Arguments Against Denver Snuffer

UtahCourtBuildingI do not speak for Denver. He needs no spokesman. Go read his blog. These are simply questions I have been asked since I have done a few reviews on his books over the last year or two. They seem to keep coming up over and over as new people discover my blog and want to know some of these basic facts and my opinions. I always respond – go read his books. But in an effort to make it easy for readers in a time-constrained world, I have put together answers to some of the most common questions that have come up more than once. It would be better if you found them for yourself on his open blog or any of his many books which are for sale in several locations in Utah as well as on Amazon, where I picked up all my copies and where they are still available.

01. What kind of a name is Denver Snuffer? I kid you not, these are some of the comments I have received in private emails or here on my blog. One guy said the first time he read Denver Snuffer (he came here from Reddit), he thought he was a serial killer from the mile high city. Denver is named after his father so all his books have Jr. appended to his name. Yes, that’s his name. Denver was not raised a Mormon. His mother was a Baptist. He was raised in Idaho but joined the LDS Church 40 years ago in 1973. He was excommunicated 40 years later to the day. It’s an easily remembered name isn’t it? I think we will be hearing it more as the years go on. If my calculations are correct, Denver is now either 60 or 61 years of age as of late 2013. So what?

02. Why should I listen to someone who has been divorced? I’m not sure what that has to do with anything. As Denver has shared in his first book, The Second Comforter, he’s just a regular guy, the “least” of the saints. He shares very few things from his personal life. He has shared this one in an effort to point out that unlike the LDS Church, which will not consider a divorced man for a leadership position (see my note below), the Lord does not hold something like divorce against us. Denver has since remarried and is the father of nine children, although that has nothing to do with his message that we each can and should have a personal relationship with the Lord, one in which we receive a personal witness of the Lord’s resurrection, also known as the Second Comforter.

03. Why doesn’t he like to have his picture published with his books? You can find pictures of Denver at various ages on the Internet, but he has made it a practice to make sure promotional material on upcoming talks, lectures or book discussion does not include personal pictures. He continues to state this is because he wants people to concentrate on the message, not on him. He has offered many times in many places in his books and on his blog that the messenger is not as important as the message. Obviously, you can infer from this that he feels he has been given an assignment from the Lord to deliver a message to us that the promises in section 93:1 and other scriptures are literal. He says the Lord wanted him to tell the people that anyone can experience a personal visit from the Lord, be they male or female. Endowment is required but not priesthood. In other words, the Lord does not discriminate his visits to women who qualify themselves.

04. What makes him think he can write a book or give a lecture? Denver is an attorney by trade and thus has some expertise in writing and speaking. My reviews of his books have included something to the effect that he is verbose, tends to repeat himself and can go on and on about a subject at some length. That has been helpful to me in many ways as I have read his books. He will introduce a concept, give an example or two, repeat the concept, explain how the idea can he applied in our lives and then conclude by restating the concept again, always backed up with abundant references to scripture, both modern and ancient as well as words of LDS leaders. Some have criticized his writing style. His first book, The Second Comforter, acknowledges editing contributions of others, which he says makes the message clearer or easier to understand.

05. What special claim does he make that I should listen to him? Denver claims, at least for his first book, that he was asked, perhaps even commanded by the Lord to explain to the LDS people in particular that they can and should seek to obtain the witness of the Second Comforter. From what I can tell the gist of his message is that we have left many of the original teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith behind and either misunderstood or misapplied many scriptures for which he offers clarifications from twenty years of callings as a Gospel Doctrine Teacher in various wards and stakes in which he has lived in the Sandy Utah area. He at one time served on the High Council in that stake and, I am told, held many meetings in his home, in which attendance was similar to when he taught or spoke – always overflowing. People came from miles around to hear him. Yet he continues to say he does not want a following. He wants to bring people unto Christ. In short, he does indeed claim that he was given a message from the Lord for the people.

05. Why would the Lord speak through him and not through the LDS prophet? This is perhaps one of the most oft repeated criticisms I encounter in the comments in the dozen or so essays I have posted on my blog about Denver Snuffer over the past year or two. It’s not one that I am qualified to answer. However, it does not bother me in spite of the fact I know the stories of how the Lord dealt with this in the past through the Doctrine and Covenants. I’m referring to the story of Hiram Page and his white stone in section 28. In verse 6, we read, “And thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church. For I have given him the keys of the mysteries, and the revelations which are sealed, until I shall appoint unto them another in his stead.” This scripture has been cited by many as the main reason Denver was excommunicated.

06. A messenger from God would not drive a Harley or use swear words. Yes, Denver drives a Harley, or at least he did in the past. I don’t know if he still does. So what? What does that matter? What gives us the right to judge another man by the kind of vehicle he chooses for transportation? Yes, Denver has been known to let slip a “hell” or “damn” in his lectures, but then so did J. Golden Kimball, so there you go. The idea here is that a prophet or messenger from God should and would conduct himself with decorum, be conservative in his principles and would want to portray himself in an acceptable light, more like the way our current general authorities present themselves in public. I don’t believe I have ever heard Denver call himself a prophet, although the testimony of Jesus Christ is the spirit of prophecy. He has, however, said he has been given an assignment from the Savior, is His servant and is delivering His message.

07. The church does not want us to listen to excommunicated individuals. This is true. That’s one of the reasons why the Church excommunicates members who go astray. The charge against him was apostasy, although many have tried to make a distinction that what he did was heresy in the way he denigrated the brethren, opposed some of their interpretations of scriptures and history and in short, was less than respectful in his writings and lectures towards those whom we sustain as “prophets, seers and revelators” in the LDS Church. The unusual thing of course is that we would know nothing of Denver’s excommunication if it did not come from his blog. In other words, the church does not now or no longer announces disciplinary actions against former members as it once did. Many members simply will not listen to or read Denver because of this.

08. He is a slick, deceiving anti-Christ. Stay away from men like him. Yes, this argument has been presented in the comments of my blog. Personally, I do not find this statement logical, since Denver, in all he does, as far as I can tell, invites and implores us to come unto Christ, to do all within our power to heed the spirit which leads us unto Christ and prepares us to enter the Savior’s presence. His entire first book was all about the steps we can and should take to come unto Christ. Each subsequent book, up until the last, augmented that message. In fact, the last book, Passing The Heavenly Gift, which is the one that brought about his excommunication, made direct statements about how and why we should come unto Christ, even though they were couched in terms accusing the current LDS church of no longer teaching this doctrine of Joseph.

09. He is just trying to get a following to start a church and get our money. Denver has expressed many, many times he seeks no following, does not want a following, has asked people to not follow him but to seek after the Savior. He has even renamed the widget on his blog to display “readers” instead of “followers.” He has explained to us many times he donates the proceeds of the sales of his books to the LDS Church General Missionary Fund (I assume now through other family members). He at one time also explained the printing of his books was contracted through an individual who depends upon Denver’s books for his livelihood to support his family. If I remember correctly the man was handicapped or could not provide for his family in any other way. Denver is NOT trying to start a church, although he has said we should all seek to become members of the church of the Firstborn, which, as you know, does not have an earthly structure.

10. What makes him different from other apostates who have left the church? First, you will have to decide if you feel comfortable calling him an apostate. I don’t. Others have argued he fits the bill so they have no problem with that. They claim he leads members away from the Prophets and is therefore an apostate. I disagree. He had told us to sustain the Brethren, has taken great pains in sharing his excommunication procedures, including some details behind the scenes in which he wanted his children to know he sustained his bishop and stake president. Of course, there are those who argue if he sustained them, he would have done what his stake president asked by ceasing the publication of his books and cancelling this year’s lecture tour. You can read his response on his blog. I am satisfied in my mind he is no apostate. It is true enough that the church cut him off, but I do not see him as someone like the leader of the Strangites or any of the leaders of the polygamous groups such as Lorin Wooley, Warren Jeffs or Rulon Wells.

11. He seemed belligerent and disobedient as he was being excommunicated. Because he made the documents and some of the background discussion public on his blog, there was much discussion here and on the private discussion groups that he was not being cooperative with the requests of his priesthood leaders. I fact, some went so far as to say by bringing his children to the proceedings he violated their instructions and in effect, “did an end-run” around the process. They considered this mockery. Denver explained his reasoning on his blog. You will have to decide for yourself if he was honoring his wife’s right to revelation as I believe he was or if he was trying to manipulate the proceedings. What does it matter? The end result was the same. He knew the decision had been made before the council was held. I was surprised he decided to attend. He told Peggy Fletcher Stack the Friday before in the Salt Lake Tribune he felt it was a done deal. The decision had been made and his local leaders were only doing as they were told. If anything, perhaps Denver was tired of waiting and wanted the process to be over quickly.

12. Why didn’t he stop publishing PtHG like his Stake President asked? You’ll have to ask him that question if you’re not satisfied with the one he gave on his blog about negating contractual obligations. Personally I’m not sure it would have made a difference. The book is published. It has been available for almost two years. I am certain tens of thousands of copies are out there. I am also certain hundreds have read it. I have received written affidavits from individuals who swear it helped keep them in the church, saved their marriage and caused them to reconsider and understand so much of what they had previously misunderstand and been taught growing up in the church. In short, and in my opinion, Denver did not stop publication of the book because he feels Passing the Heavenly Gift is helpful and is helping people come to grips with what they learned from the official curriculum and what history teaches from documents and witnesses.

13. He has given ammunition to the enemies of the church with his book, PtHG. Yes, I have read this from some of my Facebook friends. I cannot understand this since most everything he wrote about is already available and has long been available in a form much less flattering on the Internet from sites like Mormon Think, Recovery From Mormonism, Post Mormon, New-Order Mormons and many, many anti-Mormon sites. They didn’t need PtHG to find the quotes or the stories they use in their publications and on the Internet. If anything, Denver related the stories with greater factuality, from original sources and drew conclusions that were complementary to the individuals involved. I can think of several examples which he told with sensitivity that belies the brutality of what actually happened. Think of some of the way local bishops ran some of the towns in Southern Utah in the late 1800’s. Think of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Denver did not make up these facts and was not the first to relate them. He wrote them clearly.

14. I prayed about it and the spirit told me not to listen to him or read his books. Then don’t read his books. They are not for everybody. It does require a strong testimony to read some of the things in PtHG. The book was not written for the new member of the church, weak in the faith. If the spirit is telling you to not go to his lectures, then for heaven’s sake, don’t go. If you feel a pre-disposition to be offended or are worried about being led astray by what he might say, then, by all means, stay away. Many people find all the spiritual nourishment they need from the regular meetings of the LDS Church. We are encouraged to study out of the best books. I consider Denver’s books to be some of the best. I have gained so much from them. They have answered so many questions for me and removed so many doubts. Yes, removed doubt, not introduced any new doubts. I also have prayed about Denver books and lectures and feel impressed they will be helpful to me in my regular study of the Mormon faith. I read the scriptures on a regular basis, read the lessons for Sunday school and my High Priest Group but I also read a ton of other LDS books that help me understand this religion including Denver’s.

15. Something changed between his first seven books and his last one – PtHG. Yes I have read this one a lot. Some write he went rogue just before publishing PtHG. They write they can accept all his books before this one but not PtHG. Perhaps something did change. Perhaps he got tired of people not “getting” it, because they were stuck in some false beliefs about our history or about our doctrine. Yes, this is getting into deep territory. We teach that only prophets have the right to interpret scripture and teach official doctrine for our church. You may believe what you like about whatever may have happened to Denver before he wrote PtHG. I for one am grateful he wrote the book. As I stated previously, it helped me resolve many discrepancies I had been taught growing up from the official curriculum and what I later read in the journals and other sources. In any event, it’s a moot point. Denver is excommunicated. You can freely ignore him.

16. Why did he make his summons letter and excommunication notice public? I guess you’ll have to ask him this question. I believe it was to provide a witness of what was happening. Denver is not like the rest of the September Six, for example. His stake president proclaimed in front of his children that Denver was worthy of a temple recommend. The disciplinary council was only about a book – Passing the Heavenly Gift. He and President Hunt are friends. From what I read, President Hunt was willing or perhaps suggested individuals who had questions about what had happened to Denver should read his blog for the detailed explanation. Previously I wrote the church did the right thing by excommunicating Denver. I am no longer so sure. With all his knowledge and background in teaching, could they not have made him a consultant to help those who are struggling with a faith crisis? Trust me there are a lot of them, especially in Utah. Although I see only a little here, I read stories of people resigning from the church every day in Utah. It seems to be the in thing to do as a way of protesting the feeling of being deceived.

17. Doesn’t he teach the ordinances are not the real thing – they’re only symbolic? Yes, he does, at least to my understanding. Denver relates and backs up with scripture we should go to the Lord in prayer after receiving an ordinance specifically to ask the Lord to ratify it and send the promised power described in the ordinance, and I mean every ordinance, including those of the temple. The church is authorized to perform those ordinances but as President Packer taught, there is a big difference between authority and power. Power comes from the Lord and only from the Lord. We need to be taught by the Holy Ghost and then by angels what we must do to receive the power described in the ordinance. The ordinances are earthly representations of heavenly things. I don’t think this is a new or different doctrine. Denver does a great job of teaching and explaining it in a way that helps us understand we have work to do after receiving the ordinance.

18. His book claims there was no succession in the presidency from Joseph Smith. I confess this is one I still don’t understand. I may be totally wrong on this point. My wife and I have had several discussions about this point. You’ll have to read the chapter on succession in the presidency from PtHG to understand what he is trying to explain. I have read it probably half a dozen times now and I confess I still don’t understand. I have read Denver’s statements that he never said the church didn’t have the sealing power, yet he makes a very big deal about how Nephi received the sealing power in the Book of Mormon – only by hearing it from the voice of God. We also used to teach in this church that an apostle’s ordination is not complete until he feels the hands of the Lord upon his heads and hears from the Lord himself that he is ordained as an apostle. He makes a distinction between an administrative apostle and an apostle who is a living witness of the resurrection of the Savior. This is not new. You can read the record for yourself how the charge was given to the apostles until the turn of the 19th century. What power or what Heavenly Gift was being referred to in Denver’s book that so upset the Brethren?

19. Why would he publish such a horrible book that does so much damage to the church? When I was first introduced to the book and read it, I thought to myself, “Finally, someone has written all the things about the church I have found spread out all over the Internet in a way that makes sense, presents facts and wraps them up neatly in a nice bow. The ending didn’t always come out so pretty but that’s because some of our history is ugly. Men and women are imperfect. Our leaders made mistakes. I’ve said it many times, these things can be found all over the Internet in ways that are not complementary to the church. Denver’s book does a good job of explaining them in a better light, even though they are not so desirable. They really did happen. The book is not filled with lies. It is filled with a slightly and sometimes radically different narrative of our history from what we were taught growing up in the church or from the official curriculum. In my mind, it is not a horrible book, but I would only recommend it to my friends who struggle with things they have read on the Internet that contradict what we teach in Sunday school class.

20. He is out of order. He criticizes. It is not his place to tell the Brethren what to do. OK, this is one that I chalk up to Denver being a convert. It’s unheard of to disagree with the official story of our history and then to publish it in a non-academic environment with all the peer-review and weasel-words that allow an essay to be read without offense. There’s no doubt this book offends some people, especially when he uses phrases like “proud descendants of Nauvoo” (he explains that well I think). I could never have done what Denver did in publishing this book. I think he knew when he wrote it that it might cause a few ripples, a few waves and perhaps result in some disciplinary action. In an email he wrote to me six months ago, I think he even had an inkling that he might have to suffer excommunication as a result of publishing Passing the Heavenly Gift. But I’m glad he did and appreciate his courage in doing so. The book has blessed my life.

718 thoughts on “Arguments Against Denver Snuffer”

  1. This is part one. It also lacks links upon posting, which will be added later. You are welcome to add comments, corrections, clarification or disagreements. I have not met the man. I only write this for my own edification so I can be ready to respond when people ask me these questions, which they do. This is obviously not the review of his Boise talk, which I am still working on and hope to publish later this week.

    Some of these arguments came from Carol, my wife, who has no desire to read his books, hear his lectures or learn more about what he writes. I am fascinated by his message and am still attempting to understand it after over a year and a half of reading his material on a regular basis. Please don’t think I’m trying to criticize or offend. This is meant to be a position paper.

    Many of these have been discussed in several of my previous posts about Denver Snuffer:

    Denver Snuffer Excommunicated – 138 comments
    Denver Snuffer Disciplinary Council – 138 comments
    The Appeal of Denver Snuffer – 68 Comments
    What Denver Snuffer Teaches – 66 comments
    A New Star Will Soon Shine Forth – 35 comments
    Remembering the Covenant – 31 comments
    Progress Report on Denver Snuffer – 31 comments
    The Four Phases of Mormonism – 28 comments
    A Moderate Approach to Denver Snuffer – 27 comments
    All Are Invited To The Feast – 21 comments
    The Lord Prepares Groups of People – 21 comments
    My Defense Before the High Council – 15 comments
    Expression of Support for Denver Snuffer – 10 comments

  2. ” Doesn’t he teach the ordinances are not the real thing – they’re only symbolic? ”

    Oh oh….Am I an apostate?

    I am sorry but let sit and discuss nicely for a minute.

    A) We are Gods in embryos.

    Would you let an infant (let alone an embryo) play with something that YOU can handle as a grown up but that can be harmful in the hands of someone who don’t have the knowledge or experience or whatever to know how to use it properly?

    B) Our children are not really our children. They are our brothers and sisters and someday, when we are exalted, we will be given the power to have a family on our own.

    Oh wait so what are we doing here?
    Play pretend?
    Er….it seems so.

    All this is just play pretend for Heavenly kids who take it so seriously that they are ready to kill in the name of their game instead of enjoying the opportunity to learn from our Heavenly Parents’ pattern just like kids playing pretend.

    So yes, nothing is real but everything is sacred and beyond serious.

    No seriously……would you let a 5 years old child play with a chainsaw?
    Yes? Realluy? Why? Because he is a good kid and it is the way to learn?

    OH MYYYYYYYYYYYY….

    I explain this point of view of mine to the wife of my stake president and….she laughed.
    And I know i can share this publicly and at worse people will look at me with a blank look. Maybe even laugh saying that I am wrong. End of the discussion.
    Tell Denver to move to France!

  3. We all fret too much over such small things!

    The very fact that this man as the backbone to present something different, stand up for it, take the stab in the back, and continue pressing on makes him unique and refreshing. I find his clarity of purpose intriguing and long for that kind of direction.

    What if he is telling the truth?

    I didn’t realize it at the time, but I was due for a refresh.

  4. I believe that we all have inspired messages to share with our fellow man, and that some of these message may be “beyond the scope” of current LDS Church teachings and practices.

    FWIW, here are some guidelines that I have developed through trial-and-error.

    1. Do not represent yourself as having received a revelation for the LDS Church.

    2. But you may claim, if true, that God has given you a message for the House of Israel, human family, all mankind, etc.

    3. Make sure your message is impeccably grounded in the Standard Works.

    4. Do not criticize the LDS Church leaders in any way for being remiss in regard to your message or cause.

    5. Leave LDS Church history alone. It is a Tar-Baby in the Br’er Rabbit sense.

    6. Compartmentalize. Completely remove yourself from the LDS Church sphere when you deliver your message.

    7. Use gentle persuasion.

    8. When faced with threats of church discipline, pray mightly to the Lord for deliverance.

    9. But if necessary, resign your membership rather than be excommunicated.

    I have made some mistakes in regards to these points, mostly in the past. So no need to point out my hypocrisy.

    The Lord has spared me from no. 9 thus far, but twice I have had to lay my membership record on the altar.

  5. I normally shy away from contention in whatever form it comes in. I personally feel that contention is a critical tool of the adversary and has no position or portion in the Lord’s Way. But with that said I share a few of the ideas I come away with from the Denver Snuffer ordeal.

    I understand that there are quite a few who enter into the fray because it gives them a vicarious way to live and share the gospel — even to discuss some of the finer points in the gospel.

    One can not be saved in ignorance. When we pass this mortal probation (or second estate) there is much for us to learn about the gospel in the heavenly classrooms. If we can not be saved in ignorance then there must be some classrooms in the spirit world wherein we can participate in “lessons in the Gospel of Jesus Christ”. If I had the time and the patience I could list quite a few lecture titles that would be used to attract a student body to come in and listen.

    Denver has good intentions in his heart. I believe that. I knew him while in college while he attended BYU’s J. Rueben Clark Law School. Denver was an intellectual then and he is still an intellectual. I say that with respect and no intended smear. Intellectualism is, as an isolated study, a very important study in the Plan of Salvation. The glory of God is intelligence, or light and truth. Whatever is light and whatever is truth is encompassed in that which I call intelligence. Light and Truth are vital, in fact essential, in the pursuit of being saved. I can find no fault in a person who seeks intelligence or light and truth. One might find some problems if the seeker feels like he/she becomes the source of the light and truth, and not that it flows to them from a “higher power”. For if it flows to them from a higher source then they can always be the purveyor of that light and truth and not the source of it. Give credit to the source at all times. Sometimes I feel that Denver strays in giving the illusion that he is the source of some special light and truth; that the Brethren have strayed from obtaining the source correctly and that the Lord has commissioned Denver to bring an erring group back into the true source. The Lord Himself must operate within these guidelines of light and truth — and He does, as do all the Brethren who profess to be His Special Witnesses. The removal of such is not in the hands of a mortal being…the Lord is very capable of structuring His organization as He sees fit to do. If the Brethren ere then it is the Lord who will correct the erring disciple. It is not a mere mortal into who’s hand He would entrust such critical judgments (thankfully).

    We should all take up the study of what it takes to have every act, every ordinance, every Temple Ordinance, everything that is done with the authority of the Holy Priesthood while here on earth, to have it “sealed”, “ratified”, “In full force and effect”, “Sanctified”, and have the same action binding in Heaven. We would all be benefited by a sincere, fasting, prayerful study of the role the Holy Ghost has in each of these actions — especially those who are done with the Holy Priesthood.

    We all seek to be blessed to be members of the “Church of The Firstborn” and all that we do is in an effort to be saved in the Celestial Kingdom, and even in the Highest of Standing within the Celestial Kingdom. The great question is whether we are willing to do all that is necessary to have this great blessing bestowed upon us. There was a period of time that I sought the “blessings of the Fathers” and with the Tender Mercy of the Lord He began a Doctoral Study of the same in my life. He taught me. He will teach you. I am the lowliest of His servants and if He will do for me I know He will do for you. And with “His stripes I am healed”…I am still undertaking my doctoral coursework and I am excited for each and every lesson. Some came with me pleading for the Lord to let the cup pass from me (my own personal gethsemane) and I have had too many of them, but the Lord in His merciful way brings me through each and every thing He brings me to. I pray each day to be worthy of His lessons as He teaches me. He loves each of us with an Eternal Love. He loves you, He loves Denver, He loves to bring us unto the Father — and isn’t that the summa summarum.

    I believe Denver is trying in his intellectual way and methodology to cause an understanding of these critical, saving intellectualisms. But to say the Brethren are left suspect within those guidelines is a trek into the unknown for any who do not sit in counsel with the Brethren. If one does not sit in counsel with them in their weekly meetings and in their God fearing efforts to fulfill their Priesthood duty, how can one make judgment on what they lack or what they don’t understand. One is guessing if one does not sit in those counsels and meetings. If my judgments are correct I believe the Brethren work tirelessly in bringing to pass the Eternal life of each of us. They work tirelessly in their administrations and in their ministrations to every soul who is living and every soul who has lived on the earth. They have undoubtedly sought their “errand from the Lord” in a very personal way. If one were to study each of their talks one would see, without error, wherein each of them received their “errand from the Lord”. We would do well to remember that this is the Lord’s work. He understands what it takes to be His “Special Witness” unto all the world. One can be His witness but not be one called to be His “Special Witness unto all the world”. Each of us has a duty to witness Jesus Christ and His Atonement and Resurrection. An Apostle has a commission that really only the select group of men who have been called by the Lord to such can understand. I don’t understand why Denver brings them into judgment — there is no need for division, none….and that is not the Lord’s way.

    I wish Denver no ill will. I hope he sees some way of helping in this intellectual study of the gospel without being the “source” of some new insight or new understanding of this Gospel. I pray that he takes the following year and brings himself into the correct order of Heaven and earth in how the Lord addresses needs to understand things about the gospel. There is nothing in the teachings of the Gospel Plan that each and every one of us can not be partakers of. One can not be saved in ignorance — so let’s get to teaching one another the Truths of the Gospel and work to hasten the coming advent of the Lord Jesus Christ to rule and reign for a thousand years. There is room for all to come to an understanding of the sealing power of the Priesthood, the Holy Ghost, and the work of Elijah the Prophet.

    1. Thank you RC. I so look forward to hearing from the apostles and prophets in less than two weeks at General Conference, I agree the Lord will work with each of us on our own doctoral program if we but ask It can be and is at times painful. I too know this from painful, unexpected experience. Those who are closest to you, sometimes family, sometimes not, may turn out to be the source of the chastening hand of the Lord as he prepares you to dwell in his presence. Well said.

  6. I was asked about a divorced man being a bishop. I gleaned the following from a few spots. The bottom line is that it is rare. Divorced men are usually not considered for leadership positions:

    From various sources: “To be bishop, a man must be currently married in the temple. If he has been divorced, then he must be married to his current wife at least 5 years in order to be considered for the calling. It is actually easier to be a bishop than a full time Institute / Seminary instructor (CES employee), where you can never have been divorced! But basically, yes, you can be a bishop despite having been divorced previously. Most likely a current bishop who gets a divorce, will be released as a bishop.

    “You’ll pretty much never meet someone who was called to be a bishop while he was single due to a divorce. The Stake President recommends a name…provides info about that person and it has to be approved by the First Presidency. Regardless, being sealed in the Temple is a must. But typically yes. If you’ve been divorced, you are not likely to be called as a bishop. In the US they typically don’t call divorced men as bishops. This is a general rule of thumb and seems to differ depending on needs in an area.”

    Where Denver lives, he has stated that he was told he would never serve in leadership because of his divorce. I can look up the reference in one of his books later (I think it was “The Second Comforter” if someone really feels the need to know.

  7. Tim, I will break my silence on these posts simply to address one sentence in this one, since I will be commenting about that sentence and not Bro. Snuffer directly.

    “Perhaps he got tired of people not “getting” it, because they were stuck in some false beliefs about our history or about our doctrine.”

    This is the attitude I abhor most in the defenses of Bro. Snuffer. This sentence, once again, dismisses my objections as childish and immature – as being based on false and inadequate understanding. It says, “if only they could understand the truth” – and that is, fundamentally, a very condescending attitude.

    You are a better person than that statement suggests, and I have to believe you didn’t think through the implications when you wrote it. It is, however, very common in a lot of defenses I have read.

    1. From the preface of the book:
      “…the accounts we regard as ‘history’ are mythical attempts to smooth together the broken confluences to make a tale worth retelling. Mormonism is particularly ‘smooth’ in all the official history retold by the church I belong to: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
      “More and more, however, among friends of mine there is an increasing unease with official accounts of the history of the church. They have grown impatient, and some have left Mormonism because they find too many fanciful insertions into the story of our faith.
      “I have been waiting for someone to write this book. It needs to be written. No one has stepped forward to do so. Therefore, I have decided I am to write it. It explains why I remain a loyal member, despite the rough stuff from which the modern church arises.
      “This book does not contain the traditional account. It only responds to it. Therefore, this is not intended as an introduction to Mormon history. If you are not acquainted with the claims made in basic Mormon history, you may want to read those first.
      “This explanation of events is not based on personal preferences, but it instead conforms with prophecies about Mormonism. The result is a story unlike the familiar one…Some conclusions are very different from what you are used to. A great deal of what is regarded as ‘well settled’ is, upon close investigation, merely a series of inconsistent leaps of faith unwarranted by the record.
      “Alternatively, they are simply inaccurate, incomplete or untrue. In the traditional story written and told by Mormons to one another, there has been a great deal of revising, or explaining events from hindsight.
      ” have found ideas that I once considered renegade are, in fact, an accurate explanation of events at the time they happened. Latter ideas tend to creep backwards, offering explanations that do no belong in the story until later changes were adopted.
      “It is very important to know that some events regarded as original are changes which were made at a later date. They do not belong in account as part of the first, unfolding establishment of the religion. For Mormon readers, therefore, it will be necessary to keep an open mind about our history until you have finished reading.

      “Finally, it would be a disservice to discuss the problems with traditional accounts of Mormon history and leave the reader with the impression I believe there has been a complete compromise of the faith. Therefore this book will explain why Mormonism is still the center of God’s involvement with religion today.”

      —- End of quote from the preface —–

      And that is what I mean by my expression it seemed to me Denver was tired of some people not ‘getting it’ because they were stuck in some false beliefs about our history or about our doctrine. Ray, I have been a student of our history and doctrine all my life. I am about as TBM as they come, or at least I always thought so. I always dismissed the ‘alternative narrative’ stories as made-up, false, lies or deliberate attempts to mislead. In other people’s books, such as Grant Palmer’s, I could see he had some things wrong and put things together wrong. I thought the website “Mormon Think” was a joke – too contrived (still do).

      I did not see that in Denver’s book of Passing the Heavenly Gift. For me, many questions that had long been on the shelf were answered as I read his book. The answers made sense. This is not a personal accusation against you that you have been deceived or that you just don’t get it. This was about me getting it and me putting the pieces of the puzzle together. Ray, don’t leave your convictions. Stick to your guns. This book is obviously not written for you. It was written for someone like me who had a few lingering questions about what happened AFTER Joseph Smith and how our history was written and yes, in some cases, revised, many years after it happened.

      The debate will continue for years to come, or for at least this year. Soon, the rebuttal to PtHG will be out. Denver has already said he looks forward to responding. It is an academic debate in many ways. My fundamental faith has not changed. I still know Joseph was a prophet and the Book of Mormon is the word of God. I still am more than willing to pay my tithing to this great church. I have said it before and will say it again, If my Stake President asks me to take this blog down so I can keep my temple recommend I will comply in a heartbeat. But as of today, I feel I can answer that loyalty question without any deception. I do not feel that reading Denver’s books disqualifies me for a temple recommend. He has not asked for anyone to “follow him” or start a church, just do some thinking.

      I do not think any less of anyone who has not read Denver’s books and who does not intend to. My wife will not read his material. She does not care if I go to his lectures, but they are too far away for me. My sentence was a supposition, based on the paragraphs I presented in the paragraph at the beginning of this comment. I may be completely misunderstanding or misrepresenting what he is trying to say or has said. On the surface, his statement does seem a little arrogant: “Therefore, I have decided I am to write it.” At first, I thought to myself, “Why? It really didn’t need to be written,” but then I started receiving letters and emails from people who said that reading Denver’s books kept them in the church or saved their marriage or some other equally profound statement. The book meets an unmet need that some people don’t have, but many do.

      Please, Ray, I am not dismissing your objections. I’m not even sure I know them completely. Nor do I think Denver is doing so either. Your objections are not childish or immature. Perhaps my reasons for finding answers in this book are childish and immature. I apologize for what you perceive as a condescending attitude. Perhaps it was. If so, I repent and apologize. Please forgive me. I don’t believe for one minute that a man of your caliber and stature with a history of service in this church is anything but committed with heart, mind and soul. I just tried to be open minded when my bishop asked my opinion of the book. I was simply amazed at what happened when I read it. For me, it was a spiritual experience. Others have said it was the worst tripe they have ever read. Go figure.

  8. As I said, Tim, I have read the charge I described in LOTS of comments about those who have problems with PtHG – and I was certain it wasn’t what you meant when you typed that statement. I appreciate your clarification, and it says what I believed to be the case. I respect and admire you greatly, which is why I decided to write the last comment.

    I stand by the general point I made, however – that so many people simply dismiss all who object in some way by painting everyone into the same narrow box. They do exactly what they criticize the other side of doing – and I am really weary of reading it over and over and over again. I’ve seen it repeatedly in multiple comments here – and I think it’s the opposite side of the same lack-of-charity coin. I also have read it more and more on Denver’s blog since the publication of PtHG – which is why I no longer read his blog at all. It’s not that I disagree with everything he’s written; it’s because I have no desire to partake of what I see now as hypocritical vitriol – framed in terms of love and concern. His carefully crafted attack on Sister Nelson, especially, was appalling. It was subtle yet scathing, and it was quintessentially lawyer-esque – and I love and admire many lawyers.

    When I started getting images in my mind of the lawyers pestering Alma and Amulek and constructing elaborate arguments and justifications for why they were ripping them to shreds and belittling them . . . I lost all interest in continuing to see what he has to say in that forum.

    I don’t know the man, but I have sensed a spirit come over his blog the last year or so that simply doesn’t attract me one bit. I don’t see that in you – but, honestly, I see it in FAR more comments on this blog than in the past. I still read here – because I respect you so much, but, more and more, I am picking and choosing which posts I read – based almost entirely on the non-productive negativity I know is going to flow in some of them.

    Now I need to go back to my read and lurk status on these posts.

  9. Nice summary.

    But, what about the argument that DS could have worked with the church during the editing phase of his book? In the academic community, ideas are peer-reviewed before they are published for quality control and to improve the author’s exposition. Why not run the manuscript by the GAs and try to initiate a dialogue instead of just asserting the right to publish non-reviewed speculation that would likely warrant trouble? That was his first opportunity to avoid this outcome. There were many more later on. But failing to pursue this option at the outset is observationally equivalent to pursuing a path to apostasy because it would assume from the get-go that the GAs are unreasonable and uninterested in being truthful, accurate, or working with learned members to clarify difficult issues of history and doctrine.

    1. Hi Pay the Piper. I’ve seen quite a number of your contributions on previous essays. I don’t believe I’ve ever responded directly. Thanks for your visits and your comments. They are excellent. Frankly, I’m in agreement with you. I think everyone has seen how I’ve taken the stance of defending Denver’s actions, but that’s not my right or my place, is it? I don’t know why he did what he did. I don’t know why he wrote the book. Surely he must have known it wasn’t favorable to the church. I’m with you. I think he knows the academic process. I am certain he understands peer-review. You’re right, he chose to go it alone. He did not seek or counsel with those who run this church or give them opportunity to help him present a book that might have been more palatable. He had a reputation. His first books were well received, even if they were not published through “authorized” channels. He had a small, yet growing influence.

      Now for the other side of the coin, he explains at length in The Second Comforter why he did not use the peer review system. I think points seven through ten in my post entitled Overview of The Second Comforter might help explain his mindset there. I’ll summarize: 7) He argues against the process of intellectual criticism. For those who don’t know, criticism is not a bad thing in this context. It simply means rebuttal of critical thinking, what Pay the Piper is engaging in here. He states intellectual criticism brings no revelation. It is not the way God teaches us. 8) He then argues Debate is not the right method, claiming it is not unifying. All it does is convince each side they are correct and entrench them in their thinking. 9) Point nine in that intellectual approach is also insufficient. Strangely enough, we are to study things out before we present them to the Lord. We can’t expect revelation without having done some thought about what we want to know. 10) Finally, he writes reason and scholarship do not produce revelation. What we are after is revelation – direct from God, through the Holy Ghost or whatever means He chooses to answer us, including the ministration of angels or a visit from the Savior when we are ready.

      Well, the deed is done. If you know Denver or have read The Second Comforter, you know his emphasis on sacrifice. Is it possible, and many have asked this, that Denver was asked to write this book, knowing full well it would eventually result in the loss of his membership? He makes a big point that when you are asked to sacrifice something you will know it came from God. In simple words, did God ask Denver to sacrifice his membership in order to prove him worthy of some greater blessing? Did something happen the day he was excommunicated that we will only understand when we are permitted to view the “big picture” when we get to the other side or if we ask the Lord to reveal to us now why Denver wrote a book that did not need to be written? You see, I can defend it either way – I can say it damaged the church by putting into one place all the bad things about our history upon which we don’t like to dwell. They are not lies. They are simply not taught, presented, defended or a part of our approved curriculum. On the other hand, struggling saints have shared the book has helped them come back to the church because they found an open honesty and clear explanations of difficult events from our shared history.

      Your statement or question, Pay the Piper, is valid. Why did he take the adversarial stance? Why did he not work with the Brethren? He certainly knows enough of them. No lawyer in Salt Lake can practice long without having some sort of dealings with the church. I do not know. I am only engaging in an intellectual exercise that will produce no clear answer because Denver does not comment on other blogs. From what I have read, Stephanie will bring some writings about him to his attention and he will comment on them from time to time on his blog ONLY. But those days may be past. Some of my friends are close enough to him that they could ask these questions but he is rather busy this weekend preparing for his Idaho Falls and Logan lectures. Besides, just like I would never ask my sister to ask Elder Perry something (she is his secretary), I would never ask Doug or any other of Denver’s friends to answer our ponderings and settle our arguments. In the big scheme of things, what we discuss here is all pointless because we will all know one way or the other when the sign is given as he has predicted and the servant is revealed.

  10. Tim, maybe you can relate, I’m also from outside of Utah, and it seems like the intellectual apostasy issues are much more rampant there. Is this because of the Mormon culture bubble there? Now I realize that with the internet and virtual living trends in our society that this is probably growing more rapidly elsewhere. Sometimes I sit back and just wonder if there’s way too little real scripture study, temple worship, prayer and productive pondering, and Christlike service occurring in some of the intellectuals’ lives. Maybe too much reading and too little focus on others and serving. Most of the servant/leaders in the Church that I know are too busy to get mired in this stuff, which can be very distracting, however self-satisfying.

    For example, essentially the thought/premise that got Denver into trouble is his 8th published book’s/PtHG’s proposition that Brigham and the Saints didn’t really complete the Nauvoo Temple and the Lord gave them an ultimatum and so he partially cursed them and drove them into the wilderness. From hence springs all his interpretations that the presiding Apostles do not possess the fulness of the priesthood and are very much custodial/administrative apostles and not true prophets, seers, and revelators, etc. Incidentally, he also implies many times, especially in his blog, that he is what they are not, i.e. a real Apostle possessing the sealing power and the fulness of the priesthood, member of the spiritual/eternal church of the Firstborn, on an authorized errand directly from the Lord, but not holding a priestly office in the “corporate church” (and now, not even holding membership). To me it seems like he is claiming, albeit subtly right now, that he is being raised up to be a new Joseph Smith to bring about a re-commencement of the first phase of Mormonism (as he puts it), Zion-building. He may say he does not wish to have a following, but he is doing what one would do to form one: publishing, public speaking, defying the orthodox leaders, etc. He is doing all of this in a very subtle and seemingly gentle manner, which is different than most of the apostates we see who leave the Church kicking and screaming. I also want to note that he has also subtly proclaimed, through his actions and excommunication, that his premise and conclusions in PtHG are not merely conjecture, opinion, or interpretation, but REVELATION. That he is discharging a divinely authorized duty which came through a separate channel, i.e. Denver.

    It seems to me his entire church history paradigm ultimately hinges on his interpretation of D&C 124:32 and his judgment of how the early Latter-day Saints and Brethren did not fulfill it:
    D&C 124:32
    32 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.

    That is a very hard-line view of justice, given the circumstances, especially later after Joseph and Hyrum were martyred. I think it is very easy to temper that view of justice and judgement with mercy, like the Lord seems to communicate in these verses (42-48 have the tone of justice, 49-55 have the tone of mercy):
    D&C 124:42-55
    Doctrine and Covenants
    42 And I will show unto my servant Joseph all things pertaining to this house, and the priesthood thereof, and the place whereon it shall be built.
    43 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.
    44 If ye labor with all your might, I will consecrate that spot that it shall be made holy .
    45 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.
    46 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 mine holy grounds, and mine holy ordinances, and charters, and my holy words which I give unto them.
    47 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 fulfil the promises which ye expect at my hands, saith the Lord.
    48 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, saith the Lord.
    49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.
    50 And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God.
    51 Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God.
    52 And I will answer judgment , wrath, and indignation, wailing, and anguish, and gnashing of teeth upon their heads, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord your God.
    53 And this I make an example unto you, for your consolation concerning all those who have been commanded to do a work and have been hindered by the hands of their enemies, and by oppression, saith the Lord your God.
    54 For I am the Lord your God, and will save all those of your brethren who have been pure in heart, and have been slain in the land of Missouri, saith the Lord.
    55 And again, verily I say unto you, I command you again to build a house to my name, even in this place, that you may prove yourselves unto me that ye are faithful in all things whatsoever I command you, that I may bless you, and crown you with honor, immortality, and eternal life.

    Denver’s interpretation/extrapolation of these verses and the 3 subsequent partially-apostate/condemned(?) phases of church history doesn’t feel right to me – not because I haven’t processed all the information he presents either. By his own admission, Denver is neither appointed nor ordained, does not have authority, and does not want a following – he has encouraged us to be faithful members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – he has not done this, per se, in this instance, but nevertheless. So it’s probably better just to let him be, leave him alone. It isn’t necessary for our individual or collective salvation or exaltation to read his books or his blog. Stick with the scriptures, particularly The Book of Mormon, the Temple, Christlike service, and the divinely appointed and authorized servants of the Lord, the living Apostles. If the Lord wants us to listen to someone, He will raise them up in His Church. Too many unauthorized voices writing books and going on speaking tours – totally unnecessary. Minister to individuals and bring them to Christ through His Church and help them get the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

    Again, I am still hoping and praying that Denver appeals to the First Presidency, that they choose to hear his case, and that he chooses to abide by their counsel. I hope and pray that he stays IN the Church. We shall see.

    1. Amen, Geoff. I don’t pretend to understand what Denver is doing or why. He does seem contradictory at times in what he writes and what he does, such as this lecture tour. He claims it was planned long before the present disciplinary dilemma, apparently not yet concluded because of his appeal to the First Presidency. If my friend Mel Fish’s experience is any indicator, the appeal will not get past the Area President’s office, but perhaps Denver’s case has greater appeal and attention than we know.

      I am looking forward to the rebuttals to PtHG being published (I am aware of two now in the works) and Denver’s response. I wish I had nothing but time to analyze, dissect and post my critiques of each of his lectures but I have yet to finish his first. He will already be giving two more this weekend. Perhaps I should follow your advice – and some of my readers have suggested they are tired of all this Denver stuff – simply ignore him. But alas, I can’t. As I’ve written before, it’s like watching a train wreck. How can a man be so confident he is right? There’s only three sources to sustain him – God, the adversary or ego. Will his lecture tour be what he expected? Will the result be greater awareness of what he says God wants us to know or will it bring a meltdown?

      I feel like someone opening that Chinese fortune cookie (an American invention by the way) – “May you live in interesting times.” We do.

    2. Great comment. My objection to Denver Snuffer, after reading his book very carefully is that even the greatest historians in the history of the world are well aware of their limitations. Snuffer has crossed over from an understanding that his historical narrative is an interpretation, to actually claiming that is is not interpretation, but the “truth”, apparently on par with revelation. This is the danger of ever believing your own nonsense as being something more than interpretation. This puts Snuffer into trouble time and again in PTHG. I think Snuffer is sincere, I think he really believes his own stuff, and I sincerely believe his interpretation is just plain wrong. What keys exactly did the church lose? Snuffer never makes this clear. What keys did Brigham Young and his successors lack? Snuffer confuses the keys that allow the church to be led, with the ultimate keys that each individual receives in connection with receiving a fullness of the priesthood. He seems to be irritated that modern apostles and prophets are not receiving face to face revelations. But–what evidence does he have that they are not? And-what difference does it really make? If the authorities in the church have the Gift of the Holy Ghost and are leading the church in a righteous course thereby, then why is this not sufficient for him?

  11. From all that I’ve read of Bro. Snuffer’s works, he always admonishes readers and listeners to seek the Holy Ghost’s affirmation or denunciation of what he teaches. I rejected some of the first things I read of his, but realized I never asked the Lord once to confirm or reject his words by the Spirit. I repented of that and did better. I was answered. And those answers are private between the Lord and I. I haven’t as yet even told Bro. Snuffer. But he doesn’t care — he wants us to take it to God alone.

    I hope everyone does the same. I hope they don’t assume by their initial reaction — positive or negative — that the Spirit has spoken before they even ask. Perhaps some of Bro. Snuffer’s words are true. Perhaps some are incorrect. We do not reject the scriptures because they contain errors. Errors are false doctrines by literal definition. Should the same standard apply to non-scriptural writings? At first I would say of course not. If such have errors, reject it all, for these are “the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.” But wait, the Spirit let’s us know the truth of ALL things. And when He let’s us know that something — or even a portion — isn’t correct or true, my experience has been that I come away with greater discernment, but no desire at all to speak harshly of the author.

    That’s just my humble experience. Ask the Lord. Seek an answer. Make no assumptions so that I am open to receiving a witness from God. Otherwise, I would feel it is only correct to state my fallible opinion (clearly as opinion) which may influence someone in a positive way, yet still be fully erroneous. Further, I’ve noticed many opinions are full of cheer that this man has been excommunicated. Surely this is not worthy of any member of the church.

    The labor for a witness is worth every strain. I hope we don’t settle for less, whether it be the book of Abraham, General Conference, PtHG, or a well-written commentary for the Latter-Day.

    Enjoyed your post, Bro. Tim.

  12. Bro. Snuffer is exed yet John Dehlin who openly questions and criticizes everything LDS is not exed. The members should be upset about this. Snuffer has done nothing compared to what Dehlin has done. Not right. The First Pres. and Quorum of 12 are Gods representatives and so like God they should be no respector of persons like God. Members really should complain about Dehlin.

    1. Compare what John Dehlin has done in response to his meetings with his stake president: John has been just as open as was Denver. However, in John’s case, as far as I know, he complied with everything his SP asked of him. He disconnected himself from some of the more critical / negative blog activities with which he was formally associated, he specifically helped create a wonderful website entitled “How to stay in the LDS Church / Why I Stay.” Anybody who reads John’s stuff lately can see he has changed his tone. He is much more conciliatory towards the mission of the church. True, he is openly pro-LBGT, but he promotes his views in such a way that he does not come across as “You MUST accept this” but more of “Please learn to love our LBGT brothers and sisters, they have a hard enough road to travel without being judged and rejected by their fellow saints…” The list could go on and on. John has changed in a big way. I have watched him for the last seven or eight years. he had a crisis of faith, and in my opinion, he got over it. He has come back and is trying to prove faithful and obedient. Now mind you, all this is based on simply what I have read, so I suppose that makes me a good impartial observer. Just like I’ve never met Denver, I’ve never met John. I do not like that Denver was excommunicated and I hope his appeal to the first presidency brings about god results, but by his own writings, Denver said he could not or would not comply with what his SP asked him to do. And there, my friend is the big difference. As far as I know, John did as he was counseled and for this no action was taken against his membership status.

  13. I did not know a divorced man could never hold a leadership position! That is absured! What if the mans wife did him dirty and it just could not be worked out? I doubt very seriously whether or not God cares if someone has been divorced. Wow. The church really is getting to become as the Pharisees. A wife of Brigham Young divorced him.

    1. jg: Please see my note below. This is not doctrine. It is practice or custom in most stakes in Utah and California. Everyone knows exceptions, including me. But as a general rule: when considering men for leadership positions such as bishop or SP, if they have been divorced, their name is placed lower on the list. It’s not a hard and fast rule of which I am aware.

  14. Hello Brother Malone,

    thank you for explaining, from your point of view about Denver Snuffer.

    Most appreciated.

    Kind Regards J.V

    On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Latter-day Commentary – Last Days – Signs

  15. As much as I’ve been enlightened or entertained by Denver’s writings and talks, I just can’t get beyond this comment attributed to Joseph Smith:

    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.

    History of the Church 3:385

    1. btw, I’m not trying to suggest that JS was condemning others … but I don’t think DS is condemning others either or saying “he himself is righteous.: They both just seem to be finding fault with institutions that have drifted over the centuries/decades. I think the context of this quote is important, when JS says the Church, he is referring to a church that at the time was closely connected to the powers of heaven. I think Abinadi also found fault with the church of his time, as did Christ, and many others. The larger question is not about DS, it is about the Church, and it is about your own connection to the heavens.

      1. From everything I’ve seen, Denver has done nothing but good in getting people to read, think, study, ponder, pray and recommit. You may think him an apostate (since he is excommunicated and his appeal has not been announced), or you may think him inspired and consider seriously if the Lord really did ask him to perform some special sort of mission such as write his book / books, conduct his lecture circuit this year, or possibly even sacrifice his church membership as a sign to the Lord that he would give up anything asked. If so, he is a much better man than I. My membership means more to me right now than learning fully what Denver has said we can learn: to receive the Lord, commune with Him, be taught by Him, be accepted into His presence while in mortality and to be ministered to or taught the mysteries of eternity. I am not ready to give up the sacrament and the temple since I have not yet receive those other things that Denver claims he has received. I am nowhere near Denver’s level of faith and spirituality.

    2. robf: That’s a good one and one we should all seriously consider when pondering Denver’s predicament: ie: his excommunication. Based on that quote, how could the church have done anything less than what they did? Still, that does not stop me from reading, pondering and gaining good from his insights as he shared in his books.

  16. If only determining truth were as simple as pasting an “apostate” label on someone, so we could know that we could safely ignore anything a person so labelled says, no matter how sound or well-supported it may be.

    I don’t think truth works that way.

    Would Jeremiah, Isaiah, or Lehi have passed the standard Robf interprets out of Joseph Smith? Does Snuffer find fault with the church – those who repent and come unto Christ (D&C 10:67)? I don’t see that he has.

  17. I’ve read Denver Snuffer’s first 3 books, (all that he had at the time) and until the last month, had not realized that more had been written and that he had a blog. Regarding your point 18: I don’t know if both of you are claiming there has been a change in the “charge [That} was given to the apostles” But you may be interested to know that In the 1970’s LeGrand Richards, when speaking to a group of missionaries, was asked if the charge from Oliver Cowdery to the original apostles of this dispensation applied to the apostles called today replied that it did.

  18. I very much enjoyed his first book, Second Comforter. I think in Passing the Heavenly Gift he has expressed his opinions/interpretations as truth, yet there are so many assumptions he makes without firsthand knowledge. Now he seems to imply that he does have firsthand knowledge of these things, as he does the Second Comforter. That’s the part that rubs me wrong. It’s very difficult to identify what Denver is claiming he knows (i.e. revelation) vs what he is just stating as his opinion/interpretation – his language seems to flip-flop between authoritative declaration and uncertain speculation, both in his books and especially on his blog.

    His claim that the living, presiding Apostles are merely administrative/custodial just does not square with all their testimonies I’ve heard, read, and felt and been confirmed to me by the power of the Holy Ghost. I think DS needs to get to know them better before he keeps declaring such things, which has obviously jeopardized his membership and standing in the Church. Perhaps he will get to know them better if they decide to hear his excommunication appeal. I hope and pray so. I was in a mission conference with Elder Perry when I was serving my full-time mission, age 20 or so, and he gave us an Apostolic blessing using his keys. President Benson was the prophet/president at the time. It was tangibly, electrically powerful – one of many unimaginable spiritual experiences I’ve had with the Brethren I sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators in truth. Perhaps Denver has not had any experiences like that.

    I believe the Lord planned for Joseph Smith’s passing, that it would not frustrate His work of Restoration, that the keys were passed just as the Lord passed them to Peter, and that the prophecies about the Lord’s kingdom being established in the latter days, never to be destroyed or left to another people, have been fulfilled (no need for reboot or splintering). The Church is still true and living and He is pleased with it collectively as an organization, but not individually (lots of errant members and even some leaders).

    Let the Book of Mormon and the scriptures – that’s how Denver learned whatever he’s gotten right – and the words of the authorized servants of the Lord be your reading material. Too many unauthorized individuals writing and speaking as if they were – the definition of pretending, in my opinion. Stay with the Savior and His Spirit and His true delegated servants/representatives. This other stuff seems like fluff and distraction, however fun and self-gratifying and mysterious.

    1. Great comment. Second Comforter is primarily doctrinal, and who could argue with it, since Snuffer quotes Joseph Smith extensively. In PTHG his arguments are HISTORICAL, and that gets him into all kinds of trouble, because historical argument requires historical interpretation, and that is a very difficult bridge for any historian to cross. For Snuffer to apparently have confused his interpretation (or opinions), actually recently claiming PTHG has transcended interpretation and is the “truth,” means that he is unaware of the self-deception he has fallen into. It’s all very sad.

      1. Snuffer, unfortunately, makes claims for which only two possible conclusions can follow.

        1. He’s a prophet, in the old testament sense, as was Joseph Smith.
        2. He’s a fraud – not accidental, not self-deluding, but an intentional, knowing fraud.

        This same dichotomy faces us with respect to Joseph Smith, for the same reasons.

  19. If Snuffer is telling the truth about having received the Second Comforter, and has been brought through the veil as he claims, then it follows directly he *does* know, not merely believe, what he’s talking about, and not only would he be authorized, but he would have been commanded, to say what he says, as he says he has been.

    That is the fundamental problem one has to solve for oneself – is Snuffer a prophet, or not?

    If so, there is a problem. It would follow that a great many are overstating the state of their authority, passing off their beliefs or opinions as knowledge, both among the membership and among the leadership.

    If not, then he is a fraud.

    But, here’s the rub – PTHG must be answered in the terms in which it was offered, regardless of whether Snuffer is a prophet or not. Either he’s got it wrong and despite all logic and publicly available evidence, the sealing power – the power to move mountains, seal and open the heavens, commune with the Church of the Firstborn, to stand in the presence of God, even the Father in His kingdom while in the flesh, and the power to inquire and obtain an answer by the voice of Jehova, rather than enduring silence and be left to one’s best judgement – is currently in possession of the Church, despite no example of it being seen in the Church since Joseph.

    Or he’s got it right, and this power is not with the Church, and never could be an institutional possession in the first place. He’s got the facts right, and unfortunately the facts undercut all of the historical claims to this power by the Church. This must be answered using public evidence. Excommunicating him doesn’t invalidate Snuffer’s argument, neither is the exercise of power an answer to his claims.

    Frankly, all this blather about his motivations and church membership status and how pure and good the GAs are is all beside the point. If Snuffer’s committed errors of history or scriptural interpretation, demonstrate it. One’s private feelings, opinions, or “testimony,” does not suffice to publicly answer a public argument made using publicly available evidence.

    1. Yes, and Snuffer deserves to be replied to “on the merits” of his arguments. All of his major historical arguments are incorrect. However, I do not believe members should receive discipline for what they sincerely believe. If Snuffer is wrong, he should be addressed on the merits. What he experienced with diety is between him and God. By the same token, so is what the current authorities are experiencing, and what common members are experiencing.

      1. All of his major historical arguments are incorrect.

        You would do the world a service if you would demonstrate that claim, rather than assert it.

  20. It is not fact or even just evidence – it is interpretation of historical evidence – the worst kind, I might add, since no one is around to properly testify of it. Several of your statements are pure assumption as well, such as “despite no example of it being seen in the Church since Joseph.”

  21. My experiences are personal and subjective, granted, as are yours. But it sounds like you’re insinuating that the truth of this matter, regarding Denver and his church history succession theory, can be judged and known strictly on the historical evidence, like it will be obvious. I don’t think it is. Interpretation of sketchy evidence is no less subjective. Historian bias is inevitable. I believe that revelation is required to settle the debate. Just thinking. Subjectivity is a great topic.

    1. I think you are correct. Snuffer seems to be willingly blind to the limitations of his own historical interpretation.

  22. Denver’s recent post “Equal in Authority and Accountability”, here:
    http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2013-01-01T00:00:00-07:00&updated-max=2014-01-01T00:00:00-07:00&max-results=43

    He does not seem to reflect D&C 102:10-14 (here’s a link and transcription of the 1844 edition):

    http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/doctrine-and-covenants-1844?dm=image-and-text&zm=zoom-inner&tm=expanded&p=129&s=undefined&sm=none

    10?In cases of difficulty respecting doctrine, or principle, (if there is not a sufficiency writ ten to make the case clear to the minds of the council,) the president may inquire and obtain the mind of the Lord by revelation.
    11.?The high priests, when abroad, have power to call and organize a council after the manner of the foregoing, to settle difficulties when the parties, or either of them, shall re [p. 126] quest it: and the said council of high priests shall have power to appoint one of their own number, to preside over such council for the time being. It shall be the duty of said coun cil to transmit, immediately, a copy of their proceedings, with a full statement ofthe tes timony accompanying their decision, to the high council ofthe seat of the first presiden cy of the church. Should the parties, or ei ther of them, be dissatisfied with the decision of said council, they may appeal to the high council of the seat of the first presidency of the church, and have a re-hearing, which case shall there be conducted, according to the former pattern written, as though no such de cision had been made.
    12?This council of high priests abroad, is only to be called on the most difficult cases of church matters: and no common or ordinary case is to be sufficient to call such council.— The travelling or located high priests abroad, have power to say whether it is necessary to call such a council or not.
    13?There is a distinction between the high council of travelling high priests abroad, and the travelling high council composed of the twelve apostles, in their decisions: From the decision of the former there can be an appeal, but from the decision of the latter there can not. The latter can only be called in ques tion by the general authorities of the church in case of transgression.
    14?Resolved, that the president, or presi dents of the seat ofthe first presidency of the church, shall have power to determine wheth [p. 127] er any such case, as may be appealed, is justly entitled to a re-hearing, after examining the appeal and the evidendes and statements ac companying it.

    The way this reads to me is that the stake high councils are patterned after “the high council of the seat of the first presidency”, namely 12 high priests and a stake presidency (or presidency of Melchizedek Priesthood); but this council is lower than the council of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency to whom you can appeal if you are dissatisfied with the first’s decision. And that “there is a distinction” in authority, from the first you can appeal, from the Twelve and the First Presidency you cannot (i.e. because they are the highest authority delegated on earth; they represent Christ).

    Denver claims that the council of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency “have no authority within organized stakes.” His explanation sounds confusing and muddled to me, given the verses above. In his post he uses his authoritative declarative voice. Judge for yourselves.

  23. Several of your statements are pure assumption as well, such as “despite no example of it being seen in the Church since Joseph.”

    What man has claimed to have been in the physical presence of the Father and the Son since Joseph? I can name only one – and that would be Snuffer. What man has actually claimed to be a prophet since Joseph? I know of only one – that would be Snuffer – but I know of several among the leadership who, having had the question put to them directly whether they were a prophet, purposefully avoided giving a direct answer to that question, where Joseph was forthright and bold to say he was a prophet.

    Perhaps you can name others? Preferably among the Twelve, or First Presidency? After all, the Biblical definition of a prophet is one who has stood in the divine council while in the flesh, and has his instruction from God Himself. See this: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-sod-of-yhwh-and-the-endowment/

    Others claiming a man is a prophet, a seer, and a revelator, does not equate to the man himself saying he, himself, is a prophet, a seer, and a revelator. A man having a duty to be like unto Moses does not mean he actually is fulfilling his duty to be like unto Moses – if, for example, he has not received the gifts of prophecy, seership, and revelation, then he is not in the way of his duty. If a man does not claim to be a prophet, why should anyone believe he is one, save God testifies from on high that such is the case?

    Bluntly speaking, if each and every explanation offered by the Church for how the sealing power got from Joseph to President Monson can be shown to be invalid on historical and scriptural grounds, as PTHG demonstrates those explanations to be, then it means there needs to be a new explanation given which is consistent with 1) our own history, and 2) our own scriptures, or perhaps one ought to admit the Church does not possess this power, and it is as Snuffer says, bestowed from heaven directly, or not at all. Once again, PTHG needs to be answered by reference to our history and our scriptures – public evidence, public analysis. On the face of it, Snuffer has established his case. I wish it weren’t so.

    If you have seen any relevant errors of history, or the interpretation thereof, or interpretation of scripture, in PTHG, then you may profitably contribute to the discussion over the contents of the book. If you haven’t read the book, you cannot. Have you read the book?

    If not, I would not recommend that you do. Heaven knows I was happier before I read it. However, as the scripture says, to answer a matter before hearing it is a shame and folly unto a man.

    1. My careful reading of PTHG (3 times) did not convince me that Snuffer made a compelling case that sufficient keys were not passed along to Brigham Young and the rest of the Twelve. Snuffer’s arguments are one of a palette of possible interpretations, not an overwhelming argument supporting his position. Besides, the bonafide to direct the church of God does not rest on the necessity of a man seeing God face to face, does it? In the BOM, there are authors writing about 300BC that say “we know of no revelation amongst the Nephites”, and then about 80BC Nephi is having face to face revelation. Obviously, some leaders had direct encounters and others did not. This did not invalidate the passing of keys that were legitimate. As long as the current authorities have the give of the Holy Ghost, and are following the directions through that medium, then the church is being led on a righteous course. And, how does Snuffer, or any other member know what the current authorities have or have not received from the Lord? The answer is nobody knows the answer to that question: it’s all a supposition on Snuffer’s part that the current leadership has not received direct revelation.

      1. In reading your comment, I am not seeing where you address the content of PTHG on the issue of Brigham having the sealing keys. I would appreciate it if you would cite the specific arguments you did not find compelling – those specific paths by which Brigham said the keys came to him, which Snuffer shows cannot possibly be true – and show me how you have nevertheless come to believe Snuffer failed.

  24. To forestall a common rejoinder that when God bestows something upon a man, then that man receives it automatically – D&C 88:33 For what doth it profit a man if a gift is bestowed upon him, and he receive not the gift? Behold, he rejoices not in that which is given unto him, neither rejoices in him who is the giver of the gift.

    By this we may know that a man who ascends to the Presidency, of whom it is said: D&C 107:91-92 [T]he duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood is… to be like unto Moses… yea, to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church. – does not automatically receive these gifts, and may not, in fact, be a prophet, neither a seer, nor a revelator, to say nothing of being a translator. In examining our history, as shown in PTHG from the publicly available journals and publications of the time, it becomes readily apparent that we have had non-prophets as Presidents in the past, beginning with Brigham Young (by his own admission), yet these men were acclaimed at the time, and since, as prophets.

    Unless God testifies to one that So-And-So is a prophet, and in the absence of a direct claim by So-And-So to prophethood, why should it be believed that any man is a prophet of God? It’s not modesty which prevents men from claiming the title of “prophet” when the title is, in spirit and in truth, justifiably claimed. Again, witness Joseph’s straightforward claiming of the title, and explaining how he merited it, in light of the Biblical standard.

    I freely acknowledge that a man may be a servant of God yet not be a prophet, in the terms under discussion here. I freely acknowledge that good and pure men may be in high positions, yet not merit the title of “prophet”. I freely acknowledge that men who have not received the Holy Ghost may be called by God to serve in whatever office it pleases God to place them; they are His calls to make.

    Calling a tail a leg does not mean a dog has five legs, for the label does not change the nature of the thing.

    1. You are apparently unaware of Spencer W Kimball’s statement in 1979 Preisthood conference, where he quoted John Taylor “I have seen the Savior,” and then stated in effect, I bear that same witness that John Taylor gave. If you study the history of the presidents of the church you will find evidence of divine manifestations, with visions, revelations and clear direct from the Holy Ghost in each of their administrations. He that has ears to hear, will hear.

      1. And yet, we have President Grant saying he was not aware of any that had seen the Savior since Joseph.

        Does that require ears to hear?

        Also, I went and looked up each of President Kimball’s talks in both conferences in 1979. I looked for the string “seen the”, as in “I have seen the Savior.” I did not locate the string “seen the” in any of his talks.

        Do you have a citation?

  25. I believe President Joseph F. Smith’s vision of the Savior and the redemption of the dead in D&C 138 qualifies as a good public/published example of visions/visitations after Joseph Smith.

    The Living Christ proclamation from 2000 is another powerful example.

    And these declarative witnesses from the most recent General Conference are very powerful authoritative/declarative witnesses, too.

    (2013 April General Conference, These Things I Know, Sat. Morning Session – By Boyd K. Packer)
    And now you see I’m 88.
    The years have flown so fast.
    I walked, I limped, I held a cane,
    And now I ride at last.
    I take a nap now and again,
    But priesthood power remains.
    For all the physical things I lack
    There are great spiritual gains.
    I have traveled the world a million miles
    And another million too.
    And with the help of satellites,
    My journeys are not through.
    I now can say with all certainty
    That I know and love the Lord.
    I can testify with them of old
    As I preach His holy word.
    I know what He felt in Gethsemane
    Is too much to comprehend.
    I know He did it all for us;
    We have no greater Friend.
    I know that He will come anew
    With power and in glory.
    I know I will see Him once again
    At the end of my life’s story.
    I’ll kneel before His wounded feet;
    I’ll feel His Spirit glow.
    My whispering, quivering voice will say,
    “My Lord, my God, I know.”
    And I do know!
    Of all that I have read and taught and learned, the one most precious and sacred truth that I have to offer is my special witness of Jesus Christ. He lives. I know He lives. I am His witness. And of Him I can testify. He is our Savior, our Redeemer. Of this I am certain. Of this I bear witness in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

    (2013 April General Conference, “Come unto Me”, Sat. Morning Session – By Henry B. Eyring)
    I am a witness of the Resurrection of the Lord as surely as if I had been there in the evening with the two disciples in the house on Emmaus road. I know that He lives as surely as did Joseph Smith when he saw the Father and the Son in the light of a brilliant morning in a grove of trees in Palmyra.
    This is the true Church of Jesus Christ. Only in the priesthood keys held by President Thomas S. Monson is the power for us to be sealed in families to live forever with our Heavenly Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. We will on the Day of Judgment stand before the Savior, face to face. It will be a time of joy for those who have drawn close to Him in His service in this life. It will be a joy to hear the words: “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.” I so testify as a witness of the risen Savior and our Redeemer in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

    (2013 April General Conference, “Lord, I Believe”, Sun. Afternoon Session – By Jeffrey R. Holland)
    Now, with the advantage that nearly 60 years give me since I was a newly believing 14-year-old, I declare some things I now know. I know that God is at all times and in all ways and in all circumstances our loving, forgiving Father in Heaven. I know Jesus was His only perfect child, whose life was given lovingly by the will of both the Father and the Son for the redemption of all the rest of us who are not perfect. I know He rose from that death to live again, and because He did, you and I will also. I know that Joseph Smith, who acknowledged that he wasn’t perfect, was nevertheless the chosen instrument in God’s hand to restore the everlasting gospel to the earth. I also know that in doing so—particularly through translating the Book of Mormon—he has taught me more of God’s love, of Christ’s divinity, and of priesthood power than any other prophet of whom I have ever read, known, or heard in a lifetime of seeking. I know that President Thomas S. Monson, who moves devotedly and buoyantly toward the 50th anniversary of his ordination as an Apostle, is the rightful successor to that prophetic mantle today. We have seen that mantle upon him again in this conference. I know that 14 other men whom you sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators sustain him with their hands, their hearts, and their own apostolic keys.
    These things I declare to you with the conviction Peter called the “more sure word of prophecy.” What was once a tiny seed of belief for me has grown into the tree of life, so if your faith is a little tested in this or any season, I invite you to lean on mine. I know this work is God’s very truth, and I know that only at our peril would we allow doubt or devils to sway us from its path. Hope on. Journey on. Honestly acknowledge your questions and your concerns, but first and forever fan the flame of your faith, because all things are possible to them that believe. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

    (2013 April General Conference, Until We Meet Again, Sun. Afternoon Session – By Thomas S. Monson)
    I bear my personal witness and testimony to you that God lives, that He hears the prayers of humble hearts. His Son, our Savior and Redeemer, speaks to each of us: “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him.” May we believe these words and take advantage of this promise.
    As this conference now concludes, I invoke the blessings of heaven upon each of you. May your homes be filled with peace, harmony, courtesy, and love. May they be filled with the Spirit of the Lord. May you nurture and nourish your testimonies of the gospel, that they will be a protection to you against the buffetings of Satan.
    Until we meet again in six months, I pray that the Lord will bless and keep you, my brothers and sisters. May His promised peace be with you now and always. Thank you for your prayers in my behalf and in behalf of all of the General Authorities. We are deeply grateful for you. In the name of our Savior and Redeemer, whom we serve, even Jesus Christ, the Lord, amen.

  26. Log, perhaps you and Denver and using different criteria than I am. Please share, if you wish, exactly what public/published evidence you require to consider someone a prophet, seer, and revelator – or what you think is missing/lacking in the living/presiding Apostles. I feel Denver has misjudged the living Apostles based on very sketchy interpreted evidence – and without apparently even trying to approach them personally. He never makes reference to an attempt to interview any of them to see if his suppositions about their lack of spiritual experiences or power were really true.

    For me the framework of the revelations upon which the Restoration and the Church are built, as well as the scriptural prophecies about the rise and progress of that church and kingdom, together with the priesthood authority and keys historically attested to as being passed to the Twelve too, build upon and harmonize perfectly well with the testimonies of the special witnesses – such as the very few I have sampled above – these things meet my criteria. The Holy Ghost has confirmed to me that these men are who they say they are and who the Church sustains them to be. You seem like you are lost and searching for something else, like a new movement, a reboot. I don’t think it’s in the Lord’s latter-day program to keep rebooting or splintering. There’s too much real work to do, to take the Gospel to the world and prepare for the Second Coming.

    All this intellectual nit-picking and over-thinking and at best speculating seems like a great distraction to the work of salvation. Here’s a key of discernment that I have found to be quite effective to test the truth of certain things. If something claims to be fundamental but can’t be extrapolated to a much larger scale, but rather breaks down, then it probably isn’t true. For example, families and family structure are a principle/organization that can be scaled to fill the earth. The Church, obviously, can also scale/grow to fill the earth. What a marvelous work we see happening right now as the work hastens. Now let’s look at Denver’s philosophy – to me it doesn’t scale. I don’t think his philosophy will not make it very far out of Utah. The target audience is very small. But I could be wrong about the scope of his effort and self-proclaimed mission – perhaps it is just to the intellectuals who are hung up on church history interpretation. It seems very provincial to me, whereas the Lord’s Church and program are trying to take the Gospel to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.

  27. Please share, if you wish, exactly what public/published evidence you require to consider someone a prophet, seer, and revelator.

    As I stated above, a prophet is one who has stood in the divine council – that is, has stood in the presence of God, the Father, and beheld the creation of the world, and knows the plan of God, and has his instructions from God Himself. That is the biblical standard. Once again, see this: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-sod-of-yhwh-and-the-endowment/

    Such a man has of necessity got the fullness of the priesthood, for without this, no man can see the face of God, the Father, and afterwards be left in the flesh.

    These men, whom you say are what they claim they are, do not claim to be prophets. Therefore, I too believe them to be what they claim they are – “special witnesses” to the name of Jesus Christ, a thing which is undefined. They do not claim to be eye witnesses, therefore I have no reason to believe them to be eye witnesses, therefore I do not have a reason to believe they meet even the biblical definition of Apostles, which is to be an eye witness of the glory of Christ and the resurrection. Seeing a vision of the redemption of the dead does not qualify one to be a prophet in this sense, while it may qualify one to be an Apostle (not, however, according to the original charge given the apostles in the Church, which entailed having the Savior literally and physically ordain one to the calling); neither does seeing visions of the Savior whilst in one’s sickbed qualify one to be a prophet, even if it may qualify one to be an Apostle (again, however, it does not conform to the charge given to the apostles at the beginning).

    Without reading PTHG – and I notice you didn’t answer my direct question whether you had read it, and also asked for my definition of a prophet, which was already posted with a citation, as though you did not even read my comments fully – you cannot contribute to a conversation about it. Have you read the book?

  28. And, I stress again, if the thesis of PTHG is correct, then it follows directly that many are overstating the condition of their knowledge, claiming as knowledge that which is only believed, or is an opinion. For example, Elder Holland’s comments about President Monson having Joseph’s “prophetic mantle” would be an example of such an overstatement, if the thesis of PTHG is correct.

  29. Ah, I misunderstood what you were asking. My apologies.

    At a minimum, a prophet must claim the things which qualify men to be prophets. President Monson directly and plainly stating he has stood in the divine council would count as a claim to prophethood, and the fullness of the priesthood.

    President Monson directly and plainly stating that he, himself, was a prophet, a seer, and a revelator would give grounds to believe that he may, indeed, be a prophet, a seer, and a revelator. As far as I know, no President of the Church since Joseph has claimed those titles for themselves, neither have the apostles.

    They always say the other Elders are prophets, seers, and revelators, but never claim it for themselves. But none of them claim the things which qualify them as such.

    President Smith’s vision of the redemption of the dead does, indeed, meet the standard for being a seer and a revelator. It’s interesting that that occurred only at the end of his life.

    In the end, whether a man is a prophet or not can only be known by the voice of God.

    I, too, can, and do, bear testimony that both God and Christ live, that Christ intercedes on our behalf with His Father, and I am willing to explain the precise nature of my witness, for I believe testimony, as such, must answer the question how I know what I know. But I do not and cannot claim that my witness qualifies me to be either an Apostle – for I am not eyewitness to the resurrection – neither a prophet – for I have not been chosen and called up through the veil, anointed a king and a priest unto the Most High God, and stood in the divine council, knowing that which is to come, and I have not received a commission from the mouth of God in His presence to teach what I have seen unto the children of men.

  30. Degrading into an unproductive discussion in my view, Log, so I’ll wish you the best with your worldview and be moving on.

  31. Log, I find it interesting that you assume Denver has seen the Father, received the fullness of the Priesthood, is a prophet, and has authority to speak on behalf of God – when Denver has never made any of these claims himself. Or maybe you have read something I missed – can you point to me where he has claimed any of these things?

    I am sorry you have become less happy after reading PTHG. You must believe it is because a sad truth has been brought to your attention, but I have good news – most of the principles in that book are mistaken from the beginning, and in most instances I can show it to you (save for some things that do not have conclusive evidence either way and really on testimony/personal revelation, or that may be too sacred to really delve into to the point it would take to be fully convincing).

    Unfortunately, I have neither the time or energy at this point to write a book (because that’s what it would take) that shows all the many errors and misinterpretations of history and scripture Denver has made in that book.

    If you are interested in an evidence-based refutation that you can use to ponder and pray upon, I would be happy and willing to take the time to discuss with you up to 3 major claims that Denver has made that undermines or is in opposition to what the LDS Church teaches today, and show you were he has gone wrong. If that does interest you, please let me know which claims you would most like to discuss.

    All the best.

  32. No worries, Geoff. As I mentioned, if you haven’t read the book, you cannot participate in a productive discussion about it. And I don’t recommend reading the book.

    As for my worldview, I’m not sure how not imputing a claim to a man who is unwilling to make the claim for himself can possibly get me into trouble. Indeed, it appears to me that doing the opposite is guaranteed to get one into trouble.

    If that’s something one needs to be well-wished for, well, there are worse problems to have.

  33. Log, I find it interesting that you assume Denver has seen the Father, received the fullness of the Priesthood, is a prophet, and has authority to speak on behalf of God – when Denver has never made any of these claims himself. Or maybe you have read something I missed – can you point to me where he has claimed any of these things?

    Read the entirety of his blog and his books (I have read most of his books and all of his blog). Some claims are implicitly made, others are explicit.

    However, I make no such assumption that Denver is a prophet, neither do I make the assumption that his claims to his personal experiences are true. If he is telling the truth, then the thesis of PTHG is more than likely true. If he is a fraud, then the thesis of PTHG may yet be true – and that’s a problem.

    I’m not so much concerned with whether Snuffer is a prophet or not as I am concerned that the thesis of PTHG is true. I rather thought I had been clear on that.

    If you are interested in an evidence-based refutation that you can use to ponder and pray upon, I would be happy and willing to take the time to discuss with you up to 3 major claims that Denver has made that undermines or is in opposition to what the LDS Church teaches today, and show you were he has gone wrong. If that does interest you, please let me know which claims you would most like to discuss.

    If Snuffer is correct, then the Church is teaching falsely on those claims. One cannot privilege one side of a dispute from the outset.

    If you have evidence that the Church is factually correct on those claims, then I would be most interested indeed.

    If, instead, your argument is that the Church is correct on those claims, therefore Snuffer is incorrect, then I would not be interested at all, since that is to assume what must be proved, otherwise known as “begging the question.”

  34. Yes, I’m talking about providing evidence that supports the Church’s position, or in some instances pointing out how Denver’s evidence is faulty.

  35. I don’t know which claims you would like to discuss. Although my time is limited, as I’m guessing yours is too, I said I’d be willing to discuss up to 3 that you feel are the most important. Feel free to point out the top 3 issues you’d like to discuss.

    It’s hard to know the tone of your messages just reading the text, but let me be clear upfront, I am not here for an argument or contention if that is your desire. I’m only interested in providing information if you are honestly seeking information that may support the Church’s positions, if you genuinely believe in your perspective that Denver’s positions have more evidence/support and would like to see this from a different angle. I’m doing this in an honest attempt to serve and be helpful to you if it is your desire to be faithful, and if its a fight you are looking for this will be a waste of time for both of us and we should just stop here.

  36. I would like to know too, SteveF. I have not read PTHG, but I have read almost every entry in Denver’s blog and had personal correspondence with to ask him questions about the issues in PTHG (I would like to read it without generating revenue for it – I wish he actually published all his books as free e-books, since he claims it is not about revenue, i.e. not priestcraft). I’m not an expert on his book, but I do feel like I’ve encountered most of his major points – which, again, I think are based on sketchy interpretations of historical evidence (think of history as a million piece puzzle, that you get maybe 25% of the pieces, if you’re fortunate – the rest you have to fill in with opinion, interpretation, and guesses). Almost all of Denver’s personal spiritual claims are implicit, that I’ve read, not explicit. He tends to talk about theophanies as if he knows and has had them, using a declarative/authoritative tone. I have not read any of his books entirely except the first, Second Comforter, which I read twice – he is explicit about having visited personally with Christ at the end of that book.

    It seems to me his entire church history paradigm ultimately hinges on his interpretation of D&C 124:32 and his judgment of how the early Latter-day Saints and Brethren did not fulfill it. See my post above on September 24, 2013 at 6:18pm. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

    SteveF, I’m very interested in learning what you’ve discovered. Please take the time to post here, if you can, perhaps one point at a time so that the readers here can digest it. I sense a lot of confusion here. You might help some souls through the mists of darkness. You should definitely write it down and find a way to share it, though – even if you don’t write a book.

  37. Neither am I interested in contention. I’m not discussing these things because I’m looking to “win” a debate or an argument, although I shall be very quick indeed to point out when a claim has not been established, or answered. My faithfulness is not an issue.

    Here are some claims Snuffer has made which I feel should be answered.

    1. The Gentile rejection of the fullness of the Gospel, prophesied in the Book of Mormon, is a past event. This is the overall thesis of PTHG.

    2. The Church’s historical claims to the fullness of the priesthood can be shown to be false on an historical basis.

    The evidence and arguments are laid out in PTHG, and so I won’t recount them here.

    The interesting thing about Snuffer’s claims is that even if they are true, they do not lead any into wickedness; they do not justify rebellion.

    1. Well your first point is easy to refute. If you will go to 1st Nephi Chapter 13 you will hear Nephi giving a chronological account of the last days. He uses the term “Gentiles” to refer to to those outside the covenant in the wide sense, because he is describing historical events before the restoration. The use of the term “gentiles” in this context could not possibly have the meaning Snuffer ascribes to it because the “gentile” insiders (those inside the covenant) haven’t been established yet. Thus, the BOM uses the terms in two senses, and you must be careful how you read the text, lest you step into the mud-puddle of incorrect interpretation that Snuffer has stepped into. Later on in Third Nephi, the Lord is also sometimes addressing Gentiles in the wide sense (any who are not within the covenant) and sometimes in the narrow sense (his people who are within the covenant). Snuffer however, never admits the wise sense term, because it is fatal to his historical interpretation.

      1. Alas, Snuffer mostly refers to Christ’s prophecy in 3rd Nephi, and, once the Nephi’s vision hits this shore, and the restoration is in play, then we are identified with the Gentiles – D&C 109:60.

        I apologize, but it seems you have not read Snuffer to understand, but rather to oppose, neither have you read him in context.

        That is where I get frustrated. I have given the man a full and fair hearing, and thus far, when others blithely assert that Snuffer’s gotten it wrong, invariably they have not gotten him right.

  38. Steve, if you have not read PTHG, as Geoff has not, then I am afraid I may not continue in a conversation, because it cannot be productive.

    The number of people with opinions of the contents of PTHG vastly exceeds the number of people with knowledge of the contents of PTHG, and, as the First Presidency once rightly observed, “no man’s opinion is worth a straw.”

  39. Log, I think those are 2 good ones. I hope to get to adequately addressing them over this weekend. And because of Geoff’s request, I’m going try and answer them in some depth pointing out many of Denver’s scriptural misinterpretations in PTHG, so that it may be useful to others who might come across this as well.

    Geoff, I have agreed with just about everything you said here, especially about the misinterpretations of D&C 124, although I think Denver’s scriptural paradigm/misinterpretations go well beyond that section. But I agree, it does seem to be pretty central to root of his thesis.

  40. Steve, have you read PTHG?

    And, is the thrust of your argument going to be “Snuffer’s reading the scriptures wrong”?

    1. That’s my argument. Snuffer, who claims to have seen the Lord and received the fullness of the priesthood, claims that the saints in Nauvoo did not receive the fulness of the priesthood because they did not finish the Nauvoo temple in time, and that was the only place that the saints could receive the fullness (in his interpretation of the scripture). This is ironic, because Snuffer, who claims to have received the fullness of the priesthood from the Lord himself (and apparently outside of the temple) is saying that the Lord could not bestow the fulness of the priesthood on the Nauvoo saints because they could not receive it outside of the temple. Does Snuffer ever explain this contradiction; no he does not. Perhaps he is not even aware of the problem.

      1. That’s my argument. Snuffer, who claims to have seen the Lord and received the fullness of the priesthood, claims that the saints in Nauvoo did not receive the fulness of the priesthood because they did not finish the Nauvoo temple in time, and that was the only place that the saints could receive the fullness (in his interpretation of the scripture).

        That, unfortunately, is the literal reading of D&C 124. I abhor the “private interpretation” slur in our culture – it is not an honest approach.

        This is ironic, because Snuffer, who claims to have received the fullness of the priesthood from the Lord himself (and apparently outside of the temple) is saying that the Lord could not bestow the fulness of the priesthood on the Nauvoo saints because they could not receive it outside of the temple. Does Snuffer ever explain this contradiction; no he does not. Perhaps he is not even aware of the problem.

        Snuffer’s not saying the Lord “could not,” but specifically said He would not. Hence, the Church was rejected along with their dead. Any individual saint may take the direct path to obtain it from the Lord, as Snuffer points out from scripture and from Joseph.

        I am left wondering how carefully you have read.

        Moreover, I wonder if you are aware of the problem posed by Kirtland. The Lord doesn’t change, we are told, and when He accepted Kirtland, there were visible manifestations, angelic visitations, and so forth. These were all public.

        Not so with any temple since. Yet the Lord changes not. Curious.

  41. I will try to find a way to obtain PTHG and read it for understanding so I can discuss more productively (I really wish it was downloadable, now I have to order and wait). I’m not worried about its contents – I doubt I’ll be surprised or shocked by anything in it. As I said, I’ve read 95-99% of his blog and a few others, including this one, relating to his writings. I’m not totally ignorant in other words. SteveF, I appreciate your willingness to share and contribute. Log, I take no offense and appreciate your position and viewpoint. I will also try to keep this discussion completely respectful and devoid of contention. I pray you peace and truth.

    I do think some of the things I’ve said very much apply to the discussion in general. The evidences we’re talking about are not concrete, irrefutable. In almost every case they are interpreted. They are mostly opinion or theory. Proving some of what you say can be proved, using historical sources, is impossible. The non-living past very much enters the realm of faith. We don’t have perfect journals of people’s lives, conversations, thoughts, or experiences. To assume or rely on everything important being recorded and available as evidence is faulty reasoning. The level of evidence you may require to convince you of anything may be unattainable.

    Let me requote one of the recent Apostolic witnesses, for example:

    (2013 April General Conference, “Come unto Me”, Sat. Morning Session – By Henry B. Eyring)
    I am a witness of the Resurrection of the Lord as surely as if I had been there in the evening with the two disciples in the house on Emmaus road. I know that He lives as surely as did Joseph Smith when he saw the Father and the Son in the light of a brilliant morning in a grove of trees in Palmyra.
    This is the true Church of Jesus Christ. Only in the priesthood keys held by President Thomas S. Monson is the power for us to be sealed in families to live forever with our Heavenly Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. We will on the Day of Judgment stand before the Savior, face to face. It will be a time of joy for those who have drawn close to Him in His service in this life. It will be a joy to hear the words: “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.” I so testify as a witness of the risen Savior and our Redeemer in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

    That is quite a declarative witness. President Eyring, and the other living Apostles, have given many similar witnesses/testimonies without qualification or apology. Do you believe him (in this sample)? This brings me to my next question, Log – what is your measure of truth? So far I only hear you talking about evidence. How do you know if the evidence being presented is true or truly interpreted? For me, it is indeed the Holy Ghost. I submit there is no other way to know the truth of many of these things. I mean no offense, I am sincere.

  42. Purchased, $28 ugh! I want to say priestcraft, but I really do hope that Denver donates all the proceeds to the General Mission fund of the Church. Amazon Prime, so 2-day free shipping – won’t have to wait too long 🙂

  43. Testimony is the firsthand statement of a witness’s experience. In normal circumstances, a witness may be cross-examined to discover the source of their knowledge – what they saw, when they saw it, other incidentals, etc. Joseph, in writing the account of his First Vision, adequately answered the natural inquiry as to the source of his knowledge: he was an eyewitness, and was speaking of things he had personally experienced. President Eyring, on the other hand, did not. I honestly haven’t a clue what experience he’s talking about – for he refers to no experience which would give knowledge of the facts he says he knows are true.

    It is one thing to say “I know” but quite another to say “… and here’s how I know.” The latter is what gives true testimony its value. The former is nothing – people assert things beyond their actual knowledge all the time.

    Do you believe [Elder Eyring] (in this sample)?

    There’s no way to know from the statement alone whether it is true. It is possible that his statement is not strictly true, that he is claiming as knowledge what is, in fact, his strong belief. One may see examples of this on any given Fast Sunday. The truth of the content of his statement is on my “unknown” pile at the present time.

    This brings me to my next question, Log – what is your measure of truth?

    Ideally, direct revelation. Without direct revelation, evidence and analysis give one an estimate of truth (and in some fortunate cases, truth itself). When further light and knowledge are obtained, bad estimates ought to be jettisoned.

    How do you know if the evidence being presented is true or truly interpreted?

    The evidence is publicly available. All I can do right now is test the claims against what I know of the evidence, the scriptures, and my own revelations, for consistency. If the claims are consistent with the scriptures, revelations, and the publicly available history, then I have to consider the claims extremely carefully, lest I should reject that which is good and of God (Moroni 7). In the case of PTHG, it passes the consistency test. I find the thesis eminently believable, as it explains the facts of Church history in a consistent fashion, accounting for what had heretofore been inexplicable (say, Meadows Mountain, Brigham’s Adam-God doctrine, the abuses of plural marriage, and so forth), and it also explains my own observations about the present state of affairs, preserving that which I know to be true… at least, so it seems. The truth value of claims depends critically upon the definitions of the words used to make the claims.

    For me, it is indeed the Holy Ghost. I submit there is no other way to know the truth of many of these things.

    I agree. Unfortunately, I have not been given the answer to these things.

  44. I will read that Wilford Woodruff treatment this weekend sometime, and PTHG when it arrives. I appreciate your sharing.

    While I agree with your definition of a witness, I’m not sure I think it applies in every sense to a prophetic witness. I think Joseph Smith is a good example. From the history, it does not sound like he went around parading the First Vision in front of everybody, nor responding to all their cross-examinations about it. We take it for granted because we have the published account. But from 1820 to 1838 it seems like he generally guarded it and other firsthand experiences form public debate and mockery. The Book of Mormon was put forth as the evidence of his prophet, seer, and revelator status. The Book of Commandments was later also put forward. I can’t think of any historical evidence where Joseph Smith is being cross-examined about the details of his experiences. There is evidence where even some of his closest associates doubted the validity of his revelations.

    We also have several visions and visitations which are corroborated by other present witnesses – those are even very powerful, by any standard.

    President Eyring’s language is not descriptive of his experiences, but it is specific in its comparison of what how he knows. It is very strong language. The Holy Ghost has confirmed his quoted testimony to me personally – I saw and heard it live (broadcast not in person). It is very similar to many accounts in the scriptures, where specific details are left out, and the witness/testator is dead and cannot be cross-examined, and therefore we are left to faith, prayer/asking, and revelation via the Holy Ghost (and other personal manifestations). Seek and ye shall find, ask and ye shall receive, knock and it shall be opened unto you. Alma, the sons of Mosiah, and many other prophets have testified that they obtained an ever more sure knowledge of these things through obedience, fasting, prayer, and searching the word of God. He is no respecter of persons, so we can come to know in the same way, the truth of any and all things.

  45. I remember reading this from Nibley.

    [Nibley’s] great-grandfather, a Jew, one day after he had given Joseph Smith a lesson in German and Hebrew in 1844 asked him about certain particulars of the first vision. In reply he was told some remarkable things, which he wrote down in his journal that very day. (cite)

    Joseph answered when asked. As do I.

    You need not encourage me to prayer over these matters. This is not an idle inquiry with me, and I have asked. But I am not privileged to have the answer to my question at this time.

  46. However, I am at a loss at the moment to come up with nonspecific testimonies.

    2 Peter 1:16
    16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

    Acts 4:20
    20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.

    Acts 26:14
    14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

    John 3:11
    11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

    Alma 10:7-9
    7 As I was journeying to see a very near kindred, behold an angel of the Lord appeared unto me and said: Amulek, return to thine own house, for thou shalt feed a prophet of the Lord; yea, a holy man, who is a chosen man of God; for he has fasted many days because of the sins of this people, and he is an hungered, and thou shalt receive him into thy house and feed him, and he shall bless thee and thy house; and the blessing of the Lord shall rest upon thee and thy house.

    8 And it came to pass that I obeyed the voice of the angel, and returned towards my house. And as I was going thither I found the man whom the angel said unto me: Thou shalt receive into thy house—and behold it was this same man who has been speaking unto you concerning the things of God.

    9 And the angel said unto me he is a holy man; wherefore I know he is a holy man because it was said by an angel of God.

    And so on and so forth.

    1. Log, you are a good example of the fruits of Denver. You are unhappy, you have doubts, you want proof instead of faith.

      Tim’s blog is now an intellectual playground to try to prove either side. Neither side will convince or change anyone’s mind. But it will foster doubt.

      I suggest a simple experiment. Read Denver’s Boise talk and see what Denver the prophet says. Or read Tim’s review when it comes out. For me it was convoluted jibberish.

      Watch conference in a week. Listen closely to the apostles and prophets. See how you feel.

      And then decide, is Denver your prophet or is President Monson your prophet

      1. Rick,

        I’m not trying to persuade anyone of anything. I am pointing out that Snuffer’s claims have not been adequately addressed, or even acknowledged, but rather contemptuously dismissed. Casting the man doesn’t answer his evidence nor analysis, and it wouldn’t suffice to stone or even slay him, for ideas have power.

        Let me tell you a story.

        Suppose you were married to a woman. You notice oddities in her behavior, inconsistent with the love she professes to have for you – definitely inconsistent with how you felt towards her. There are times when the things she tells you do not quite comport with the truth, but they are minor to you, because you love her, so you let them slide. Then, one unsuspecting day, someone tells you they saw her enter into a motel room with another man, and leave in his presence with her arm in his an hour later. This person provides time-stamped photos. You ask your wife where she was at that hour, and she says she was at a book club meeting.

        Now, you have a problem. You don’t know she was unfaithful, and it’s logically possible the photos could be faked, but you don’t believe they are fake, and gosh darn it all, you can’t come up with an innocent explanation for her being in that motel room at night with another man. She “testifies” that she was not there, after all, and you don’t have power to make her tell the full truth. If you try, she’ll divorce you anyways. You learned a long time ago that it’s her way, or the highway.

        Now where there was once love, there is sadness and pain, because trust is gone. You still live together, but you always are on the defensive because you cannot believe anymore that her motivations are what she claims they are, given the evidence against her which she won’t acknowledge and account for, and you worry about having your heart ripped out and stomped on the floor. You try to give her the benefit of the doubt, but until the truth comes to light, so there can be closure and reconciliation, or divorce, you’re not going to be happy.

        If you have ears to hear, that should be quite plain.

        Snuffer’s “convoluted gibberish” was anything but, to me. It is odd for me that any Mormon might not understand it.

        I don’t make the same assumptions you do. And it’s possible for the Brethren to be servants of God and not be prophets, seers, and revelators in spirit and in truth, but rather men like yourselves, raised in Mormon culture and carrying with them all the cultural baggage and assumptions one finds in Mormon culture, having no greater witness nor experience of divine things, necessarily, than yourself. On the other hand, they may be indeed prophets, seers, and revelators.

        Snuffer may be a fraud. On the other hand, he may be a prophet raised up from outside of the hierarchy, as was every Jewish prophet, excepting Samuel alone, after Moses.

        Anything not said explicitly by God is up for grabs.

        For me, the discrepancy between the beginning of the restoration and now requires explanation in full.

        It is, I think, profitable to consider Hymn #2.

        1. The Spirit of God like a fire is burning!
        The latter-day glory begins to come forth;
        The visions and blessings of old are returning,
        And angels are coming to visit the earth.

        [Chorus]
        We’ll sing and we’ll shout with the armies of heaven,
        Hosanna, hosanna to God and the Lamb!
        Let glory to them in the highest be given,
        Henceforth and forever, Amen and amen!

        2. The Lord is extending the Saints’ understanding,
        Restoring their judges and all as at first.
        The knowledge and power of God are expanding;
        The veil o’er the earth is beginning to burst.

        3. We’ll call in our solemn assemblies in spirit,
        To spread forth the kingdom of heaven abroad,
        That we through our faith may begin to inherit
        The visions and blessings and glories of God.

        4. How blessed the day when the lamb and the lion
        Shall lie down together without any ire,
        And Ephraim be crowned with his blessing in Zion,
        As Jesus descends with his chariot of fire!

        That is not quite what I perceive in the Church. But perhaps others may disagree, and perhaps angels really are visiting frequently, visions being commonly seen, and our understanding now exceeds that of Joseph Smith.

        Or we have lost light and knowledge as a people.

        Things to ponder.

  47. Log, I read the Wilford Woodruff pants on fire article. Funny picture, I have to say. I also read a lot of the comments on it. Here’s what I saw, trying to read with some discernment and scrutiny. I have reasons to give the modern prophets the benefit of the doubt. The author’s (Alan Rock Waterman’s) analysis hinges on several very important but unverifiable assumptions about Wilford Woodruff, all of which can easily be interpreted in an opposite/positive manner:

    1) that he recorded EVERYTHING in his journal, including sacred spiritual experiences, i.e. so how could he NOT have recorded this visitation in detail – therefore, since he did not record this, it didn’t happen – he must have been spinning yarns again.
    2) that the visitations by the Founding Fathers pertained only to baptism, even though many of Pres. Woodruff’s recitals of the experience say their work or ordinances of the house of God, etc.
    3) that the ENDOWMENT house was only used for baptisms for the dead – huh? I hope I’m not the only one who thinks that sounds off the mark.
    4) Wilford Woodruff, and pretty much every other LDS leader and Saint, was prone to spinning yarns, dishonesty, and gross exaggeration.

    In other words, to me, from a faithful perspective the treatise seemed far from bulletproof as historical analysis and interpretation. In other words, for the author’s analysis to stand up, all of these unfavorable/unfaithful interpretations have to be accepted as true (in spite of tons of missing information). Which is pretty much what I have found in every anti-/post-/ex-Mormon historical treatment. It does not give these modern, but long dead, prophets, apostles, and saints the benefit of the doubt. It always looks for, and even assumes, the worst. Do I believe they were perfect and no mistakes were made? No. But I don’t think they were this blatantly, disappointingly bad. I really don’t.

    We are back to the subject of interpretation of evidence, particularly historical evidence. It cannot be approached without bias, by both the writer and the reader. This is not a trivial matter.

    As for the cross-examination of divine witnesses. I still don’t see as big a difference between Henry Eyring’s declaration and the ones you quote interpreting them to be so much more specific and public. The encounter between Nibley’s great-grandpa and the Prophet was a private encounter, recorded in a journal, discovered and made public after his death. Many of Joseph Smith’s personal encounters were like this. For us, they require faith to believe them as we read them now, so many years later, just like the scriptures – and we must rely on the witness of the Spirit to know if they are genuine. The same kind of encounter could, and I believe does, happen with each of the living Apostles but probably will not come to our attention. Here is an example from closer to our generation: Elder M. Russell Ballard’s grandfather, Apostle Melvin J. Ballard, had a Second Comforter experience which our Elder Ballard shared in his widely published book Our Search for Happiness:

    Coming unto Christ

    In one of the scriptural records that comprise the Book of Mormon, a great spiritual leader named Helaman counseled his sons to “remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall.” (Helaman 5:12.)

    My grandfather understood that concept. Even though he died when I was just ten years old, Melvin J. Ballard has been a major influence in my life. For as long as I can remember I have heard my family talk about his love for the Lord and his unwavering devotion to the Church. He spent his entire life building on the “sure foundation” of which Helaman spoke, and I’m not aware of any “shafts in the whirlwind” that were able to penetrate his faith and testimony. In fact, my personal quest for knowledge of the Savior was motivated to a great degree by Grandfather Ballard’s account of one of his most sacred experiences.

    While he was serving a mission among American Indians in the Northwest, my grandfather faced a time of incredible struggle. There were unprecedented—and seemingly insurmountable—challenges for the Church there, and my grandfather literally spent hours on his knees asking for guidance and inspiration. During one such period, when all seemed bleak and utterly hopeless, grandfather received, in his words, “a wonderful manifestation and impression which has never left me.

    A Witness That He Lives

    “I was told there was a [great] privilege that was to be mine,” he recorded. “I was led into a room where I was informed I was to meet someone. As I entered the room I saw, seated on a raised platform, the most glorious being I have ever conceived of, and was taken forward to be introduced to Him. As I approached He smiled, called my name, and stretched out His hands toward me. If I live to be a million years old I shall never forget that smile.

    “He put His arms around me and kissed me, as He took me into His bosom, and He blessed me until my whole being was thrilled. As He finished I fell at His feet, and there saw the marks of the nails; and as I kissed them, with deep joy swelling through my whole being, I felt that I was in heaven indeed.

    “The feeling that came to my heart then was: Oh! if I could live worthy, though it would require four-score years, so that in the end when I have finished I could go into His presence and receive the feeling that I then had in His presence, I would give everything that I am and ever hope to be!”

    Grandfather concluded: “I know—as I know that I live—that He lives. That is my testimony.” (Melvin J. Ballard—Crusader for Righteousness, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966.)

    That experience infused my grandfather with the comfort, determination, and spiritual energy he needed to deal with the problems he was encountering on his mission. In fact, the day after he received that manifestation, he joined one of his fellow missionaries, W. Leo Isgren, in visiting a well-to-do merchant in Helena, Montana. Some years later, Brother Isgren told me how he and my grandfather had stood together in front of a life-sized portrait of Jesus Christ that was prominently displayed in the merchant’s home. At length, grandfather turned to Brother Isgren.

    “No, that isn’t Him,” grandfather said. “The artist has made a fair representation of Him, but that isn’t Him.”

    “I was filled so much with a sacred feeling that I could say nothing,” Brother Isgren told me. “After we left the home and were on our way to our next appointment, Brother Ballard stopped me and said, ‘Brother Isgren, I suppose you were somewhat startled at my words regarding the Savior of the world.’ I told him that, yes, indeed, I had been—very much so. And then and there firsthand he told me of his experience the previous evening.”

    While we may not all have experiences of that same magnitude or intensity, the essence of our ministry in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is to invite all people everywhere to “come unto Christ” so that He can work His miracle in their lives in whatever way He chooses. For some, that miracle will mean a significant change of life and lifestyle. For others it will simply mean new purpose and understanding in lives that are already rich with faith. But for all it will mean peace and joy and happiness beyond measure as the Master touches hearts and souls with His love. That’s what my Grandfather Ballard felt as a result of his dramatic manifestation, and that’s what I felt in a quieter, calmer way that evening near the Trent River in Nottingham, England.

    That testimony has been with me ever since. It has sustained me through trials, comforted me in times of need, and given me a clear direction to follow whenever I have been confused or discouraged. Through my service as one of His Apostles I have had many special spiritual experiences that confirm and secure my personal knowledge of Him as the Savior and Redeemer of the children of God. Because I know that Jesus Christ lives and that He loves me, I find the courage to repent and to strive to be what He would want me to be. I know this knowledge can do the same for you, if you want it to—now, and forever.

    It is difficult to say which spiritual experiences are appropriate to record. I can only speak for myself, but I have had several – that are burned into me, they are unforgettable – which I have not felt to record. Others I felt could be shared years later. I can only assume the same has been true for the prophets. But I disagree with the opinion that we should just be parading our sacred experiences or witnesses always in front of everyone, opening ourselves up to constant cross-examination by the unbelieving – I believe that is what the Lord meant when he said not to cast our pearls before swine (our priceless spiritual experiences before the unprepared and possibly mockers). Just as Elder Melvin Ballard testified “I know—as I know that I live—that He lives. That is my testimony.” – there are often sacred, powerful, perfect knowledge, through the veil experiences behind the words of certainty that the Lord’s witnesses use. Pres. Eyring used and has used words like this many times, as have many of the other living Apostles – to those who have ears to hear. Listen for them in the upcoming General Conference. I believe the dead modern prophets/apostles are worthy of favorable interpretation in the historical accounts, too. I also know that we can have experiences like these, for God is no respecter of persons, but of faith and righteousness.

  48. Geoff, you have imputed many things to President Woodruff which President Woodruff, himself, did not claim. I am not willing to claim more for him than he was willing to claim for himself, and, unfortunately, his claims appear to be false on the historical evidence presented.

    President Woodruff was clear that baptism was the only thing he was talking about. There are no grounds to read more into “ordinances” than Woodruff clearly stated. Unfortunately, as the work had already been done for these precise characters, we are faced with a dilemma.

    1. The ordinances previously performed were invalid, implying the Church did not possess the sealing keys. It would also imply Woodruff’s ordinance work on their behalf would likewise be invalid, and it would also seem to imply Woodruff was inventing the account of the vision.

    2. If the Church has the sealing keys, then the ordinances previously performed were valid, implying Woodruff was indeed inventing the account of the vision.

    3. The ordinances previously performed were invalid, implying the Church did not possess the sealing keys, but Woodruff himself did; this one seems implausible because it would imply that only Woodruff could perform valid ordinances. This explanation does not enter the calculus of the article author. It also does not appear Woodruff claimed this. But this would have the benefit of Woodruff not inventing the vision.

    If you see an alternative way to work this, I’m all ears.

    Second Comforter experiences are available to all on the same basis, according to the scriptures – for God is no respecter of persons. However, I’m sorry, I am unwilling to claim more for people than they are willing to claim for themselves.

    I still don’t see as big a difference between Henry Eyring’s declaration and the ones you quote interpreting them to be so much more specific and public.

    Then this discussion is likely to be fruitless. I see a massive qualitative distinction between this:

    D&C 76:22 -23 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives! For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father.

    And this.

    “I am a witness of the Resurrection of the Lord as surely as if I had been there in the evening with the two disciples in the house on Emmaus road. I know that He lives as surely as did Joseph Smith when he saw the Father and the Son in the light of a brilliant morning in a grove of trees in Palmyra.”

    I see a massive qualitative distinction between this:

    “I know this is the true church, and that President Monson is a prophet.”

    And this:

    Alma 10:7-9
    7 As I was journeying to see a very near kindred, behold an angel of the Lord appeared unto me and said: Amulek, return to thine own house, for thou shalt feed a prophet of the Lord; yea, a holy man, who is a chosen man of God; for he has fasted many days because of the sins of this people, and he is an hungered, and thou shalt receive him into thy house and feed him, and he shall bless thee and thy house; and the blessing of the Lord shall rest upon thee and thy house.

    8 And it came to pass that I obeyed the voice of the angel, and returned towards my house. And as I was going thither I found the man whom the angel said unto me: Thou shalt receive into thy house—and behold it was this same man who has been speaking unto you concerning the things of God.

    9 And the angel said unto me he is a holy man; wherefore I know he is a holy man because it was said by an angel of God.

    In short, valid testimony is the recount of the firsthand experience of a witness. The interpretation of that experience is left up to the audience. The other is a dogmatic declaration which is not open to inquiry.

    You may not see a difference because you are imputing things to Elder Eyring’s statement which he did not say. I do not. Therefore I said I really don’t know what he’s talking about.

    But I disagree with the opinion that we should just be parading our sacred experiences or witnesses always in front of everyone, opening ourselves up to constant cross-examination by the unbelieving – I believe that is what the Lord meant when he said not to cast our pearls before swine (our priceless spiritual experiences before the unprepared and possibly mockers).

    I have read opposing opinions. And, there’s this.

    1 Peter 3: 15 -16 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

  49. Also, I forgot to mention – explanation 3 becomes possible if the thesis to PTHG is accurate. The Church as an institution lacking the sealing keys, yet President Woodruff actually being in possession of the sealing power, obtained from heaven directly, is possibly consistent. President Woodruff need not have invented the vision, in that case.

    And, to readdress the “pearls before swine,” Nibley says historically this has meant the rites of the temple.

    Why are these temple ordinances guarded with such secrecy when anyone who really wants to can find out what goes on? Even though everyone may discover what goes on in the temple, and many have already revealed it, the important thing is that I do not reveal these things; they must remain sacred to me. I must preserve a zone of sanctity which cannot be violated whether or not anyone else in the room has the remotest idea what the situation really is. For my covenants are all between me and my Heavenly Father, all others being present only as witnesses. Why witnesses, if this must be so intimate and private? Plainly others are involved in it, too. God’s work and his glory is to share that work and glory with others. Abraham said he sought diligently for these ordinances that he might administer them to others (Abraham 1:2). It is because others are engaged in the work that we know that we are not just imagining it. On the other hand I can never share my understanding of them completely with anyone but the Lord. No matter what happens, it will, then, always remain secret: only I know exactly the weight and force of the covenants I have made—I and the Lord with whom I have made them—unless I choose to reveal them. If I do not, then they are secret and sacred no matter what others may say or do. Anyone who would reveal these things has not understood them, and therefore that person has not given them away. You cannot reveal what you do not know! The constant concern is to keep Israel out of contact with the profane things of the world; the reason given is not absolute secrecy, but to keep these sacred things from becoming halal, that is, vulgar, popular, the subject of everyday discussion, in a word, trivia. This is what is meant by blasphemy, which signifies not some awful and horrible commitment to evil but simply taking holy things lightly. And what is wrong with being halal? What is evil in innocent everyday conversation about the temple? Even at its most innocuous, the bringing up of such matters in public can only lead to their cheapening, but, worst of all, to all manner of misunderstanding, misrepresentation, disputation, contention, contamination, and corruption.59 This is exactly what has happened throughout history—the possession of God’s secrets was a cause for vanity and self-congratulation. In some parts of the world where the greatest secrecy was observed—as at Eleusis and in Egypt, and it would appear that some of the secrets never leaked out—scholars marveled at how well those secrets were kept; the rites appear today surprisingly like those in the real temple.

    When the Lord speaks of giving precious things to the dogs and pearls to the swine, it is not with contempt for those creatures, but with the futility of such a thing for all concerned—the dogs would find no value in precious things, which would be thrown away into dirt and trodden under foot. (cite)

    So that is one possible explanation. I don’t deny other possible applications, however.

  50. And, about the Endowment House.

    Wikipedia’s article unfortunately indicates that President Woodruff would not have been performing any other ordinance for the dead than baptism.

    The money quote:

    Mormons did not consider the Endowment House a temple, so they did not perform all temple ordinances in it. Brigham Young explained, “We can, at the present time [1874], go into the Endowment House and be baptized for our dead, receive our washings and anointings, etc….We also have the privilege of sealing women to men without a Temple….but when we come to other sealing ordinances, ordinances pertaining to the holy Priesthood, to connect the chain of the Priesthood from father Adam until now, by sealing children to their parents, being sealed for our forefathers, etc., they cannot be done without a temple” (Journal of Discourses, 16:185). Hence, there were no sealing of children nor endowments for the dead performed in the Endowment House. These ordinances were first administered in Utah’s first temple, in St. George, in 1877.

  51. Correction – the Founding Fathers in the vision would have been referring to baptism when they said “nothing has ever been done for us”, as they referred to the fact that the Church had use of the Endowment House; yet, all of them had already had their proxy baptisms done, even repeatedly. Hence, the dilemma.

  52. The principle of guarding sacred knowledge is well-affirmed in the scriptures. I think your interpretation of those verses in 1 Peter does not refer to these things. Giving “an answer” and “a reason” does not constitute divulging all our sacred knowledge because someone asks us. So I still disagree.

    D&C 19: 21-22
    21 And I command you that you preach naught but repentance, and show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me.
    22 For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish.

    Mark 9: 7-10 (Mount of Transfiguration)
    7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
    8 And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves.
    9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.
    10 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.

    Ether 3: 27-28 (Brother of Jared)
    27 And the Lord said unto him: Write these things and seal them up; and I will show them in mine own due time unto the children of men.
    28 And it came to pass that the Lord commanded him that he should seal up the two stones which he had received, and show them not, until the Lord should show them unto the children of men.

    Moses 1:41-42
    41 And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men—among as many as shall believe.
    42 (These words were aspoken unto Moses in the mount, the name of which shall not be known among the children of men. And now they are spoken unto you. Show them not unto any except them that believe. Even so. Amen.)

    Don’t get me wrong, I understand what you’re saying. Why don’t the modern prophets and Apostles just say it as bluntly as Denver has, if they’ve had these experiences? Why quote the dead, etc.? Why use veiled language? I just think there’s a good reason, a favorable and faithful interpretation, for it – I don’t think it’s because they are being dishonest and just implying that they’ve experienced, which is what you seem to think or believe, and what Denver has openly accused. I think these assumption and your conclusion are wrong.

    Log, you can’t just reason your way through this. You keep deflecting when I try to refer you to obtaining your own personal revelation on the matter, but that is the only way to settle your own debate. If you haven’t gotten an answer, then you’re not doing something that the Lord requires of you to receive it. Laman and Lemuel (not a personal comparison in any way except this principle) said, when Nephi asked them, “Have ye ainquired of the Lord?”, they said “We have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us.” (1 Nephi 15:8-9). Not saying you haven’t inquired, but something is missing. The Lord is no respecter of persons and will make all things known to us as we prepare ourselves. This was Denver’s initial message in Second Comforter, and he got it right.

    Sorry, just read your last two posts, too – you’re typing faster than me. I don’t think you are ever going to find satisfaction in trying to reconstruct the past from so little real evidence. It’s like literally like trying a complex court case using no living witnesses and all the evidence is covered in dust. I’m just not willing to hang anyone on that (pun intended, they’re already dead), much less my testimony or covenants. The only way to KNOW the unknowable is to get it from God – the same way Joseph did – “if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God.” The same historical analysis and interpretive methods can be applied to Joseph Smith to make him look like a lying, thieving, even murdering scoundrel-charlatan-megalomaniac – and have by those whose bias drives them to do so. It does not make it true. I am sorry that you’re struggling and hurting so deeply due to all of this. I wish I could be of more help. Perhaps SteveF has some better salve.

  53. If you haven’t gotten an answer, then you’re not doing something that the Lord requires of you to receive it.

    That’s not necessarily the case, either. I am aware of what needs to happen before I am answered (some things are not within my power to change at the present time). Therefore, being very, very aware that I don’t know the answers, and that I am not able to get the answers for the time being, I am not taking sides, but, again, pointing out these claims have not been adequately addressed. That’s it.

    The only way to KNOW the unknowable is to get it from God – the same way Joseph did – “if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God.”

    I know. Denver Snuffer says that all the time, too. It was a major subtheme of his most recent talk.

    But I knew that before I ever heard of him. 🙂

    Joseph, after all, demonstrated it. And it says it in the Bible, too. And, of course, I have applied it in my life, as well.

    And it is not the case that all persons get answered on their own timetable. But it is also the case that, sometimes, uncomfortable claims turn out to be true. This may well be one of those times.

    The same historical analysis and interpretive methods can be applied to Joseph Smith to make him look like a lying, thieving, even murdering scoundrel-charlatan-megalomaniac – and have by those whose bias drives them to do so.

    Here, I am built on a rock. I know Joseph to be a true prophet, for the Lord has said this to me directly. Therefore, I do not worry about what can be said against him, and can look without fear upon it.

    Again, anything not explicitly said by God is up for grabs.

  54. I think I agreed with almost everything you just said.

    Revelation comes according to the Lord’s will, His conditions and His timing. Can’t argue with Him, He’s perfect.

    Until you get an answer, one way or the other, regarding Joseph Smith’s successors in the Apostleship, including the living Apostles, you could choose to give them the same favorable and faithful view that you give him. For example, because you know that Joseph was a prophet, and yet you also know that all manner of tactics and methods have been used to paint him otherwise – you can apply that same assumption in the case of his likely successors. Lots of machinations being used to discredit them – yet it isn’t proof – it is conjecture founded on very sketchy evidence, the same way the historical indictments against the Prophet Joseph Smith are. Until you learn for yourself.

    When I was a boy of 11 years, I finished The Book of Mormon for the first time. After reading Moroni 10, I knelt and prayed fervently and asked God the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, with faith in Him, whether it was true, whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and whether The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was His true church. The affirmative answer I received was indelible and undeniable, to this day at age 40. When President Hinckley died and we sustained President Monson, I approached the Lord similarly and asked him specifically if Thomas S. Monson was his anointed servant, His presiding Apostle, prophet, seer, and revelator. He answered me very similarly, unequivocally, in the affirmative. I know Joseph Smith is a prophet by the power of the Holy Ghost. And I know Thomas S. Monson is his legal successor by the same power. I cannot deny either. This is why you are immune to criticism, historical and otherwise, of the Prophet Joseph Smith. And why I am immune to criticism of the modern and living Apostles, including Denver’s. Part of the reason I feel his message is confusing is that he claims theophany and knowledge of spiritual things, and then he indicts the living Apostles – this is fundamentally why I think he has been excommunicated for apostasy. I do think his view and his indictment are very damaging and undermining.

    I can also attest to the fact that certain spiritual experiences meant to give an individual knowledge are not meant to be shared – they are between God and that person. I’ve had such experiences. They are sacred. I make reference to them – they have given me knowledge – but they are personal. I leave it to the Holy Ghost to bear witness of the truth of my testimony when I tell another person “I know” – I do not try to “wow” them with the details. I’ve shared my detailed experiences with my trusted circle. It seems to me that’s how the Lord operated as well, with His Apostles.

    Luke 8
    10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

  55. Until you get an answer, one way or the other, regarding Joseph Smith’s successors in the Apostleship, including the living Apostles, you could choose to give them the same favorable and faithful view that you give him

    Unfortunately, Brigham already sealed the deal in the negative, as have others, through their own words (see PTHG for details and citations). Brigham was extremely forthright on the subject. Therefore, I again say, whatsoever God has not explicitly said is up for grabs.

    But, just because Brigham was not a prophet, by his own admission, does not mean he was not the “legal successor” to the Presidency. He got himself elected President, after all, by common consent. That’s all the legality it takes. “All things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.”

    Without revelation on the subject, unless and until a man claims that he has had the heavens open unto him, that he has seen God and Christ, I have no reason to believe him to be a prophet. And if he sees not visions, I have no reason to believe him to be a seer. And if he reveals not the hidden mysteries of the kingdom of God, I have no reason to believe him to be a revelator.

    And, again, men need not be any of those things to be anointed servants of God.

  56. It sounds like you have discredited Brigham Young, “sealed the deal in the negative,” by judging/interpreting historical quotations. Again, I hope your soul is open to revelation on the matter, or will be in the future.

    It also sounds like you are buying into Denver’s definition/interpretation on what a prophet, seer, and revelator must do to be considered such. It is not as reliable as a personal revelation from the Source.

    Luke 7: 19-30
    19 And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?
    20 When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?
    21 And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight .
    22 Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.
    23 And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.
    24 And when the messengers of John were departed, he began to speak unto the people concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A reed shaken with the wind?
    25 But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they which are gorgeously apparelled , and live delicately, are in kings’ courts.
    26 But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet.
    27 This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
    28 For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.
    29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans , justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.
    30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.

    There’s no record of John having or proclaiming visions except His experience in baptizing the Savior. In this scriptural account, John sent a few of disciples to ask Jesus if he was the Christ. It’s actually incongruent with the account of the Savior’s baptism. And yet the Savior testifies that there is no greater prophet than John.

  57. And also let me recount a story. It’s not mine, but I heard it firsthand.

    There was a gentleman who, while investigating the Church, and taking the missionary discussions, took what he was learning to the Lord, in prayer, and was given a manifestation that what he was learning was true. He says that was what he felt by the Spirit – it was true – all of it.

    Fast forward a few years. This individual is now in a leadership position, and he runs into certain facts of Church history which contradict what he’d been taught by the missionaries, and also what was taught in Church. He has a crisis of faith, for now he knows that not all of what he was taught was true. He started voicing his specific concerns while publicly identifying himself by his real-world identity, including his position within the Church.

    I spoke to him, and bore witness to him, including how I know what I know. That gave space for the Spirit to redirect him into more productive channels. He is now engaged in helping others through faith crises. I accept him at his word in these things.

    The moral to that story is that I am leery of affirmative feelings (as opposed to verbal answers) to compound questions or statements. (Consider this one: “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”)

    Let me be clear – I acknowledge the Brethren to be servants of the Lord, for He has referred to them as such to me. My voluntarily leaving the Church, or rebelling against the Brethren, is not at stake.

    You want to know what the main takeaway from PTHG was for me? That the unconverted / formerly converted have been represented at all levels of the Church throughout its history. That was something I had never imagined. And that explained everything.

    A man need not even be converted (as I am using the word) to be an anointed servant of the Lord; indeed, a man may be a prophet whilst yet unconverted (the “greatest” example of that is in the New Testament, bonus points if you can name him). The Apostles were unconverted until the day of Pentecost.

    But that was, I think, under special circumstances. If it weren’t for those special circumstances, the man I’m thinking of would have been converted.

    I am touched by the example of the Savior as He ministered among the children of men – for not a single one could understand His heart, as none had been born of God among them whom He ministered to.

  58. It also sounds like you are buying into Denver’s definition/interpretation on what a prophet, seer, and revelator must do to be considered such. It is not as reliable as a personal revelation from the Source.

    Did you read this article the first time I posted it?

    I use the Biblical standard. I acknowledge there are exceptions to everything, however. But John was forthright in claiming his authority direct from God.

    Have you not read?

    John 1:32-33

    32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

    33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

    John did not clarify who, exactly, sent him to baptize with water, but we read this in the D&C.

    D&C 84:27-28

    27 Which gospel is the gospel of repentance 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 filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb.

    28 For he was baptized while he was yet in his childhood, 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 before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all power.

    And in this case, the Lord hailing John as the greatest of prophets implies, to me, (since the Biblical standard requires standing in the divine council) that John had likewise stood in the divine council, even though we don’t have a record of it.

    “For the Lord Yhwh doesn’t do anything without revealing his sôd to his servants the prophets.” (Amost 3:7)

  59. Also, it is not “faithful” to hail Brigham as a prophet if he was, in truth, not a prophet. He specifically disclaimed being a prophet. And he was forthright in stating plainly he had never been visited by an angel, never seen a vision, and never seen the Savior. I’m not sure what it is, but neither “faithful” nor “loyal” cover that.

  60. Perhaps after I read PTHG what you are saying will make more sense.

    I’ll read that article you link to as well. For now, it’s good night. 🙂

  61. Anyways, Karl, I’m not interested in responding to a host of “papercuts.” If you have a substantial demonstration of an error committed by Snuffer, I would appreciate you posting that, rather than poorly (or un-) supported assertions.

  62. And, for the record, I asked Dan Peterson (formerly of FARMS/Maxwell Institute) to review PTHG. He hadn’t read any of Snuffer’s books, and, based on the rumors he’d heard, he said he was disinclined to even look, if I recall correctly.

    That’s unfortunate. I think it would be a good exercise for the folks at Mormon Interpreter to take on this project – reviewing PTHG. They, laudably, carry on the original tradition of FARMS, which was, bluntly, mostly apologetic in nature. They may have gotten some things wrong, but they served the kingdom well in that capacity.

    What gets me, though, is that the reaction to PTHG has been similar to the Democrats’ defense of President Obama’s “natural-born” status. When it was pointed out they never produced his birth certificate, the response was mockery and scorn. Then they produced a “certificate of live birth.” When it was pointed out that the “certificate of live birth” could have been obtained even if President Obama was foreign-born, the response was simply, again, to mock and assert the issue was closed, that no right-thinking individual could possibly have legitimate issues with the documentation provided, that the documentation provided was all-sufficient to close the issue, and all such people as still had issues were really racists. They never did, in fact, produce the birth certificate, which is odd if indeed the document existed and showed what was claimed, namely, that President Obama was indeed born in Hawaii. Simply producing it would have ended all debate instantly.

    I will be very, very surprised to find out, in the resurrection, that President Obama was indeed a natural-born citizen.

  63. Log, I’m not going to make my weekend deadline like I hoped, I ended up being pretty swamped from the time of my last comment up until now – haven’t been able to read the many comments since then. I did see that you recently commented about BY, and this is one of my points of contention with Denver as it relates to passing on the fulness of the keys / fulness of the Priesthood, so maybe I’ll throw in a relatively quick comment here to lay out some initial problems with Denver’s interpretations in the succession of the Priesthood.

    On page 87, Denver quotes Brigham Young who explains that “an Apostle is the highest office and authority that there is in the Church and Kingdom of God on earth” and goes on to say “Joseph Smith gave unto me and my brethren all the Priesthood keys, power and authority which he had”.

    Denver goes on to show how Joseph Smith most likely did not ordain BY or any of the other apostles to the Apostleship, and additionally the original apostles were ordained to that office in 1835 before the 1836 restoration of keys found in D&C 110 (which oddly Denver seems to reject as a historical event, but throughout the book continues to use as source text to “prove” other points when it seems convenient to him – if it really was Warren Cowdery making it all up, then don’t use an erroneous source as a proof text, or if it is legitimate, why cast so much doubt on it essentially implying that the event never happened? But I digress.)

    I agree that the apostleship ordination occurred in 1835 before the keys restored in Kirtland, and that Joseph Smith did not perform these ordinations. Which leads to the obvious conclusion that Brigham Young was not referring to this initial ordination, but rather another event altogether in which Joseph Smith actually bestowed the full keys of the Kingdom upon him and his “brethren”. Instead of concluding the obvious, Denver chooses to assume Brigham Young was referring to his 1835 ordination, and fights that straw man throughout the book.

    Elsewhere (can’t find the reference off hand) Brigham Young pointed out that Apostles were also Kings and Priests, showing that under Brigham Young when the Apostles took over the church that he saw to it that all Apostles were given the keys that belonged to a King and a Priest, therefore making that authority part of the apostleship.

    To understand what Brigham Young was referring to when he said Joseph Smith gave him all the Priesthood keys, power and authority which he had, consider the following. On 6 August 1843, Brigham Young said, “If any in the church [have] the fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood [I do] not know it. For any person to have the fullness of that priesthood, he must be a king and priest.” This contemporaneous quote gives us insight into what Brigham Young was learning about the meaning of the fullness of the Priesthood, and this information was most likely being taught to him directly from Joseph Smith.

    Later, that ordination to the fullness of the Priesthood, that made BY a King and Priest, along with several of his “brethren” happened. Because of the sacredness of that topic, I will not delve into it too much further. But as a partial explanation, consider the following from Brigham Young, “Those who come in here [the Nauvoo Temple] and have received their washing & anointing will [later, if faithful], be ordained Kings & Priests, and will then have received the fullness of the Priesthood, all that can be given on earth. For Brother Joseph said he had given us all that could be given to man on the earth” (Heber C. Kimball Journal, kept by William Clayton, 26 December 1845, Church Archives).

    These historical ordinances/anointings/ordinations that were said to bestow all the keys belonging to the Fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood, making the holders Kings and Priests, are in complete contradiction to the explanations of the Fullness of the Priesthood given by Denver in his book. Instead of addressing these quotes and the many others like them and this history (which maybe he is simply unaware of?) he fights another straw man insinuating that the endowment was the only anointing given to these men in the red brick store. But it pretty much beyond dispute historically that further ordinances, including an anointing known as the fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood, were also given to several men who had been previously endowed.

    These ordinances were instituted on 28 September 1843 and in the next five months were conferred on twenty men: Hyrum Smith, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards, Newel K. Whitney, William Marks, John Taylor, John Smith, Reynolds Cahoon, Alpheus Cutler, Orson Spencer, Orson Hyde, Parley P. Pratt, Wilford Woodruff, George A. Smith, Levi Richards, Cornelius P. Lott, William W. Phelps Isaac Morley, and Orson Pratt. As George Q. Cannon later said, “Previous to his death. the Prophet Joseph manifested great anxiety to see the temple completed, as most of you who were with the Church during his day, well know. “Hurry up the work, brethren,” he used to say, “let us finish the temple; the Lord has a great endowment in store for you, and I am anxious that the brethren should have their endowments and receive the fullness of the Priesthood. Then,” said he, “the Kingdom will be established, and I do not care what shall become of me.” Prior to the completion of the Temple, [Joseph Smith] took the Twelve and certain other men, who were chosen, and bestowed upon them a holy anointing, similar to that which was received on the day of Pentecost by the Twelve, who had been told to tarry at Jerusalem. This endowment was bestowed upon the chosen few whom Joseph anointed and ordained, giving unto them the keys of the holy Priesthood, the power and authority which he himself held, to build up the Kingdom of God in all the earth and accomplish the great purposes of our Heavenly Father.”

    Joseph Smith explicitly tied this doctrine with Elijah and said the following, “Now for Elijah, the spirit power & calling of Elijah is that ye have power to hold the keys of the revelations ordinances, oricles powers & endowments of the fulness of the Melchezedek Priesthood & of the Kingdom of God on the Earth & to receive, obtain & perform all the ordinances belonging to the Kingdom of God” (Wilford Woodruff Journal in WoJS, pg. 327-329)

    Of course all of this is in direct conflict with Denver Snuffer’s teachings on the subject. But this is not the only place were Denver’s interpretations of the Priesthood doctrine get him in trouble. Denver seems to think Priesthood ordination of Authority = Invitation, and Priesthood Power = (what is traditionally thought of as Priesthood Authority & Priesthood Power). This not only prevents him from understanding the Fullness of the Priesthood doctrine, but prevents him from creating a plausible functional Priesthood structure/theology in the church at all in his paradigm. In Denver’s paradigm he concludes (falsely in my opinion) that Priesthood authority to perform ordinances is only effective when the Priesthood holder is righteous and obtains that “power” (what most would term authority) from heaven first, and if he has not done so, and is therefore unworthy, unbeknownst to the church, those ordinances are not effective. (see PTHG pg. 321-324). According to Denver’s paradigm, there is a high posibility that his baptism and confirmation were never truly “authorized” in the eyes of heaven, meaning that he and countless others may not even be true members of the Church in the first place (possibly making his excommunication meaningless). I hope you can see how absurd such an idea is. It all roots in his inability to understand Priesthood Authority, which messes him up on understanding the Fullness of the Priesthood as well.

    Denver has failed to understand the order of the Priesthood, and Joseph Smith’s teachings that heavenly beings only bring authority to mortal men when there is no mortal on earth that can minister to that man. Once authority is restored, all ordinations will come from the hands of mortal men already holding that authority. This applies to the Fullness of the Priesthood and its associated keys (authority) as all other portions of that Priesthood. That all power is not bestowed when the authority is bestowed, is of course true. But with this authority, ordinances can be performed (and will be recognized in heaven), and through righteousness all power associated with that ordination (or ordinance) can be obtained line upon line through obeying the laws associated with those blessings of power – and this applies to the fullness of priesthood authority as well as any part or portion of that authority. Ironically, this principle is found in one of the quotes in PTHG quoting the Millennial Star, “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)

    I’m starting to run out of time here, but just quickly I want to give a very brief alternate explanation for what I believe Denver got wrong in D&C 124:28, which is at the root of his thesis. The biggest mistake is misunderstanding the grammar behind “restore again”. Denver thinks this means Joseph had the Fullness of the Priesthood, but then it was lost to the church, or Joseph “was no longer authorized to use the fullness on behalf of the church” (PTHG pg. 98). I think this is a ridiculous assertion in the first place. In the BofM, when the people became extremely wicked, was Nephi restricted from using the Fullness of the Priesthood on behalf of the people? No, he was not, instead it is in their wickedness that we see Nephi exercising his sealing power on behalf of the people prayer for famine, etc. The Lord was not restricting Joseph from using the keys he received in Kirtland, rather he was saying that for the Fullness of the Priesthood (with all its associated ordinances pointed out earlier) to be restored, the temple should be completed (but also gives a caveat that in their poverty these things can be done outside of the temple). The grammar “restore again” means “restore to the earth again as in times past”. Which would make this restoration the first time in this dispensation. This would mean that the “you” the fulness of the priesthood was lost or taken away from, would be referring to the church long before Joseph Smith’s time. This interpretation is consistent with the idea in the book of Revelation that the Church went into the wilderness (losing the fulness of the priesthood) until the Lord saw fit to restore again the fulness of the priesthood bringing the woman (church) out of the wilderness and obscurity. This interpretation of verse 28 is also more consistent with the history of the restoration in this dispensation. As pointed out above, even 2 years after this revelation was given, Brigham Young said that the fulness of the priesthood had not been restored to the earth (at any time in this dispensation), because Joseph Smith had not restored/implemented all the ordinances belonging to the temple just yet. Although all the keys had been given to Joseph, all the ordinances that would complete the fulness of the Priesthood had not yet been restored to the church, and it was shortly after Brigham Young made that statement that Joseph Smith finally revealed all the ordinances belonging to the House of the Lord restoring to the earth the fulness of the priesthood for the first time in this dispensation. And this authority has continued to the present.

    Anyway, because of my lack of time, I had to rush this out in maybe a semi-convoluted way, but I hope it mostly answers your question about the fullness of the Priesthood. I hope next weekend to get to the gentile church explanation, although that one may be an easier one to tackle in a much shorter way. If you have follow up questions, you can ask for clarification, and I’ll see if I can get to that. If not, I’ll have to leave these things to other commenters. All the best!

    1. Steve F.

      I didn’t see this post. I posted a long treatise that states the same in longer term (it rejected my length) so I lost an hours work.

      Now I know why — you had already posted much of what was presented.

      Thank you.

  64. Steve, the irony is, Snuffer addresses your arguments in PTHG in full.

    I appreciate the effort you are expending, though.

    Elijah did not restore the sealing keys in Kirtland. The provenance of D&C 110 cannot be traced back to Joseph. Even if it is authentic, it does not indicate that the sealing keys were given to Joseph at that time. Moreover, the keys of the kingdom and the dispensation of the fullness of times to which Elijah referred as having already been bestowed upon Joseph, even if D&C 110 is authentic, were those given to Joseph Smith by Peter, James, and John, as indicated in D&C 128:20.

    Moreover, Joseph consistently taught that the mission of Elijah, to restore the sealing power, was a future event, even until the very end of his life. Elijah never came and restored the sealing power, if Joseph is to be believed.

    Having loaned out my copy of TPJS, I have to refer you to WoJS p. 48, for a particularly damning statement of the matter, given 5 October 1840.

    See which ordinances will be continued when the priesthood is restored with all its authority power and blessings. Elijah was the last prophet that held the keys of this priesthood, and who will, before the last dispensation, restore the authority and delive[r] the Keys of this priesthood in order that all the ordinances may be attended to in righteousness.

    Snuffer nowhere rejects the validity of D&C 110. He merely recounts the facts of its provenance without drawing any conclusions.

    What Snuffer claims is that the fullness of the priesthood was lost to the Church, as the Lord says in D&C 124:28, it was not the Church’s possession through Joseph as the President of the Church, but Joseph’s personal possession by covenant with the Lord. The Lord said the Nauvoo temple was the only place He would come and restore it to the Church, and then only if the Nauvoo temple was completed in the time the Lord allotted. The temple was never completed at all.

    I find it eminently reasonable rather than ridiculous, but, then, I have no vested interest in the opposite conclusion being true. It happens to be the literal reading of D&C 124.

    As Snuffer rightly points out, Joseph would have had the sealing power at the time he first started performing sealings, in the early 1830s (Snuffer postulates on very believable grounds that Joseph had obtained it by 1829, when Joseph inquired about polygamy during his translation of the book of Jacob). Otherwise, what was he doing? And he obtained it not from Elijah in 1836, since Elijah did not restore anything anyways, but from the voice of God Himself, as has every other scriptural prophet – as Snuffer points out in his analysis of D&C 132.

    Whatever Joseph did in the red brick store could not therefore have done what the Lord had declared by His own mouth that only He could do in the completed Nauvoo temple. Brigham, no matter which ordination he was referring to, was therefore wrong, being in conflict with the word of God on the subject, or making an unprecedented claim that the fullness of the priesthood could be passed on without the direct involvement of the Lord.

    According to Snuffer’s thesis, nothing prevented Brigham from personally appealing unto the Lord to receive the fullness of the priesthood – but apparently, Brigham never did, or he never brought his life into alignment with the Lord’s will sufficiently to be entrusted with this power. By his own admission, he’d never seen a vision, been visited by an angel (Moroni 7:29-30), and never had seen the Lord. He also would inquire and NOT get an answer. Contrast that with Joseph.

    It is imperative that when reviewing a work one reads the whole thing, keeps everything in context, and reads for understanding, rather than controversy. Snuffer anticipated your responses in crafting his argument.

    1. “it was not the Church’s possession through Joseph as the President of the Church, but Joseph’s personal possession by covenant with the Lord.”

      Can you clarify what you mean here. When do you think this verse is saying the fulness of the Priesthood was lost? Lost unto who? Or when and who did the Lord take it away from?

      My understanding is that Denver believes this means Joseph “was no longer authorized to use the fullness on behalf of the church” (PTHG pg. 98). In my first long post I addressed why I think that is not likely (pointing to Nephi as an example). It would be equally ridiculous to insinuate Joseph lost the Fullness of the Priesthood due to the wickedness of others (as he neither sinned against the Holy Ghost, nor shed innocent blood). So if Joseph didn’t lose it, didn’t have it taken away from him, who was or were these people that held the fullness of the Priesthood that did have it take away from them.

      I have pointed out since no one was ordained a King and Priest at this even up until late 1843, the fullness had not ever been given to the Saints in this dispensation, therefore they could not have lost that fullness. Rather it meets the parameters to see the Lord as looking at the Church as a whole from the time of Christ up to this point, and it was they who lost the Fullness of the Priesthood that was given to them, sending the church into the wilderness, and it was to be restored again in this last dispensation. The Lord points out that the temple is the proper place for these ordinances to be performed to give these blessings to the Saints, but also shows that baptism for the dead (another ordinance that is in most circumstances only done in a temple) is acceptable outside the temple in the times of their poverty. Could this rightly apply to the ordinances belonging to the fulness of the Priesthood as well? The answer must be yes, if you accept Joseph was acting in righteousness when he did endowments, sealings, and the ordaining of several leaders as Kings and Priests (the same office Melchizedek held that contained the fullness of the Priesthood). If you think Joseph was disobeying God and acting wrongfully, and those ordinances were thus not valid, I guess that’s an argument made with incomplete evidence. But I personally believe Joseph knew what he was doing, and that he was acting in righteousness as he performed all those ordinances outside of the temple in the time of their poverty. I think in his righteous anxiety he knew that these things had to happen soon, and he was finally relieved when the Lord allowed him to pass those things onto others so that they could round up their shoulders and “bear off the Kingdom” without him (and then declared that he didn’t care what would become of himself now that these keys were passed on). He still displayed anxiety that the Saints would finish the temple so that these blessings would become available to more than a select few leaders (Joseph was concerned about the salvation of the whole human family, both living and dead), but as BY declared after quick contemplation on hearing about the death of Joseph, yes indeed the Lord left the keys on earth with His leaders. And the Nauvoo temple was eventually put to use after the death of Joseph Smith where all of these ordinances were performed for a lot of the membership before they left and crossed the plains.

      I think it is also pertinent to the situation to looks at verse 49 later in section 124, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.” – this shows that the Lord can bless those who stayed dedicated to the work of building the temple, even if other wicked people prevented the full blessings from being realized. While some members apostatized, and their wicked actions probably led to the death of Joseph Smith, while this may be reason enough that the Saints could not retain the promise to “not be moved out of that place”, to me it is not reason enough that God would punish the majority faithful. Thus it makes sense that, as happened historically speaking, the faithful still got to receive the blessings in the Nauvoo temple before they left Nauvoo, although the actions of the few wicked broke the conditions upon which the Saints would not be moved out of their place, and thus they were driven out by wickedness. But as they received the promised blessings of the ordinances and the fullness, it goes to show me that the Lord is merciful and “accept[ed]… their offerings” despite enemies “hinder[ing] them”.

      1. Steve F, you are right on these points. One of Snuffer’s biggest contradictions, to my mind, is that he personally rejects the the idea that when the Brethren currently exercise priesthood by sealing up saints to eternal life, calling this “useless,” despite the fact that Joseph Smith clearly did dispense this by ordinance. At the same time, Snuffer uses the argument that there were blessings the saints could ONLY receive in the Nauvoo temple, and they would be “rejected” if they failed to finish the temple in the time appointed. Yet, Snuffer personally, who claims to have received the fullness of Priesthood and received these highest blessings outside of the Temple. So, my point, in all seriousness is: how can Snuffer be correct on both arguments?

  65. Another pertinent quotation from Joseph about the futurity of Elijah’s mission and the lack of sealing keys and the necessity of the Nauvoo Temple’s completion.

    The Bible says “I will send you Elijah before the great & dredful day of the Lord Come that he shall turn the hearts of the fathers to the Children & the hearts of the Children to their fathers lest I Come & smite the whole earth with a Curse,” Now the word turn here should be translated (bind or seal) But what is the object of this important mission or how is it to be fulfilled, The keys are to be deliverd the spirit of Elijah is to Come, The gospel to be esstablished the Saints of God gatherd Zion built up, & the Saints to Come up as Saviors on mount Zion but how are they to become Saviors on Mount Zion by building thair temples erecting their Baptismal fonts & going forth & receiving all the ordinances, Baptisms, Confirmations, washings anointings ordinations & sealing powers upon our heads in behalf of all our Progenitors who are dead & redeem them that they may Come forth in the first resurrection & be exhalted to thrones of glory with us, & here in is the chain that binds the hearts of the fathers to the Children, & the Children to the Fathers which fulfills the mission of Elijah & I would to God that this temple was now done that we might go into it & go to work & improve our time &make use of the seals while they are on earth & the Saints have none to much time to save & redeem their dead, & gather together their living relatives that they may be saved also, before the earth will be smitten & the Consumption decreed falls upon the world

    That’s WoJS, p. 239, given on 21 January 1844.

    On its face, it says the mission of Elijah was still future, the sealing keys were as yet undelivered, the sealing power Joseph possessed could not be used for ordinance work as the temple was yet incomplete, and time was short for this to be done (see D&C 124, again).

    Joseph was subsequently martyred, and the Nauvoo temple was never completed at all. The Church was removed from her place – Nauvoo – with “cursings, wrath, indignation, and judgments.”

    1. In your quote it says, “make use of the seals while they are on earth” which to me implies that the seals were, as it says, then on earth. But not only was this implied, but Joseph Smith was performing baptisms for the dead, as well as living washings and anointings, ordinations, and sealings making use of these seals. Nowhere did Joseph say Elijah hadn’t come, but rather with careful language described the process that “the keys are to be deliverd the spirit of Elijah is to Come”. Nowhere did he claim that this wasn’t in process; rather the following words in your quote (as well as Joseph Smith documented performing of these ordinances) insinuates that this actually was in process, that the keys were delivered and the spirit of Elijah was coming – but that they should finish the temple so that these things could be done in the proper place making it more widely available/accessible to the membership as a whole than the special circumstances which were only given/permitted to a handful of select leaders outside of the temple at that point.

  66. In this, it is not my intention to “defend” Snuffer, but to again point out that his arguments have not been adequately addressed, nor even summarized correctly.

    I will note, however, that if the thesis of PTHG is correct, it makes perfect sense why there has never been another manifestation like at the temple dedication at Kirtland. After all, the Lord did say if they failed to obey concerning the Nauvoo temple, 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 fulfil the promises which ye expect at my hands, saith the Lord.” (D&C 124:47)

  67. … And a last note. When Brigham said the apostles had been anointed priests and kings, he meant that Joseph had administered the rites of the endowments and the second anointings to them. That is another subject covered in PTHG.

  68. Log, no problem. I understand the concerns you are pointing out, and I didn’t really get to address all of Denver’s points, you are correct, it was just a starting place. So I’ll go ahead and try to start filling in some of those gaps now for you.

    Two of Denver’s strongest points are to cast doubt on the origins and historicity of D&C 110, and pointing out Joseph’s use of future tense in all of his references to the coming of Elijah.

    Two of Denver’s weakest points are first his misunderstanding of grammar when Elijah speaks in D&C 110, and his using of D&C 132 as proof that Joseph Smith already held the fullness of the sealing power/Priesthood by 1832, because Joseph started “sealing people up to eternal life” at least by that date.

    I’m going to address and take care of giving an explanation for the weaker points first, and then move on to addressing the stronger points. Denver believes that when Elijah says “committed” when referencing the keys of that dispensation, that this is somehow a confirmation of a past event. However, this is simply not grammatically the case. In verse 14 Elijah says, “the time has fully come…” meaning “now at this moment is the time that the things spoken in Malachi are being fulfilled” i.e. this is the promised appearance of Elijah promised by Malachi. Since verses 14-16 are all one sentence, the straight forward interpretation is that it is all happening at that moment. Note that Elijah did not say the keys “were committed” but rather specifically “are committed” – meaning at that moment.

    On to the next point – D&C 132. This revelation transcribed in July 1843 is clearly chock-full of doctrinal developments and language only found in the Nauvoo period. From a historical analysis standpoint, the only reasonable conclusion from the evidence is that this is a Nauvoo era document/revelation. It is only because Joseph Smith engaged and/or discussed polygamy previous to revelation that we like to assume that some of the elements (particularly as it pertains to plural marriage (not sealing however)) may have been revealed to Joseph Smith previously. I do not have time to go into an in depth historical analysis, but see the currently ongoing multi-part analysis by WVS over at BBC (http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/09/29/sunday-evenings-with-the-doctrine-and-covenants-section-132-part-7-unconditional-sealing-and-breaking-the-bonds/ ) I too have faith that Joseph Smith had some knowledge of the doctrine of plural marriage previous to this Nauvoo revelation, and that he wasn’t merely engaged in adultery previous to that time, but this is not a conclusion that can be made on the actual historical evidence. Therefore it is completely erroneous to assume that all the elements contained in D&C 132 were revealed by 1832, it is simply not supportable or even close to likely given the historical evidence.

    The one element of evidence that Denver provides is pointing out that Joseph Smith was sealing people or groups of people “unto Eternal Life” by late 1832. This is true. But assuming this had anything to do with the sealing powers of Elijah or the fullness of the Priesthood is an unfounded assumption. Joseph Smith himself taught that it was the High Priesthood (what we understand as the office of High Priest now) that held the keys of presiding and sealing up unto eternal life. Joseph Smith later revealed and attributed the restoration and keys of this High Priesthood to an ordination at the hands of Peter, James, and John. We should note that this “sealing up to Eternal Life” is separate and distinguishable from the later sealing individuals together in Nauvoo, and that this was being performed before the revelation in D&C 131 that reveals there are 3 degrees in the celestial Kingdom, and the new and everlasting cov’t of marriage is a requirement in order to obtain the highest degree. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the meaning of “sealing up unto eternal life” in historical context, simply meant that the high priesthood had the ability to seal up unto celestial glory generically, but was not an unconditional (or nearly unconditional) promise of full exaltation like that found in the ordinances that would be revealed very late in the Nauvoo period. I also think that it is worth noting that over time, this practice of “sealing up unto eternal life” generically, faded out once further light and knowledge about exaltation and the ordinances required for it were revealed, and seemingly was entirely replaced by the endowments and sealing ordinances of Nauvoo. The most plausible conclusion to me then, is that Joseph Smith had truly not been given all the keys of the Priesthood, until the restoration event described in D&C 110 took place in the Kirtland temple in 1836.

    Now onto Denver’s stronger points. But first I want to point out how ironic it is that Denver feels like Elijah sermons must necessarily be referring to a future event before the fullness will be restored, when Denver clearly believes that in 1832 Joseph had already received the fullness of the Priesthood, and furthermore that Elijah in 1836 made the declaration that he (Joseph) already received it. Why would Elijah need to come to restore the fullness, if as Denver claims, Joseph had already received that fullness and Elijah appeared to him in 1836 to confirm that he had indeed already received that fullness? A seeming contradiction indeed. So despite casting doubt on the veracity of D&C 110, Denver seems to accept that the events described therein are at the very least quite possible – since he uses it as a proof text constantly quoting the last verse spoken by Elijah throughout PTHG.

    But, I’ll move on to the actual veracity of D&C 110. We know this was the last thing written in Joseph Smith’s journal and it is in the handwriting of Warren Cowdery, a scribe at the time, and it was written in 3rd person. But when we look at the language itself contained in the revelation, it reads like a dictation from Joseph Smith like any other revelation. And being in the journal, and as Warren was a scribe, it would be most reasonable to conclude that it was in fact a dictation. The only odd part is that it was written in 3rd person. I don’t think anyone has a complete answer for why this is, but I think the most plausible explanation is that Joseph Smith dictated it as a 3rd person document, intended to be from Warren Cowdery’s perspective that he would be a 3rd witness to this important event. And indeed this witness is quite important to the Church’s claims today. I think we have to readily admit that the modern Church’s claims to the sealing authority are contingent on the testimony now found in D&C 110. I have a personal witness of that this testimony is true, and that was indeed an historical event. But additionally, I think the events of Nauvoo provide evidence for that as well. The first point of evidence is the sudden shift after 1836 to almost exclusively refer to Elijah in connection with the Priesthood. Joseph’s sermons on the Priesthood rarely even alluded to John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John anymore, but rather it was suddenly Elijah this, Elijah that, Elijah, Elijah, Elijah! Why the sudden extreme focus? It was clearly on the forefront of Joseph’s mind throughout the Nauvoo period. But if the coming of Elijah had already occurred, why would Joseph only refer to his coming in future tense? This is a very good question, and I believe there is solid evidence for a good answer to this question. I believe the answer is that Joseph Smith was commanded not to reveal that the event had taken place, just yet. That the Saints hearts and minds needed to be prepared for the doctrine before it was revealed to them. (This would hardly be the only thing kept from the general membership during the Nauvoo era – think polygamy, endowments, council of fifty, ordinance making men Kings and Priests, etc.)

    Besides that it could have been one of many as yet revealed doctrines to the general membership, I think there are two pieces of evidence offering support to this interpretation. The first major one is precedence. The events in the Kirtland temple were not the only angelic ministries bestowing keys that Joseph and Oliver experienced. We of course also know about John the Baptist, and the separate appearance of Peter, James, and John. Despite these appearances occurring in 1829 (possibly 1830 for PJ&J) it was several years before we have any evidence that Joseph or Oliver said a word about these events, and all the way until 1835 until this was made general public knowledge. David Whitmer spoke quite hostilely toward this situation, saying he never heard them say anything about angels when the Church was first established, and so he disbelieved that JtB or PJ&J ever even appeared to Joseph and Oliver. The second piece of evidence is looking to the most obvious parallel account in the new testament – the Mt. of Transfiguration. After this event were it is likely Peter, James, and John received many of the same keys, if not the same keys, they were specifically charged to “Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead”.

    To me it is very plausible that Joseph was preparing the minds of the people toward the doctrine of Elijah, before revealing to them that the events in D&C 110 had already taken place, and hence he spoke of it in future tense. But while precedence and the scriptural parallel of the Mt. Transfiguration make this scenario very plausible, perhaps the strongest evidence is what Joseph Smith actually did during the Nauvoo era, or more specifically the ordinances that he was performing. Joseph Smith in describing the full priesthood Melchizedek held said the following in contrast to the Patriarchal Priesthood Abraham held before he was given the Fullness of the Priesthood from Melchizedek: “That of Melchisedec who had still greater power even power of an endless life of which was our Lord Jesus Christ which also Abraham obtained by the offering of his son Isaac which was not the power of a Prophet nor apostle nor Patriarch only but of King & Priest to God to open the windows of Heaven and pour out the peace & Law of endless Life to ma & No man can attain to the Joint heirship with Jesus Christ without being administered to by one having the same power & Authority of Melchisedec.” See the following link on the subject (http://scottwoodward.org/Talks/html/Smith,%20Joseph/SmithJ_ThreeOrdersOfPriesthood.html ). At this link you can see many things pertaining to this discussion, including an interesting point that Joseph Smith pointed out that Peter and John (and I’m assuming James too) received the fullness of the Priesthood on the Mt. of Transfiguration. This begins to dismantle Denver’s argument that a man can only receive the Fullness of the Priesthood from the hands of God himself (i.e. Brigham Young was not making an unprecedented claim). In addition to this, in the Words of Joseph Smith (can’t find the reference immediately, maybe you or someone else can find it for me) – Joseph Smith is said to have explained on separate occasions that the sacrifice of Isaac was how Abraham *earned* the Fullness of the Priesthood and his exaltation, but his actual ordination to the Fullness of the Priesthood came from the hands of Melchizedek (not God), which is another example that discredits Denver’s assertions. And now to the main point, all of Joseph Smith’s sermons are basically explicitly tying all these ordinances to the authority that Elijah would restore – that Elijah would bring back the full keys of Priesthood that Melchizedek held that made him a King and Priest unto God administering life and salvation to the followers of God in his day. And yet, we see historically, that out of the public eye Joseph Smith was performing these very ordinances (and even baptism for the dead that was public was also explicitly tied to the authority that Elijah would restore – see D&C 128). How could Joseph Smith be ordaining other people Kings and Priests rightfully (thus putting them on par in authority by putting them in the same office that Melchizedek himself held anciently), unless Elijah had already given him keys to perform these ordinances? Or why would Joseph Smith be performing these rites that belong to the power/authority Elijah was to restore, if Elijah really hadn’t come yet? The answer is that it would be impossible, these keys must have already been restored in order to perform these ordinations in righteousness to the same King and Priest power that Melchizedek held. And if these ordinations were legitimate, which I see no reason to believe otherwise, then BY and others as Kings and Priests held the same fullness of the Priesthood that Melchizedek held / and that Joseph Smith himself held – all the authority (keys) that a man can receive in mortality. Succession of the sealing keys was preserved thus.

    I hope this partially sets the stage that Denver’s BofM interpretations of the gentiles rejecting the fullness, may very well be something different than he claims it to be. Actually, this point may not take nearly as much time to explain (I’m hoping), but more on that later…

  69. I have not read the entire thread, but I have read Denver’s books and frequently listen to his talks while in my car. I would like to share some thoughts.

    I find it comforting that a man who rides a Harley, speaks roughly at times and is a divorced lawyer, could be chosen by the Lord to call a people to repentance. Makes me think that even I could enjoy the presence of the Lord.

    FWIW, I consider Hugh Nibley a prior example of a “prophet from outside the normal channels”. Nibley, almost single handedly restored the Book of Mormon to it’s rightful place within our faith. I’m wondering what Denver’s legacy will be.

    I think it might be instructive for those critical of Denver, without having read his material, to at least read the Gethsemane chapter of “Come Let Us Adore Him”. I consider it the best “testimony” that he offers.

    And a final thought, for this post, most of the scriptures come to us because of the private writings of those the Lord called, and many were not part of the religious leadership of the time. Names like Lehi, Nephi, Samuel, Elijah, Christ, Peter, James and John come to mind. I’m sure you could extend that list, and a good discussion of why could be engaged in.

  70. And just in case this wasn’t clear in my comment, I want to quote D&C 110:14-16, taking out the middle clauses, to shed light on Denver’s contradictory claims.

    “Behold, the time has fully come (what time? the prophesied time that Malachi said Elijah would be sent)… therefore, the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands; and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors.”

    So was this a past, then present, or future event? Denver would like this to be both a past and future event, claiming that “the time has actually not fully come spoken of by Malachi that Elijah would be sent” which directly contradicts the passage; and then claims that at the same time it was a past event that Joseph had already received “the keys of [that] dispensation”. The *therefore* in the sentence however makes this split impossible, as it explicitly connects the timing of the keys being committed to the first statement “the time has fully come” referring to Malchi’s prophesied coming of Elijah.

    To resolve this, Denver discredits the text when discussing the claim that Elijah’s coming was there fulfilled, but then reaffirms the text to say Joseph Smith had received those keys previous to 1836. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. If we accept D&C 110, which I do, it is clear that Elijah is claiming that his prophesied coming by Malachi is being fulfilled (the time has *fully* come), and *therefore* (to fulfill the ends of that prophesy) the keys of Elijah’s dispensation “are committed” to Joseph.

  71. And just in case this wasn’t clear in my comment, I want to quote D&C 110:14-16, taking out the middle clauses, to shed light on Denver’s contradictory claims.

    “Behold, the time has fully come (what time? the prophesied time that Malachi said Elijah would be sent)… therefore, the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands; and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors.”

    So was this a past, then present, or future event? Denver would like this to be both a past and future event, claiming that “the time has actually not fully come spoken of by Malachi that Elijah would be sent” which directly contradicts the passage; and then claims that at the same time it was a past event that Joseph had already received “the keys of [that] dispensation”. The *therefore* in the sentence however makes this split impossible, as it explicitly connects the timing of the keys being committed to the first statement “the time has fully come” referring to Malachi’s prophesied coming of Elijah.

    To resolve this, Denver discredits the text when discussing the claim that Elijah’s coming was there fulfilled, but then reaffirms the text to say Joseph Smith had received those keys previous to 1836. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. If we accept D&C 110, which I do, it is clear that Elijah is claiming that his prophesied coming by Malachi is being fulfilled (the time has *fully* come), and *therefore* (to fulfill the ends of that prophesy) the keys of Elijah’s dispensation “are committed” to Joseph right then and there.

  72. Steve,

    Your argument, in full, is that Snuffer’s “reading it wrong.”

    Therefore it is completely erroneous to assume that all the elements contained in D&C 132 were revealed by 1832, it is simply not supportable or even close to likely given the historical evidence.

    That’s not Snuffer’s claim. (PTHG, chapter 6)

    The one element of evidence that Denver provides is pointing out that Joseph Smith was sealing people or groups of people “unto Eternal Life” by late 1832. This is true. But assuming this had anything to do with the sealing powers of Elijah or the fullness of the Priesthood is an unfounded assumption.

    Perhaps, but his taking of plural wives in 1832 required the power to seal. (PTHG p. 153)

    Joseph Smith himself taught that it was the High Priesthood (what we understand as the office of High Priest now) that held the keys of presiding and sealing up unto eternal life.

    I’m not sure your equating what Joseph referred to as the High Priesthood with what we now call the office of High Priest is with foundation.

    Now onto Denver’s stronger points. But first I want to point out how ironic it is that Denver feels like Elijah sermons must necessarily be referring to a future event before the fullness will be restored, when Denver clearly believes that in 1832 Joseph had already received the fullness of the Priesthood, and furthermore that Elijah in 1836 made the declaration that he (Joseph) already received it.

    Elijah declared

    1. The time has fully come that his (Elijah’s) mission should be fulfilled.
    2. That the keys of the kingdom and of the dispensation of the fullness of times were presently, currently committed to Joseph.

    He doesn’t mention the sealing power, there is no ordination nor conferral of powers upon Joseph at this time by Elijah, even granting the authenticity of the text.

    And, again, Snuffer simply recounts the provenance of D&C 110. The reader may draw their own conclusions as to its veracity.

    Why would Elijah need to come to restore the fullness, if as Denver claims, Joseph had already received that fullness and Elijah appeared to him in 1836 to confirm that he had indeed already received that fullness?

    That is a curious contradiction since Joseph maintained that Elijah’s mission – to deliver the sealing keys – was yet future, even until the end of Joseph’s life, indicating that even if the time had fully come, Elijah’s mission was not fulfilled by the events recounted in D&C 110, even if it is authentic. D&C 110 does not recount Elijah restoring the fullness. Declaring that the keys of the kingdom and the dispensation of the fullness of times, given by Peter, James, and John, had been bestowed upon Joseph, does not indicate Elijah bestowed anything upon Joseph.

    That’s a problem.

    So despite casting doubt on the veracity of D&C 110, Denver seems to accept that the events described therein are at the very least quite possible – since he uses it as a proof text constantly quoting the last verse spoken by Elijah throughout PTHG.

    That is correct – Snuffer solely recounts the provenance of D&C 110, and draws no conclusions. He does not, in PTHG, reject the authenticity of D&C 110. The reader may draw their own conclusions.

    I think we have to readily admit that the modern Church’s claims to the sealing authority are contingent on the testimony now found in D&C 110.

    That may be true – the claims of the Church may be contingent upon those things. The Church may be claiming more from the text than it supports, however, and on a literal reading of the text, appears to be.

    That’s a problem.

    This begins to dismantle Denver’s argument that a man can only receive the Fullness of the Priesthood from the hands of God himself (i.e. Brigham Young was not making an unprecedented claim).

    That’s not Snuffer’s claim – he claims the fullness of the priesthood requires the direct involvement of the Lord, not necessarily a physical ordination by the Lord (this point is repeatedly made throughout PTHG, using the scriptures and the teachings of Joseph Smith to document – the voice of God declares unto a man he has this power). Also, did you note the date of the talk you linked to? It again postdates 1836, and refers to Elijah’s future (as yet unfulfilled) mission. Also, the Savior at the mount of transfiguration received the fullness of the Priesthood, not Peter and John, and the Father was present then (Luke 9:35).

    Joseph had the sealing power no later than December, 1832, as demonstrated by his use of it. Elijah’s future mission is to restore the keys to the Church, apparently; this resolves any conflict. If Elijah did so, and Joseph never said he did, they were taken by the Lord, according to D&C 124, and not restored by Him as he said only He could do and He only would do at the Nauvoo temple, because the Saints never completed the temple.

    Let’s look, however, more closely at D&C 110.

    13 After this vision had closed, another great and glorious vision burst upon us; for Elijah the prophet, who was taken to heaven without tasting death, stood before us, and said:

    14 Behold, the time has fully come, which was spoken of by the mouth of Malachi—testifying that he [Elijah] should be sent, before the great and dreadful day of the Lord come—

    15 To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers, lest the whole earth be smitten with a curse—

    16 Therefore, the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands; and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful day of the Lord is near, even at the doors.

    Let’s look at what it actually says, rather than what we want it to mean, and let’s assume it’s authentic, despite our complete and utter inability to link it back to either Joseph or Oliver.

    There is no ordination, no imposition of hands recorded. Elijah doesn’t say that his mission is fulfilled. Elijah states that because this time has fully come, the keys of this dispensation are committed into their (Joseph and Oliver) hands because this time has fully come. He does not bestow them upon Joseph and Oliver.

    Which makes sense, since Peter, James, and John had apparently already bestowed them upon Joseph at an earlier date, again, referring to D&C 128:20 and D&C 27:13 (N.B. – 1830).

    Therefore, there is no way to link the “keys of this dispensation” to the sealing keys. They’re not the same thing, on the face of it, and to say they are is to make an unwarranted assumption.

    1. Elijah states that because this time has fully come, the keys of this dispensation are committed into their (Joseph and Oliver) hands. He does not bestow them upon Joseph and Oliver.

      Sigh…

    2. To see a treatment on what contemporaneous definitions of Priesthood meant, like “high priesthood”, at the time of the written revelations… see this link as a good start: http://boap.org/LDS/Historical-Analysis-the-Doctrine-and-Covenants/An-Historical-Analysis-of-D&C-107.html . There are many good treatments elsewhere on the same website. Also, I would recommend reading Michael Quinn’s The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power. Michael Quinn as a professional, is a much more qualified individual to address the historical evidence. Men like Denver or me, may be able to offer up a narrative, and offer up personal testimony to back certain weak/unprovable points, but if its the core evidence you are looking to study so that you can study it out in your own mind to gain your own revelation, I would recommend looking into several perspectives from real professional historians. Reading Denver versus someone like Michael Quinn makes the disparity in ability to look at all the evidence painfully obvious. Although Denver is smart, and a good word-smith, and often convincing at face value, he is not a very good historian, and my opinion a poor decipher-er of spiritual truths as well. He has gotten far based on his intellect, and mostly likely being under the influence of the Spirit of the Lord from time to time, but I have witnessed for myself that he has been deceived by a false spirit, which false spirit undergirds his entire narrative. It sounds like you are getting drawn in and likewise deceived by this Spirit. My object is to aid in painting another narrative that is equally or more plausible given the evidence, so that through consideration and prayer you can more easily get out of the grasp of this thing that is pulling you down.

      As for the reading of the mt. of transfiguration, I passed over that account too quickly, your reading is the correct one. Try looking up the account about Abraham and Melchizedek though in WofJS.

      As for your other arguments, they don’t address most of my other points that already answer your questions. Inasmuch as some of the assumption I make are unwarranted, and rely on personal revelatory knowledge and testimony (by which I do know that the keys restored in section 110 were not mere repeats or confirmations of keys already bestowed, but it would not be proper for me to go into why as I am not in a position of authority that justifiably allows me to divulge this personal knowledge – so I’ll make do with what I can say), Denver’s claims are likewise based on just as much, and in my opinion far more, unwarranted assumptions. But several people have already pointed that out to you. If you want to cling to his interpretations, you are free to do so, but please do yourself a favor and at least recognize that his interpretations are founded on many unwarranted assumptions as well, and in some cases demonstrable errors of which I have pointed out at least a few already. If you want to point out specific demonstrable errors in the alternate narrative I am painting for you, feel free, but it is a useless exercise once both narratives are fully described to try and pit unprovable against unprovable to try and argue for a winner. At that point, it comes down to personal prayer and revelation. My object is not to prove my narrative true, only to show it as a consistent faithful alternative that accords with the limited evidence we have available.

      1. Looks like the link I provided earlier actually contained the reference about Abraham receiving the fullness of the Priesthood from Melchizedek:

        “Abraham… then received a blessing under the hands of Melchesideck even the last law or a fulness of the law or preisthood which constituted him a king and preist after the order of Melchesideck or an endless life” (WoJS, James Burgess Notebook, pg. 245-247, emphasis mine)

        Again, if this is correct, then Denver is wrong in his assertion that a person cannot receive the authority of the Fullness of the Priesthood from a man, and rather that Brigham Young was right. If so, those with this authority are authorized to perform all the ordinances of salvation that will be recognized (bound) both on earth and heaven.

        I agree that power in this Priesthood (to move the elements, open the heavens, etc.) is only obtained through personal righteousness by following the laws necessary to obtain these powers, but it would not require some sort of additional ordination from God or additional authority bestowed by the voice of God, before sealing ordinances were recognized by heaven.

        Side note:This principle applies to all Priesthood authority as well, personal power in the Priesthood is not necessary to administer in things that only require authorization (authority) like ordinances of salvation – although the Priesthood holder is under responsibility to be seeking this personal power or he will be under personal condemnation. If the Priesthood holder is wicked amen to his personal power, and for righteousness sake, that God not be mocked, his authority should also be amened as well by stripping him of his Priesthood authority if the Church becomes aware of this unrighteousness. But if the Church is unaware that a Priesthood officer is officiating unworthily, say in a baptism, that Priesthood officer will be under personal condemnation, but it will not effect the efficacy of the ordinance of salvation – that would create chaos, disorder, and would be unfair to the individual receiving the ordinance if there was no way for them to know for sure whether or not the ordinance is valid. That it was performed by an authorized ordained officer, and that it is recorded on the records of the church is sufficient to make that ordinance effective and binding in heaven, and it is then up to the one who received the ordinance to act in righteousness according to the covenants made to obtain the blessings from that ordinance. This same principle does not apply equally where power is necessary in the administration, say in healing the sick or giving a blessing. Because healing the sick requires power, not just authority, these powers are obtained and fully dependent on the righteousness and worthiness of the Priesthood holder. This is a principle that Denver does not understand in his framework, as I pointed out earlier.

      2. If the Priesthood holder is wicked amen to his personal power, and for righteousness sake, that God not be mocked, his authority should also be amened as well by stripping him of his Priesthood authority if the Church becomes aware of this unrighteousness. But if the Church is unