the time of the Book of Mormon or later are required to live under Covenant of the Land which is through the Lehite Covenant. They become guest occupiers just as Lehi was when he lived under that part of that Sinai Covenant which was active in Judea region. While there he was subject to those blessings and curses that were upon Judah. Once he was given his own Land of Promise he became the new nexus point for this land and like Abraham who was given a Land of promises for his descendants only the literal pure blood descendants (not having children out of the accepted blood lines) had the property rights so to speak to the Land. These requirements are clear and are illustrated not only in the Old Testament but even with the restoration of the State of Israel. A great primer on the Blessings and curses for a Covenant Land is found in the book by Jonathan Cahn “the Harbinger”.

        Once the original inhabitants had been slaughtered or driven from the land and the residuals had married outside of the Covenant blood lines they became Gentiles and the Covenant was dormant as was seen in the original Promised Land when the children of Jacob were in Egypt. Only a pure descendant with the Birthright of that Covenant could invoke the Covenant of the land which would be recognized by the Lord. This explains why Joshua had to reestablish the Covenant of the Land and not Moses; he did not have the Birthright, Joshua was from the tribe of Ephraim. In the Book of Mormon a great example of this is seen when Mosiah and his people escape the carnage of the Nephite Empire. Why did Zarahemla and his people acknowledge Mosiah as king? The surviving Nephites were small in number and could easily been over powered.

        It was because Mosiah had the right to be the Vassal king on this Land of Promise according to the Davidic Covenant which was a subset of the Abrahamic Covenant, the Lehi Covenant also is a further refinement as a subset of the Sinai Covenant, just think of Russian stacking dolls.

        This next part is imperative to understand the restoration and even the church and all of us. Mosiah the son of King Benjamin changed the Covenant from the Davidic Covenant which used a Vassal king which laid all the sin on the head of the king, back to a National Covenant (Like the Sinai Covenant) that placed all the consequences on voice of the people own heads. This Covenant was never modified even after the Saviors appearance. I tend to term this the Mosiahic Covenant because it was changed for this Promised Land and those who are bound to it forever by blood. Unlike the residual of the house of Israel that seeks for a King and their Promised Land, the descendants of Lehi would not only yearn for their Promised Land but it would have to free from Kings (read the BoM about this land and its relationship to kings). Look at history and notice that the upstarts who demand freedom seem to be related, coincidence I think not. It was the yearning of the Spirit and binding of the Covenant that drove people to find that Promised Land and establish again that Covenant.

        It was this Covenant that was initially restored by John Winthropp, Modified by George Washington at the creation of the United States, and then reemphasized by Abraham Lincoln. Without this Covenant the protective shield the Lord has had over the land since day one could not been in effect. It was present when George Washington fought in the French Indian war so much that native tribes complained the Great Spirit had left them to support the white invaders. This account demonstrates two key points, one that a protective shield was present upon the colonists and two it preempted the local population which now were considered Gentile Lamanites. In other words they had married outside of the covenant and could not invoke the covenant of the Land themselves. But more importantly we see the beginning of the restoration with the Covenant of the land brought back first so that the covenant for the Gospel could be brought back next. This Covenant is a separate Covenant from the restored Gospel but is just as valid in its importance. Finally once the pool of actual remnants of Lehi is expanded the early mission of the church to Missouri was not a failure as Sydney Rigdon and his flock were probably descendants of Lehi and as such were classified as Lamanites to the Lord.

        I hope this clarified my meaning a little more, but the point of this whole discussion is that the leadership of the church through the bloodline of these early saints can’t be classified as Gentiles. There are plenty of Gentiles in the land, and in the church but the leadership was not. The Brethren as described by DS can and must be descendants of Lehi to invoke the Covenant on the land. Simple math, if not they have no claim and are usurpers which God is not, he does not steal.

        4. Finally the points about Polygamy, you missed my point again. I did quote the entire section on how it was bad for those woman and children. My point was Jacobs point. IF AND ONLY IF GOD WANTED MORE SEED (KIDS) WOULD POLYGOMY BE VALID. Otherwise only one wife or husband at a time. My point was that JS was commanded and so were all the early brethren for Gods own purposes. You may not like it, others may not like it. But it is a fact and if it’s a deal breaker then we lost it long ago. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and even Jesus if you believe the Roman historian Calculus were polygamists.

        All I know is that DS is wrong also about this doctrine. And regardless of how much he despises it, it will be a function of salvation in the lives of all those who are Celestialized since all will be bound as Husband and Wife. So here is a question for you, if God is not a respecter to persons and a righteous woman never marries and all the men are married what is God to do for Her? This will be a real question since women tend to be better than men and will populate the Celestial pool in uneven numbers.

        5. Annalea I am willing to carry on the conversation, but just break it down to a single topic so it’s not so cumbersome. My main concern is that DS is breaking people from the church with a false hope of a new Covenant. Everything I have ever read tells me this is wrong. Learning is not wrong but leaving your Covenants because you have been duped in to believing the Brethren have fallen and should not be sustained is bad stuff. Do I get tired of hearing the same old same old every day, yes and do I want more, yes . Do I disagree with the church’s PR department yes. But like those who knew of Christ before his birth but were bound by the Covenants of the Day I too must obey and follow. Even Christ who was God obeyed every jot and title, down to the last moments on the cross.

        Hope this helped.

        Jim

        Like

  27. SteveF, as a follow-up, I would ask this question of you, in all sincerity, if everything was prophesied to never fail, to any significant degree, as you say, then why would the Lord have mentioned such drastic potential consequences in D&C 124 if the people did fulfill His commands? Why would the Lord threaten the saints if He knows everything is going to work out and all will be well?

    D&C 124:25-48
    And, again, verily I say unto you, let all my saints [come?] from afar; And send ye swift messengers, yea, chosen messengers and say unto them, Come ye, with all your gold, and your silver, and your precious stones, and with all your antiquitiees, and with all who have knowledge of antiquities, that will come, may come, and bring the box tree, and the fir tree, and the pine tree, together with all the precious trees of the earth, and with iron, with copper and with brass, and with zink all your precious things of the earth, and build a house unto my name, for the Most High to dwell therein, for there is not place found on the earth; that he may come and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the Priesthood; for a baptismal font there is not upon the earth; that they, my saints may be baptized for those who are dead, for this ordinance belongeth to my house, and cannot be acceptable to me, only in the days of your poverty, wherein ye are not able to build a house unto me; but I command you, all ye my saints to build a house unto me, and I grant unto you a sufficien[t] time to build a house unto me; and during this time your baptisms, shall be acceptable unto me. But behold, at the end of this appointment, your baptisms for your dead, shall not be acceptable unto me, and if you do not these things, at the end of the appointment, ye shall be rejected as a church, with your dead, saith the Lord your God. For verily I say unto you, that after you have had sufficient time to build a house unto me, wherein the ordinance of baptizing for the dead belongeth, and for which the same was instituted from before the foundation of the world, your baptisms for your dead cannot be acceptable unto me, for therein are the keys of the Holy Priesthood ordained, that you may receive honor and glory. And after this time, your baptisms for the dead, by those who are scattered abroad are not acceptable unto me, saith the Lord; for it is ordained that in Zion and in her stakes, and in Jerusalem [p. 5] those places which I have appointed shall be the places for your the baptisms for your dead.
    And, again, verily I say unto you, how shall your washings be acceptable unto me, except, ye perform them in a house which you have built to my name? for, for this cause I commanded Moses that he should build a tabernacle, that they should bear it with them in the wilderness, and to build a house in the land of promise, that those ordinances might be revealed, which had been hid from before the world was; therefore, verily I say unto you, that your anointings and your washings, and your babtisms for the dead and your solemn assemblys, and your memorials for your sacrifices, by the sons of Levi, and for your oracles in your most holy places, wherein you receive conversations, and your statutes, and judgements, for the beginning of the revelations and foundation of Zion, and for the glory and honor and endowment of all her municiples, are ordained by the ordinance of my holy house, which my people are allways Commanded to build unto my holy name.
    And verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal my mine ordinances therein, unto my people, for I deign to reveal unto my church, things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fulness of times, and I will shew unto my servant Joseph all things pertaining to this house and the priesthood thereof, and the place whereon it shall be built, and ye shall build it on the place where you have contemplated building it, for that is the spot which I have chosen for you to build it. If ye labor with all your mights I will consecrate that spot, that it shall be made holy; and if my people will hearken unto my voice and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place, but if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest, because they pollute my mine holy grounds, and mine holy ordinances, and charters, and my holy words which I give unto them, And it shall come to pass, that if you build a house unto my name, and do not do the things that I say, I will not perform the oath which I make unto you, neither fulfill the promises which ye expect at my hands saith the Lord, for instead of blessings, ye, by your own works, bring cursings, wrath, indignation, and judgments upon your own heads by your follies and by all your abominations which you practise before me [p. 6] saith the Lord.
    </blockquote

    The Standard of Truth quote says “no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing,” but what about supposedly hallowed hands? Again, I ask sincerely? Were the saints established in Nauvoo and the Nauvoo Temple consecrated as a holy spot and accepted by the Lord, or were the saints moved out of their place and was the temple utterly destroyed? Is it possible that the saints failed in Nauvoo to a lesser or even greater degree? Neither Joseph or Hyrum, his designated successor, were preserved. Zion was not built. It is difficult to deny that many, if not all, the consequences in the last paragraph came to pass. What does this mean? Did we lose something, or fail to obtain something (like the fulness of the priesthood referenced), in Nauvoo? If so, what persisted?

    Liked by 3 people

    • correction in first paragraph: “drastic potential consequences in D&C 124 if the people did NOT fulfill His commands?”

      Like

    • Geoff,

      Good to hear from you again. My immediate thought is it would be the same reason the Lord warns anybody previous to them doing the right thing. Why warn Ninevah that they would be destroyed when God knew they would repent and not be destroyed? I’m sure there are many scriptural examples.

      As far as what was or was not lost in Nauvoo, we discussed this so long in the 600+ comment section, and I repeated myself so often, I’m surprised you don’t know what I would say to this. I went to great lengths showing and quoting the history of the restoration and passing on of the fulness of the priesthood, have you forgotten? Yes, Joseph Smith and Hyrum were lost, but the keys, authority, and Kingdom restored through Joseph were preserved to continue to roll forth as prophesied.

      Liked by 1 person

    • @ Geoff and @ SteveF, as a paralell to your comment Geoff, a careful study of 3 Nephi 16, 20 & 21, the entire book of Isaiah–read as a single end times prophesy, and the D&C as well as myriad statements by numbers of formers prophets and apostles reveals plainly (see 3 Nephi 16: 10-15) that the latter day “gentile” church–(it is a plain case to make that the Lord is referring here, as does Isaiah in many places, to the the LDS church today) would indeed “reject” the “fulness” of the gospel by doing just as ancient Israel (see D&C 84: 19-24) and not accept the invitation to “enter the rest of the Lord”. It is abundantly clear that the Latter Day Saints rejected that invitation, as a people and not necessarily individually, and that the Church remains under “condemnation” today because we still have not accepted that invitation. All is not well in Zion. Although i must add that I love the Church and I sincerely believe that there is not a better people under heaven. We simply must awake to our awful situation. It’s painful, and requires a great deal of humility and patience, but it must be done if any of us are to escape the judgments that are first to be poured out on the Lord’s own house.

      Liked by 1 person

  28. Let us refer to Joseph who said that keys are knowledge. The church has transposed this to mean authority strictly, thus the random keyholder speech by Oaks. Tim spoke true principles. Trying to retort truth born by the Spirit is a tough call. Claiming keys flowing from Joseph can only suffice if you know every detail of your history. Since there is a void, you can’t claim keys, authority or anything of the sort. That takes you out of the calling and election train, becuse you put your faith in man. I am grateful to be with the fine brothers and sisters at the conference. Thank you.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Hi Tim, thanks for posting this reflection on recent DS talks. I look forward to reading them when they’re up on his blog. My take on the 16 stones is that whether BofJ held them or not, he saw them filled with light. If he held them, I’m not sure he would have felt the finger of the Lord upon them or not. But I would imagine whether he held them or felt the touch of the Savior or not, he was thinking, “Lord, how is it done?” What must have been going through his mind? How it was done in this case was not by God’s word, but by His touch. He showed Jared’s brother that His touch is as powerful as His word. It strengthened the BofJ’s faith to the point of receiving the Lord in fullness.

    As to the latter part of your post, if I were one of the Brethren, I’d rather you try to persuade me by gentleness, meekness, long suffering and love unfeigned. Not saying your remarks aren’t true, but how you expressed them felt harsh, not humble, nor long suffering, inviting, nor persuading. Just my take.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I always appreciate when someone points out where I have been overbearing or overly critical. Thanks for inviting me to temper my passion. As I reread what I wrote in the last four paragraphs, I had to agree with your assessment. It was harsh. I could have done better. Carol hinted the same when she read my post, although she didn’t come out and say it. Men are clueless sometimes – it helps to be direct. Thanks for helping me work on my “tone” as my bishop has asked.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Tim, it takes a great deal of introspection, meekness, and humility to admit what you just did. I applaud you for that, and thank you for the sincere effort you are making to explore and expound truth and expose error.

        Liked by 1 person

    • We all know that we should use the tone and wording that the Lord would have us use. Many times prophets speak boldly.

      However, if He leaves it up to our own wording, it doesn’t seem to hurt to err on the side of humility.

      Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder [Greek presbyteros - the priesthood office]. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. (1 Peter 5:5; see also James 4:6)

      If there’s any power I continually need access to, it’s God’s unfathomable, amazing grace. Humility goes right along with offering the broken heart and contrite spirit that He would like us to sacrifice.

      Unfortunately, written words without the accompanying nonverbal communication that a face-to-face conversation has can sometimes have the feel of being a little more authoritative or blunt . . . or critical . . .

      Like

  30. If you read Samuel 3 you will not think that it is wrong for someone who is under a prophet to receive revelation about the prophet. IS that not what happened when Samuel was told by the Lord that Eli would have his house ended and that He would loose his position? Samuel, not Eli was told these things. Is that not backwards according to church policy? Just wondering… Maybe sometimes there are things the Lord would like the prophet to hear something from someone besides those who hail and say they love him.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Sound reason and understanding, unfortunately, don’t penetrate beyond people’s traditions. It was true is Moses’ day, true in Joseph Smith’s day and remains. kt, you speak the truth, but who will hear? Not those who, out of fear of falling off the path, cling to every tradition that proceeds forth from the mouths of men as though it came from God himself. Boy Nephi said it well: “And now I, Nephi, cannot say more; the Spirit stoppeth mine utterance, and I am left to mourn because of the unbelief, and the wickedness, and the ignorance, and the stiffneckedness of men; for they will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be.”

      Liked by 1 person

  31. I hold no animosity or resentment towards Denver Snuffer. Personally, I believe that he has been ministered to by the Lord. His first doctrinal book Second Comforter was great. Evidently, even seeing visions, angels and being in the Lord’s presence does not create immunity from error, even gross error. I believe his last book, PTHG, which I read very carefully (3 times), contains gross error. Now, I don’t think the church should have booted him out over this. I think the authorities should have kindly taken him aside and asked him to tone down the offensive anti-authoritarian rhetoric. In PTHG Snuffer posits: 1. The Saints were “rejected” for failing to complete the Nauvoo temple “on time.” 2. A “fulness” of authority was not passed to Brigham Young (and hence his successors in office) 3. the term “gentiles” in the Book of Mormon always refers to the small inner circle of Saints that belong to the LDS denomination. Snuffer defends these attacks by stating he has merely quoted the original source material. While true, one must understand that any historian must select from a huge mound of material, to support a preexisting historical theory. To select a tiny amount of material and then to ignore a mountain of countervailing material is to be either disingenous, incompetent or dishonest. My judgment is that Snuffer failed to establish any of his major 3 theses. I fully recognize problems in the current leadership and organization of the church, but I do not think they are as desperate as Snuffer insists them to be. Comments on this blog are increasingly insisting that each must take a stand on Denver Snuffer. Well, I don’t feel any obligation to do so. I think Denver Snuffer has a very important message for the leadership of the church; and that leadership will be forced to face up to the history and doctrine of the church in an honest approach, rather than the evasive approach of the past 80 years. To the degree this gets leadership’s attention, good can come out of all of this. For those of you who are getting heated up emotionally over Denver Snuffer, I advise: please exercise caution. Denver has repeatedly requested that this is not about him, he does not request any following, and he wants you to make your contact with heaven individually. As for authority, Snuffer may insinutate he has authority, but until he explicitly claims it, this issue is moot. If and when Snuffer steps it up and crosses the line by competing with the Brethren over Authority or claims He has Authority (or Keys or whatever) and the Brethren do not, then that will take the controversy to a whole new level. Much of this blog is going back and forth on an issue that really isn’t current (not yet) since Snuffer has nowhere claimed to have keys or authority. Many on this blog are critical, rightly so, of our idolatry towards the Brethren; let’s just be careful that we are not simply trading our idolatry from church leaders to our idolatry to Denver Snuffer. Peace to all.

    Liked by 3 people

    • I agree most heartily with your comments Karl. And for any one whom I may have offended with my earlier comments I am sorry.

      We are all brothers and sisters of an Eternal God and as such we should love one another.

      Liked by 1 person

      • so, for anyone who is interested, there is a new kids on the block lol. Her name is Julie Rowe. she claims to have had a near death experience and to have been shown a vision very similar to what we read in the book, Visions of Glory. She was told not to discuss what she saw with anyone until now. Anyway, if what she says is true, everything is coming to a head very soon.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Karl

      Thank you so much for your comments. I agree! I think there are those who are putting Denver in a position, by insinuation, that he has stated over and over that he does not care to be. It feels like a game of “Button, Button, whose got the Button?” I don’t see that it is necessary to give him a “Title” of any kind to validate his message.

      The leadership of the church is certainly in a tight position right now with history and doctrinal differences and it will be interesting to see how they handle it. They need to be honest and upfront and perhaps it will stem the tide of those who are leaving the membership right now. The lack of upfront dialogue is one of the issues that has disappointed so many and has put the brethren in a perceived dishonorable position.

      This disconnection trend use to be “out there” but now it has crept in to my own family and so many of the families of my ward. I can count 5 in my immediate neighborhood that have children who are facing challenges of belief in this church. (And that’s just who I know about.)

      In my findings, there is so much conflict in the history it’s really hard to determine what is true original source and what is not. So much history has been altered to meet the standards of the time in which it was re-written.

      Apparently is it’s common for historians to change interpretation to fit what they think should be said to meet the present day’s opinions. This undertaking is called “retoactive continuity or “retcon. It makes for a poor understanding of what actually happened or was said in source or done in the original event.

      We see this approach in American and World history all the time and it is usually influenced by the acting political system. The history books our children are reading are certainly not what I learned in school.
      It was a common practice in the 1800’s with our church history writers and we are certainly affected by it now. (I have examples…that I could share and perhaps I will in a later post.) The brethren are in a “Fix” and need our prayers and support.

      Even though there are differences of opinion and doctrine between Denver and some of the theology the Church is teaching, we are held together by more commonality than just three issues or four unconfirmed issues, as you specified in your post. Thank goodness!

      It is a testimony to me that it’s more important than ever to stick to scriptures and hang on to the “Iron Rod.” Our testimonies cannot be based on historical evidences that are shaky at best.

      Even though I do not agree with everything, I love what Denver is sharing in his lectures in regards to the Lord. My testimony of Christ is strengthen by each lecture. St. George was wonderful. It has been “Good” for me. (Alma 5:40.) Until I feel or am told differently by the spirit, I will continue to enjoy his words. I will also continue to sustain the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and it’s intended mission to spread the gospel that allow others to participate in the saving covenants.

      As always… “Go to the Lord for confirmation.”

      Liked by 2 people

      • I ordered the book. I have only heard the radio show she was on up to this point and I was curious. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt and do not take other’s opinions personally, so I will have to see how I feel when I read her book

        Another really great one is, There is No Death. I love reading about people’s experiences. They fascinate me and I would LOVE to have one of my own, but I don’t want to get hurt or be so sick that I die. LOL I’m not that desperate.

        Referring to the heated discussions above… remember, we don’t have to agree. There’s nothing wrong with SteveF saying he got a “no” answer to the DS question. We can’t take other people’s opinions personally. Getting angry, telling someone “You’re wrong!” is the quickest way to turn people off to anything and it certainly isn’t how the Lord wants us to treat each other. Having to be “right” is the most dangerous emotion. We have to let go of that need and just share our hearts. That’s just my two cents.

        Tim has done this so well and so openly. I could not talk as openly as he does. I have loved this post and the conversation it has generated. This is what it’s for. To get us talking and communicating. This is wonderful!

        Liked by 1 person

    • I appreciate you comments very much and your tone. I do believe that the Book of Mormon and Isaiah references to “gentiles” can be firmly and clearly established to mean the LDS church…it takes time to lay the case but it can be done plainly and effectively. Whether or not Brigham Young lost a “fulness” of authority, I don’t know, but I do believe it can be laid out clearly that he started monkeying around with the already established order of the church and especially the priesthood, and it continued and worsened from there. Whether the saints were “rejected” simply for not completing the temple, I’m not sure, but the D&C is very clear that they were (and we remain) under condemnation for rejecting the “fulness” of the gospel: i.e. the BoM and the former commandments (as laid out in the D&C which include consecration and the invitation to enter into the rest of the Lord). DS is not alone in his critique of the Church. There are many faithful Latter Day Saints who love the Lord and love the Church who share similar if not the same views. And we are not on the road to apostasy but are seekers of light and truth. Peace to you.

      Liked by 1 person

  32. Dang! Accidentally hit the post button before I had a chance to edit. Anyway y’all should look for her book. She talks about a man who comes as a false prophet who leads a ton of people from the church away. And she described what the guy looks like. I am a believer in Denver snuffer’s message, and I worried for a minute if she was talking about him. I certainly don’t want to be one of those who is led away. But she describes him looking totally different than the DS. Very fascinating to me though. The whole thing.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mjcunningham

      Apparently you enjoyed the book. I tread tenderly on discrediting another person’s experience. However, I have read about 15 near death experience books through the years and this is the first one I though was not as convincing as the others I have read.

      First of all, the book was filled with gospel lectures. I do not want to be taught the story of Joseph of old… nor all the other scriptural accounts. I can learn directly from the scriptures. I didn’t see how all of that had any really baring on her personal experience unless it was to try and validate her experience in some way.

      I find that near death experiences that are soooo LDS seem less credible. (With the exception of Visions of Glory and perhaps that is because I trust John Pontius, who was the author who put Spencer’s experience into words.)

      Again… I’m not in a position to judge her experience but it just did not persuade me as the others have done. However, the part about the false prophet was interesting. My very favorite of all time is “Return from Tomorrow” by George Ritchie. Another favorite was “Proof of Heaven” by Eben Alexander, a medical Dr. And of course, Heaven is for Real by Todd Burpo is wonderful. “Out of the mouths of babes…”

      Just my “book report” point of view.

      Liked by 2 people

  33. Steve, good to hear from you too. I confess I don’t remember all those arguments to and fro, and I’m not asking you to repeat them. So much time has passed since then anyway. Also, this is a new audience and a new discussion in many ways. So I hope you’ll bear with me. Or feel free to ignore.

    I believe some of the points I’m trying to highlight are a little different than what we’ve discussed before. Why would the Lord so clearly prophesy the consequences of failure if failure was not even possible and if He had previously stated that failure was impossible? That sounds out of bounds for the Lord, who is a God of truth and cannot lie, Whose words are all fulfilled – even if we don’t understand or recognize it. Where did He state that failure, condemnation, or rejection was not possible? For example, He stated in D&C 84:54-60 that the whole church was under condemnation, which President Benson reiterated a few times during his presidency in the late 1980’s. Are you referring to Daniel’s prophecy or the Standard of Truth quote? Please elaborate and share, if you desire.

    Daniel 2
    44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.

    D&C 109:72
    72 Remember all thy church, O Lord, with all their families, and all their immediate connections, with all their sick and afflicted ones, with all the poor and meek of the earth; that the kingdom, which thou hast set up without hands, may become a great mountain and fill the whole earth;

    What is the kingdom God would set up? Is it The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? What does he mean by “shall never be destroyed” and “shall not be left to other people”? Could the kingdom be established, not ever be destroyed (disappear from the earth), and yet the people (and even leaders/shepherds) of that kingdom fall under condemnation or rejection to a greater or lesser degree? What had to persist for this prophecy to be fulfilled?

    The Lord also stated through John the Baptist, to Joseph and Oliver at the time he conferred the Aaronic Priesthood, D&C 13 (May 1829):

    Upon you my fellow servants in the name of Messiah I confer the priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministring of angels and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and this shall never be taken again from the earth, untill the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

    I don’t believe any such promise has ever been made by the Lord concerning the Melchizedek Priesthood or the sealing power, etc. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    Now He did say, D&C 90 (Kirtland 8th of March 1833):

    A Commandment given unto Joseph saying thus saith the Lord verily verily I say unto you my son thy sins are forgiven thee according to thy petition for thy prayers and the prayers of thy brethren have come up into my ears therefore thou art blessed from henceforth that bear the keys of the kingdom given unto you which kingdom is coming forth for the Last time verily I say unto you the keys of this kingdom shall never be taken from you whilst thou art in the world neither in the world to come never[the]less through you shall the oricles be given unto another yea even unto the church and all they who receive the oricles of God let them be aware how they hold them lest they are accounted as a light thing and are brought under condemnation thereby and stumble and fall when the storms descend the winds blow and the rains descend and beat upon their house

    It sounds to me like the Lord is saying the keys would never be taken from Joseph and that we, the church, would be given the oracles (i.e. the revelations), which is what we have. What keys persisted after Joseph’s death? Brigham and the Twelve of his day testify that “all the keys” were taught to them – what does that mean? What are the keys? Are they invisible pieces of authority, or knowledge, or ordinances? Are they key words, names, signs, and tokens? Is that the same as the “fulness of the priesthood” which the Lord said He would “come and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away” if they built Him a house to come and dwell in (i.e. the Nauvoo Temple)? Is there any record of the fulfillment of this restoration occurring in the Nauvoo Temple after its May 1, 1846 dedication? Did the Lord come dwell there?

    From D&C 124 (Nauvoo, 19th of January 1841):

    “I command you, all ye my saints to build a house unto me, and I grant unto you a sufficien[t] time to build a house unto me; and during this time your baptisms, shall be acceptable unto me. But behold, at the end of this appointment, your baptisms for your dead, shall not be acceptable unto me, and if you do not these things, at the end of the appointment, ye shall be rejected as a church, with your dead, saith the Lord your God.”

    What was the “sufficient time”? How much time did the Lord appoint them? Was it 3.5 years? Denver proposed in PTHG that it would necessarily have been before Joseph’s and Hyrum’s deaths, and that if the people had fulfilled the appointment that the prophet and patriarch would not have been taken out of their midst. Construction was only about half-way complete when they were murdered on June 27, 1844. Most of the church members started leaving Nauvoo in February of 1846. A skeleton crew was left behind to complete the building. In spite of the damaged attic, the temple was dedicated on April 30 and May 1, 1846 (roughly 2 years after the martyrdom). By September 1846 the remainder of the Latter-day Saints were driven from Nauvoo and the temple was abandoned. The Church tried to rent and sell it without success. Around midnight 8-9 October 1848 it was set afire. On 27 May 1850 it was struck by tornado and largely destroyed.

    If ye labor with all your mights I will consecrate that spot, that it shall be made holy;

    Did the Lord consecrate it that it was made holy? To be honest, it looks like He destroyed it. Tornados have a nickname in the midwest, “the finger of God” (meaning His wrath).

    and if my people will hearken unto my voice and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place,

    Did the people hearken to the voice of Joseph and Hyrum? Apparently not enough to keep them alive. Were they moved out of their place? It really looks like they were literally moved out of that place. Kicked out of Nauvoo by force, with the temple abandoned and then destroyed.

    but if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest, because they pollute my mine holy grounds, and mine holy ordinances, and charters, and my holy words which I give unto them, And it shall come to pass, that if you build a house unto my name, and do not do the things that I say, I will not perform the oath which I make unto you, neither fulfill the promises which ye expect at my hands saith the Lord, for instead of blessings, ye, by your own works, bring cursings, wrath, indignation, and judgments upon your own heads by your follies and by all your abominations which you practise before me [p. 6] saith the Lord.

    Were they “not blessed”? Did they suffer “cursings, wrath, indignation, and judgments”? It looks like they did. Anyone who tries to describe the travails of the pioneers as the favor of heaven has a different idea of divine favor. They left at the wrong time of year. The elements did not seem to be tempered for them. It looks like they were driven into the wilderness and chastened. Did the saints fail to receive something in Nauvoo? Did they fail to establish Zion and receive the Lord’s protection? It appears so. Did all of this constitute at least partial failure, rejection, and condemnation? Perhaps it did. Was the kingdom destroyed? I don’t believe so. All or nothing doesn’t seem quite right or fair. Is the kingdom the church or a future Zion that will fill the whole earth? I’m not certain.

    Is there a parallel with D&C 84 (Kirtland, September 1832), between Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo saints and Moses and the children of Israel?

    and this greater Priesthood adminestereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the misteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God therefore in the ordinences thereof the power of Godliness is manifest and without the ordinences thereof, and the authority of the Priesthood, the power of Godliness is not manifest unto man in the flesh, for without this no man can see the face of God even the father and live, now this Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and saught diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God, but they hardened ther hearts and could not endure his presence therefore the Lord in his wrath (for his anger was kindled against them) swore that they should not enter into his rest, which rest is the fulness of his glory while in the wilderness, therefore he took Moses out of there midst and the holy Priesthood also, and the lesser Priesthood continued, which Priesthood holdeth the keys of the ministring of Angels and the preparitory gospel, which gospel is the gospel of repentence and of Baptism, and the remission of sins, and the Law of carnal commandments— which the lord in his wrath caused to continue with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel until John whom God raised up being fillid with the holy ghost from his Mothers womb, for he was baptised while he was yet in his the mothers womb and was ordained by the Angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews and to make straight the way of the Lord

    He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He does not change. He is no respecter of persons. He operates in every age upon the same eternal perfections, character, attributes, and principles. Could He not have dealt with the Nauvoo saints in this same manner? Did they sanctify themselves to behold the face of God? Did they build Zion? Was Joseph taken out of their midst and the holy (greater) priesthood also, and only the lesser Priesthood continued, with the preparatory gospel, etc.?

    I do not presume to KNOW all the answers. I want to KNOW for myself by revelation from the Lord. All I can say is Denver’s narrative seems at least as plausible/possible as the traditional one, and in some ways more plain and less convoluted to my understanding. Now we are really adept, in the church, at solidarity – getting in line behind a doctrine or a leader, even if it or they turn out to be wrong later. But I don’t think we’re very good at admitting we were wrong about something, especially something big. The longer we tell a tale, the more it grows into “faith-promoting” fluff or exaggeration, like the stories of BY’s transfiguration into JS at the succession crisis. Is it heresy or apostasy to consider the truth of these things, contrary to tradition? I’m more interested in the truth now than just stories that puff up our self-image that we are righteous and chosen above all other people, etc. The Lord is Righteous, Beloved, and Chosen. We are mostly vain, proud, foolish, ignorant, and weak. I speak for myself at least. If someone here actually KNOWS, by firsthand experience, the truth of these things, please share.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Geoff, if you are really serious about studying these things out in your mind to the best of your abilities to get answers to your questions, I would recommend reading and studying in full each of the following sources:

      Words of Joseph Smith by Ehat and Cook (I would recommend finding a printed copy from someone, but if not you can find an inexpensive electronic version if you look)
      The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power by Michael Quinn
      Part 1 and Part 2 of Greg Smith’s PtHG review (also see the comment section of Part 2 for further discussion on time needed to build the Nauvoo temple)
      David Buerger Thesis on the Fulness of the Priesthood in LDS theology
      Andrew Ehat Thesis on the introduction of temple ordinances and the 1844 succession crisis.

      I believe together these will give you the information needed to study it out in your mind and heart as you let the Spirit guide you and reveal the answers to you in the Lord’s due time. It will be a lot to take in, many people (I would think maybe even a majority of people in the Church) are probably not ready for such an intensive study and the information found in these sources, so it may also be good to pray and ask God if you are prepared for the information you will find. I wish you the best in journey, feel free to email me any time.

      Liked by 1 person

  34. Karl, thank you for your comments and perspective, do you mind sharing your list of the “gross errors” you noticed in Passing The Heavenly Gift? Denver stated upfront that PTHG was not a historical work, in the traditional sense, but rather an interpretation of the history from a prophetic and scriptural perspective. I think that was the key to the historical sources he selected as evidence, which from a academic/historian perspective would seem completely biased and not up to snuff :).

    Liked by 1 person

    • Geoff, As you know PTHG runs over 400 pages, so I’ll try to be concise here: 1. I think Denver’s use of the term “Gentiles” to mean the inner circle of covenant members of the LDS Church is incorrect. For example, 2nd Nephi Ch 13 (I think) has Nephi receiving a vision of the latter-days in which he sees the Revolutionary war and then the restoration of the gospel. The term “gentile” is used repeatedly through this vision. This immediately contradicts Denver’s interpretation, because clearly the term Gentiles is being used here, in the sense of any who are not Jews. So, at the least, I think you have an outer circle of Gentiles (meaning those not Jews), then a smaller circle of Gentiles who believe in Christ, and then an even smaller circle of those who believe in Christ and are within the covenant. And this is where careful attention to context is important: the term Gentile can be used in any of the 3 contexts. DS must try to restrict the term Gentile to the third meaning, because otherwise his thesis that the Gentiles have rejected the gospel, meaning the LDS church, cannot be sustained. I intend to go through all the references to Gentiles in the BOM and try to sort them all out. I just think that in this area Denver has not been careful with the way he is analyzing the scriptures. 2. Denver repeatedly claims that incompletion of the Nauvoo Temple was cause for God to “reject” the church members and that God “withheld” the “fulness” from the Saints because of this. However, after 3 very careful readings of his book, I cannot figure out precisely what Denver claims was lost, and what consequence this had on the Saints. The notion that God was angry, and that’s why hundreds died on the journey out of Nauvoo, doesn’t ring true to me: the fact that the anti-Mormons in the area were on the warpath against the Mormons already seems to me to be a better explanation of what happened. 3. Denver insinutates that from Brigham Young forward, somehow complete authority did not pass by succession by ordination. Well, this depends upon what you accept as evidence of this. To me, I believe the testimony of Brigham Young when he says he talked with Joseph Smith face to face on two occasions (after Joseph’s death) and that the important message was “teach the people to get the Holy Ghost.” Assuming BY was telling the truth, it is incomprehensible to me that if something significant was lost that Joseph wouldn’t at least mention this problem to Brigham Young. Then we have the testimony of Lorenzo Snow’s niece that Lorenzo saw the Savior in the Salt Lake Temple, and that the message here was that reorganization of the leadership to procede without delay. Again, if something necessary for transition was lacking, that would have been a good thing for the Lord to mention, to get things back on track. Then, we have the testimony of Joseph F Smith and the Vision of the Redemption of the Dead. Further, the testimony of George Q Cannon that he had seen the Savior face to face. Further, the 1979 Priesthood meeting testimony of Spencer Kimball, who quoted John Taylor “I have seen the Savior,” and then adding: “I bear the same testimony.” Further, the testimony of Harold Lee, that he had a vision of the Savior in the Garden of Gethsemane. Further, the testimony of Heber Kimball that Moroni appeared to him, shortly before his death, to tell him his life mission was nearly completion. In fact, I see significant spiritual witnesses of nearly every church president from BY onward, and many of the leaders around them. While I understand that we are in a time where these gifts are relatively subdued, I think they are still there, and that they stand as evidence that the Lord is still with the leadership of the church and that they still have sufficient authority to lead the church and fulfill their duty. Of course, none of these experiences (and scores of others which are easily accessible) are included in PTHG because their inclusion would undermine Denver’s theory about incomplete transmission of keys and authority. Instead we have, for example, a very critical quote of Heber Grant, talking about how unspiritual the man was. Well, yes, considering the context. Heber was called into the 12 at a very young age (27 I think); I suppose it is logical that he would consider himself unqualified and unprepared at that age because he was! It’s not fair to access Grant’s spirituality at the beginning of his church career, and then include nothing in relation to what Grant had become at the end of his life. By carefully picking and choosing the evidence, Denver can craft the evidence to support his theses, anyway he wants to support them. Denver insists that we take his witness of Christ seriously, but also wants us to conclude (as he has apparently) that since the authorities rarely publicly discuss any of their experiences, that means they haven’t had any. This is necessarily a false conclusion, because there is no way that Denver can know what the Brethren have or have not experienced. Further, even if the current 15 men have never had a direct revelation from the Lord, this would not be evidence that their authority is absent. As long as the Gift of the Holy Ghost is operating with these men, I believe that is sufficient; at least I cannot see a scripture that insists that an Apostle must see the Savior in order to bear a legitimate witness of Him. Well, that’s a start, Again, I have no ill feelings to Denver Snuffer; my take is that he has tried to pound square pegs into round hole, and each one gets more and more difficult to fit, as he attempts to retain his various theories throughout the book. Best regards.

      Liked by 1 person

  35. Some of Denver’s latest declarations are very clear and bold:

    Ephraim, p.49-50
    If you will receive it, faith in Him comes by hearing the word of God (Romans 10: 17). Not by a
    pretender, not by someone guessing, not by someone offering up their theory of how the
    scriptures ought to be understood. Faith does not come by hearkening to someone citing you a
    bibliography. Faith comes only by hearing the word of God delivered as He would have it
    delivered, by whomever it is that He may choose to deliver it (Romans 10: 14-17).

    If you receive God’s word sent by someone He sends, then you might have faith, and that
    too in the Son of God. Then you also might receive Him. But if you will not, if you will harden
    your hearts, if you will blind your minds, if you will not receive what He offers from His mouth in your day, then you do not have faith in Him. You will fall short of that faith required to
    become His son and His daughter.

    It is that way, it has always been that way, it will always be that way. There is no other
    test.

    Therefore, either I am a liar and you ought to forget everything I’ve said, or I have been
    sent by someone greater than I am. If I have been sent and you reject and quibble over the things
    I declare to you, it is at your peril!

    It ought to be that way. I ought to be damned if I’m a pretender, and I ought to be damned
    and rejected by God if I’m saying things about which I know nothing! But I bear witness to you I
    know what I’m talking about. I have no reason to lie to you. I have no reason to pay to reserve a
    place to speak to you, and ask nothing of you but to listen. It requires a sacrifice to do what I am
    doing. I have no other reason to do this than to tell you the truth. Joseph Smith testified to these
    things and I am come as a second witness. Therefore you now have two proclaiming the same
    doctrine.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Tim, feel free to delete the post above, which is a poorly formatted duplicate of the one below. :)

      Like

  36. Sorry, previous post was poorly formatted. Some of Denver’s latest declarations are very clear and bold:

    Ephraim, p.49-50
    If you will receive it, faith in Him comes by hearing the word of God (Romans 10: 17). Not by a pretender, not by someone guessing, not by someone offering up their theory of how the scriptures ought to be understood. Faith does not come by hearkening to someone citing you a bibliography. Faith comes only by hearing the word of God delivered as He would have it delivered, by whomever it is that He may choose to deliver it (Romans 10: 14-17).

    If you receive God’s word sent by someone He sends, then you might have faith, and that too in the Son of God. Then you also might receive Him. But if you will not, if you will harden your hearts, if you will blind your minds, if you will not receive what He offers from His mouth in your day, then you do not have faith in Him. You will fall short of that faith required to become His son and His daughter.

    It is that way, it has always been that way, it will always be that way. There is no other test.

    Therefore, either I am a liar and you ought to forget everything I’ve said, or I have been sent by someone greater than I am. If I have been sent and you reject and quibble over the things I declare to you, it is at your peril!

    It ought to be that way. I ought to be damned if I’m a pretender, and I ought to be damned and rejected by God if I’m saying things about which I know nothing! But I bear witness to you I know what I’m talking about. I have no reason to lie to you. I have no reason to pay to reserve a place to speak to you, and ask nothing of you but to listen. It requires a sacrifice to do what I am doing. I have no other reason to do this than to tell you the truth. Joseph Smith testified to these things and I am come as a second witness. Therefore you now have two proclaiming the same doctrine.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. As always, I am amazed at the open dialog that ensues on these posts. It feeds both my mind and my soul. I thank each of you, my friends, for your civil and thoughtful contributions. What I am about to share is mainly in response to SteveF, whose comments I have been pondering all day. I also write this with my Bishop and Stake President in mind. I do not want to defend myself against apostasy again.

    I simply cannot adequately explain the difference between what we know in the church to be Melchizedek Priesthood and what the Lord has taught me about the higher priesthood. So I will refer solely to the priesthood we call the Melchizedek and leave the higher or patriarchal priesthood out of my comments. It just seems to upset people. It is something you apparently have to be taught directly from the Lord.

    The only one who has come close to explaining it that I have been able to ascertain is Denver Snuffer and that is because of his claims to have been taught directly by the Lord – after much study and crying mightily as did the Brother of Jared and as did Enos and other prophets. I hope the main message of my post has not been overlooked. There is an answer to parting the veil contained in that phrase – to cry mightily.

    To clarify: SteveF, your response is warranted. If someone were to claim the LDS Church does not have the Melchizedek priesthood then that would seriously undermine the position of the Church, wouldn’t it? To openly teach such a doctrine would be heresy or apostasy as we call it in our church today. I am not teaching this doctrine. I am simply presenting it for your consideration as I have understood it from Denver.

    I am still trying to understand it. I continue to fast and pray about what I have been taught about priesthood and what I am learning from both the writings of Denver Snuffer and from the ministrations of the Lord. I have not stood in the Heavenly Councils and discussed this with any angels or Gods. But I have studied and pondered it for hours on end. It takes long, solemn, serious and ponderous thought to know truth.

    Since Friday’s lecture, my prayers have changed. I understand now why I have not been able to part the veil after so many prayers asking the Lord to reveal Himself to me. I know the timing is the Lords, but I now understand there is a difference between praying and crying mightily to the Lord. It’s not a matter of a loud voice. It’s a matter of passion and a matter of desire. It’s a matter of willing submission.

    In my comment above in response to your comment asking about priesthood – which I am going to append momentarily – I should not have stated the church does not have the Melchizedek priesthood. I should have said the Church does not have the higher priesthood and left it at that. It is up to you and me to determine just what the Lord means by higher priesthood. I am not trying to undermine the position of the church in this regard. Besides, this is just a discussion blog.

    I know I shouldn’t have to restate the obvious but if you want the official doctrine of the church, go to lds.org. This is a blog where we discuss ideas related to the gospel of Jesus Christ as well as the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am not authorized to teach doctrine for the Church. I am only presenting ideas to discuss. Please don’t be troubled by my inadequate ability to express what I had hoped would be of help to others in parting the veil to receive the Lord.

    For my Bishop and Stake President: I know the position of the church as found in the scriptures in regards to the Melchizedek priesthood. If you get a call from a member of our Area Authority asking you to set me straight, please know that I already get it. I am simply soliciting an open dialog here about parting the veil and coming into the presence of the Lord. We happened to get sidetracked on discussing priesthood. I am not trying to undermine the position of the church on authority.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Hi Tim, I am with you. I am not attempting to proclaim anything by presenting Denver’s teachings in contrast to the traditional/orthodox teachings, but rather asking questions and striving to find out the truth of these matters, whatever it may be. I am being careful not to state my position as doctrine nor to pretend to knowledge or revelation I do not have. These are heavy and solemn questions. Nor am I challenging the authority, legitimacy, or validity of the Church. I’m just wondering out loud if all our claims mean what we think they mean? Does that make sense?

    Is it heresy/apostasy (they seem to be conflated today in the Church) to even question the traditional/orthodox version of things? Or does it become heresy/apostasy when we start to proclaim? As far as I know, there is no official position on many of these things – they have not been defined or canonized. For example, does the Church even have an official position/teaching/doctrine on whether the Nauvoo-era saints fulfilled the commandments they received in D&C 124:31-48? While it may seem obvious that our official doctrine is that our Church presidents are Joseph Smith’s legal successors, starting with Brigham Young. Does the Church have an official doctrine on what specifically was passed from JS to BY and the Nauvoo-era Twelve? I’m still trying to figure out what constitutes official church doctrine. The four Standard Works are official scripture/canon but not necessarily various interpretations. There is not a revelation/section in the D&C that details what keys Joseph passed to the Twelve before his death. All of that comes from their testimonies in the months and years following Joseph’s and Hyrum’s deaths. Today it seems like “doctrine” is just what is currently taught from the pulpit by those in authority and in the official correlated manuals and handbooks with the Church’s copyright stamped on them. Is that the way doctrine is supposed to be defined? Do we sustain men in positions of authority and by extension everything they proclaim is sustained? Or is it still only the President of the Church who holds the right to proclaim doctrine, i.e. only his statements carry such gravity? I’m honestly confused because it seems like people are being prosecuted for claiming beliefs which are “contrary to or oppose those [teachings or practices] accepted by the Church” and we don’t even know what’s on the official list. And therefore what can be fairly questioned? It seems like a moving target.

    For example, President Eyring recently taught many things concerning priesthood keys and the sealing powers, in October 2012 General Conference Priesthood meeting, which I’ve excerpted the paragraphs that address those subjects:

    We are blessed to be presided over by President Thomas S. Monson. As the President of the Church, he is the one man alive who is responsible for the keys that seal families and all those priesthood ordinances necessary to attain eternal life, the greatest of all the gifts of God.

    Imagine my surprise and delight when the father told me in church that the sealing is set for April 3. That was the day in 1836 when Elijah, the translated prophet, was sent to the Kirtland Temple to give the sealing power to Joseph Smith and to Oliver Cowdery. Those keys reside in the Church today and will continue to the end of time. (See Joseph Fielding Smith, Sealing Power and Salvation, Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year (Jan. 12, 1971), speeches.byu.edu.)

    It is the same divine authorization given by the Lord to Peter, as He had promised: “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19.)

    The return of Elijah blessed all who hold the priesthood. Elder Harold B. Lee made that clear as he spoke in general conference, quoting President Joseph Fielding Smith. Listen carefully: “I hold the priesthood; you brethren here hold the priesthood; we have received the Melchizedek Priesthood—which was held by Elijah and by other prophets and by Peter, James and John. But while we have authority to baptize, while we have authority to lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost and to ordain others and do all these things, without the sealing power we could do nothing, for there would be no validity to that which we did.”

    President Smith went on:

    “The higher ordinances, the greater blessings which are essential to exaltation in the kingdom of God, and which can only be obtained in certain places, no man has a right to perform except as he receives the authority to do it from the one who holds the keys. …

    “… There is no man upon the face of this earth who has the right to go forth and administer in any of the ordinances of this gospel unless the President of the Church, who holds the keys, sanctions it. He has given us authority, he has put the sealing power in our priesthood, because he holds those keys.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, quoted by Harold B. Lee, in Conference Report, Oct. 1944, 75.)

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Continuing from President Eyring’s October 2012 Priesthood meeting talk:

    That same assurance came from President Boyd K. Packer as he wrote of the sealing power. Knowing these words are true is a comfort to me, as it will be to the family I will seal on April 3: “Peter was to hold the keys. Peter was to hold the sealing power, … to bind or seal on earth or to loose on earth and it would be so in the heavens. Those keys belong to the President of the Church—to the prophet, seer, and revelator. That sacred sealing power is with the Church now. Nothing is regarded with more sacred contemplation by those who know the significance of this authority. Nothing is more closely held. There are relatively few men who [hold] this sealing power upon the earth at any given time—in each temple are brethren who have been given the sealing power. No one can get it except from the prophet, seer, and revelator and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (Boyd K. Packer, “The Holy Temple,” Liahona and Ensign, Oct. 2010, 34.)

    At the coming of Elijah, not only was power given to the priesthood, but also hearts were to be turned: “The spirit, power, and calling of Elijah is, that ye have power to hold the key of the revelation, ordinances, oracles, powers and endowments of the fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood and of the kingdom of God on the earth; and to receive, obtain, and perform all the ordinances belonging to the kingdom of God, even unto the turning of the hearts of the fathers unto the children, and the hearts of the children unto the fathers, even those who are in heaven.” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (2007), 311.)

    Melchizedek Priesthood holders who are fathers in sealed families have been taught what they must do. There is nothing that has come or will come into your family as important as the sealing blessings. There is nothing more important than honoring the marriage and family covenants you have made or will make in the temples of God.

    The way to do that is clear. The Holy Spirit of Promise, through our obedience and sacrifice, must seal our temple covenants in order to be realized in the world to come. President Harold B. Lee explained what it means to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise by quoting Elder Melvin J. Ballard: “We may deceive men but we cannot deceive the Holy Ghost, and our blessings will not be eternal unless they are also sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise. The Holy Ghost is one who reads the thoughts and hearts of men, and gives his sealing approval to the blessings pronounced upon their heads. Then it is binding, efficacious, and of full force.” (Melvin J. Ballard, quoted by Harold B. Lee, in Conference Report, Oct. 1970, 111.)

    When Sister Eyring and I were sealed in the Logan Utah Temple, I did not understand then the full significance of that promise. I am still trying to understand all that it means, but my wife and I decided at the start of our nearly 50 years of marriage to invite the Holy Ghost as much as we could into our lives and into our family.

    As a young father, sealed in the temple and with my heart turned to my wife and a young family, I met President Joseph Fielding Smith for the first time. In the First Presidency council room, where I had been invited, came an absolutely sure witness to me as President Harold B. Lee asked me, indicating President Smith, who was sitting next to him, “Do you believe that this man could be the prophet of God?”

    President Smith had just entered the room and had not yet spoken a word. I am eternally grateful that I was able to answer because of what came down into my heart, “I know he is,” and I knew it as surely as I knew the sun was shining that he held the priesthood sealing power for all the earth.

    Let me suggest four things you can do as a priesthood father to lift and lead your family home again to be with Heavenly Father and the Savior. First, gain and keep a sure witness that the keys of the priesthood are with us and held by the President of the Church. Pray for that every day. The answer will come with an increase in determination to lead your family, in your feelings of hope, and with greater happiness in your service. You will be more cheerful and optimistic, a great blessing for your wife and family.
    You will succeed through your faith that the Lord sent back the keys of the priesthood, which are still with us—with a sure bond of love with your wife, with the Lord’s help in turning the hearts of your children to each other and to their parents, and with love guiding you to correct and exhort in a way that invites the Spirit.

    I know that Jesus is the Christ and is our Savior. I testify that President Thomas S. Monson holds and exercises all the keys of the priesthood on the earth today. I love and sustain him. I love and pray for you. In the sacred name of Jesus Christ, amen.

    What portion of President Eyring’s statements are official church doctrine? He is not the President of the Church. Is all of it sanctioned by virtue of President Monson presiding at the conference session at which it was spoken? President Eyring quotes many authorities past and present. I think the only President he quoted was Joseph Fielding Smith (quoted by Harold B. Lee). He also mentions that “the Holy Spirit of Promise, through our obedience and sacrifice, must seal our temple covenants in order to be realized in the world to come.”

    Now let’s contrast these teachings with what Denver has said on the same subjects. Feel free to help me out if anyone wishes.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Tim, feel free to delete my duplicate posts, like this one. :)

      Like

    • Geoff,

      I love your sound reasoning and your honest questioning.

      I wanted to make a general appeal to anyone who reads your words and disagrees:

      There are many things we simply don’t understand in relation to the priesthood and the Church and Kingdom of God. Just to name a few: “The Kingdom of God” (as a governing body), “the Council of Friends”, “The Council of Fifty”, why certain ordinances (and so many of them) have been changed, why certain offices and their duties were altered (eg. deacons and teachers administering the sacrament), why we no longer kneel with the Priest administering the sacrament, etc. (a 95 thesis could be written on the subject, and has been by others).

      I believe the truth is that we have no consistent, reliable earthly mechanism to present sound doctrine. I recognize that to the vast majority of faithful latter-day saints, that sounds like heresy or apostasy. However, those who believe we do have a consistent, reliable earthly mechanism for teaching truth in the LDS Church believe in the infallibility doctrine of the President of the Church–a very Catholic notion. You may not like that characterization, but nonetheless, when we repeat ad infinitum the dogma: “The Lord will NEVER allow His Prophet to lead the Church astray” (NOT doctrine, but tradition passed on with great emphasis through several generations) we are declaring the Prophet to be infallible while acting as Prophet–which is the same doctrine for the Pope.

      Those people who hold to the infallibility doctrine deny, or ignore, the obvious inconsistencies from the very leaders who are “infallible”, and they are ignorant of or willfully blind to the pattern of the Lord’s church through all ages–where in ever age the “shepherds” of the people led them astray. The Church presents as doctrine things voted on by consensus rather than by declared revelation (again, so very Catholic) ratified by the consent of the Church. We teach the “pride cycle”–and yet we can’t apply it to ourselves today, because the Lord will “never let the prophet lead the church astray”–because, again, he is infallible so long as he has the mantle of “prophet, seer, and revelator”. Doctrines and statements of men are conveniently conflated by both leaders and lay members to fit a narrative that allows us to trust in the system of the Church, rather than individually seeking the Lord. And so it goes, and will continue I suppose, until we are fully ripe.

      As far as coming to a knowledge of the truth is concerned, I love studying the doctrines of the kingdom, and the history of the Church, but I am also painfully aware of 1. my own limitations in being able or ready to understand, 2. the many layers of filters through which every piece of history I discover is presented (boy do we see through a glass darkly) 3. the pervasiveness of the doctrines and traditions of men mingled with scripture (I’m trying hard to uncover all of those in my own mind). There is much to be gleaned from many sources, but unless the mind remains continually open, the truth can be missed.

      I believe that the only solution to the “many disputations” that are arising (and will continue to arise) regarding “points of (His) doctrine” is for a prophet “like unto Moses” speaking as one “having authority” who can clarify for the general church, or on a personal level, for the Lord Himself to teach us one by one. So for me, extreme patience is in order as relates to all questions on priesthood or any other doctrine (i.e. polygamy) or historical matter. I believe that all things will be made known in time by one like unto Moses, or by the Lord Himself.

      For this reason alone, I am intrigued by and will listen further to Denver. (I do not believe him to be one like unto Moses–and I think Denver would probably recoil at the comparison). It is the first time I can recall that anyone has taught so clearly, from claimed personal experience, that it IS possible to converse with the Lord through the Veil and that all can enter His presence. I do not fear this message, I will seek out the truth of it for myself. I do not look to hold up Denver as anyone to be “followed” (he seems to find that idea abhorrent), but I seek the Lord. If Denver is in a unique position to declare an important message as given Him by God, then I want to know for myself. I’ve had experience with charlatans masquerading as shepherds in the past, and I trust that with God’s help I can discern. I do not seek anything but the truth, no matter the consequence.

      I say to anyone who, reading this, feels that nagging feeling creep into their hearts telling them that my words indicate that I too am on the road to apostasy, I say, fear not. God is true and faithful, and He will judge. Peace to all.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks, Jeremy. I agree with you.

        I do not want to be guilty of dismissing any true message from the Lord on the basis of institutional/traditional bias, prejudice, or fear. Orthodoxy has changed even in my lifetime and cannot be the standard of truth. I desire to proceed with faith not fear.

        Liked by 1 person

  40. Continuing from President Eyring’s October 2012 Priesthood meeting talk:

    That same assurance came from President Boyd K. Packer as he wrote of the sealing power. Knowing these words are true is a comfort to me, as it will be to the family I will seal on April 3: “Peter was to hold the keys. Peter was to hold the sealing power, … to bind or seal on earth or to loose on earth and it would be so in the heavens. Those keys belong to the President of the Church—to the prophet, seer, and revelator. That sacred sealing power is with the Church now. Nothing is regarded with more sacred contemplation by those who know the significance of this authority. Nothing is more closely held. There are relatively few men who [hold] this sealing power upon the earth at any given time—in each temple are brethren who have been given the sealing power. No one can get it except from the prophet, seer, and revelator and President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (Boyd K. Packer, “The Holy Temple,” Liahona and Ensign, Oct. 2010, 34.)

    At the coming of Elijah, not only was power given to the priesthood, but also hearts were to be turned: “The spirit, power, and calling of Elijah is, that ye have power to hold the key of the revelation, ordinances, oracles, powers and endowments of the fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood and of the kingdom of God on the earth; and to receive, obtain, and perform all the ordinances belonging to the kingdom of God, even unto the turning of the hearts of the fathers unto the children, and the hearts of the children unto the fathers, even those who are in heaven.” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (2007), 311.)

    Melchizedek Priesthood holders who are fathers in sealed families have been taught what they must do. There is nothing that has come or will come into your family as important as the sealing blessings. There is nothing more important than honoring the marriage and family covenants you have made or will make in the temples of God.

    The way to do that is clear. The Holy Spirit of Promise, through our obedience and sacrifice, must seal our temple covenants in order to be realized in the world to come. President Harold B. Lee explained what it means to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise by quoting Elder Melvin J. Ballard: “We may deceive men but we cannot deceive the Holy Ghost, and our blessings will not be eternal unless they are also sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise. The Holy Ghost is one who reads the thoughts and hearts of men, and gives his sealing approval to the blessings pronounced upon their heads. Then it is binding, efficacious, and of full force.” (Melvin J. Ballard, quoted by Harold B. Lee, in Conference Report, Oct. 1970, 111.)

    When Sister Eyring and I were sealed in the Logan Utah Temple, I did not understand then the full significance of that promise. I am still trying to understand all that it means, but my wife and I decided at the start of our nearly 50 years of marriage to invite the Holy Ghost as much as we could into our lives and into our family.

    As a young father, sealed in the temple and with my heart turned to my wife and a young family, I met President Joseph Fielding Smith for the first time. In the First Presidency council room, where I had been invited, came an absolutely sure witness to me as President Harold B. Lee asked me, indicating President Smith, who was sitting next to him, “Do you believe that this man could be the prophet of God?”

    President Smith had just entered the room and had not yet spoken a word. I am eternally grateful that I was able to answer because of what came down into my heart, “I know he is,” and I knew it as surely as I knew the sun was shining that he held the priesthood sealing power for all the earth.

    Let me suggest four things you can do as a priesthood father to lift and lead your family home again to be with Heavenly Father and the Savior. First, gain and keep a sure witness that the keys of the priesthood are with us and held by the President of the Church. Pray for that every day. The answer will come with an increase in determination to lead your family, in your feelings of hope, and with greater happiness in your service. You will be more cheerful and optimistic, a great blessing for your wife and family.
    You will succeed through your faith that the Lord sent back the keys of the priesthood, which are still with us—with a sure bond of love with your wife, with the Lord’s help in turning the hearts of your children to each other and to their parents, and with love guiding you to correct and exhort in a way that invites the Spirit.

    I know that Jesus is the Christ and is our Savior. I testify that President Thomas S. Monson holds and exercises all the keys of the priesthood on the earth today. I love and sustain him. I love and pray for you. In the sacred name of Jesus Christ, amen.

    What portion of President Eyring’s statements are official church doctrine? He is not the President of the Church. Is all of it sanctioned by virtue of President Monson presiding at the conference session at which it was spoken? President Eyring quotes many authorities past and present. I think the only President he quoted was Joseph Fielding Smith (quoted by Harold B. Lee). He also mentions that “the Holy Spirit of Promise, through our obedience and sacrifice, must seal our temple covenants in order to be realized in the world to come,” which of course sounds like a conditional version of sealing, similar to the introduction to the endowment, “if you are true and faithful, the day will come when…”

    Now let’s compare these teachings with what Denver has said on the same subjects of keys and sealing power. Feel free to help me out if anyone wishes.

    Liked by 2 people

  41. You know, it’s wonderful that people can live in an area where they can meet (or have the health to attend events)–

    but not all of us do. There are people out here ‘in the middle of nowhere’ who are seeking Jesus. We can’t attend functions in Utah; it’s simply not possible for a number of reasons.

    This is beginning to ‘feel’ like a Utah phenomenon–

    But the church is all over the world, and there are people seeking Christ and wanting to restore a belief in the ‘real’ Mormon scriptures (Book of Mormon)–

    in places far from Utah.

    Just be aware of *our* existence. *I* am glad you can meet each other. But–

    it really isn’t a Utah church anymore.

    Like

  42. I should have said ‘intermountain west’, because it isn’t just Utah–

    Like

  43. The scripture references and citations to TPJS for the Las Vegas talk have been indexed.

    Like

  44. @Nonrandom Set:

    Having different definitions of “fault finding” simply isn’t useful or productive. In order for language to function at all, definitions between parties must agree. It’s an integral part of legal transactions, as well as interpersonal communication.

    This is an earnest plea: If parties disagree on the definition of a word or phrase, they both need to look it up and get some education. English has definitions and meanings that we all need to use, so we’re not talking past one another or tilting at windmills.

    Here’s the definition of fault finding:

    fault-find·ing
    noun
    noun: fault-finding; noun: faultfinding
    1. continual criticism, typically concerning trivial things.
    synonyms: criticism, captiousness, caviling, quibbling; complaining, grumbling, carping, moaning; informalnitpicking, griping, grousing, bellyaching
    “he came to expect nothing but fault-finding from his wife”
    antonyms: praise
    2. the investigation of the cause of malfunction in machinery, especially electronic equipment.
    (Google’s definition, given at the top of the search results for “what is ‘fault finding'”.)

    What Denver is doing is not fault finding. It is constructive criticism.

    constructive criticism
    Main Entry: constructive criticism
    Part of Speech: noun
    Definition: criticism or advice that is useful and intended to help or improve something, often with an offer of possible solutions
    (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/constructive+criticism)

    Let’s speak the same language. It’s vital to understanding one another.

    Like

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,639 other followers

%d bloggers like this: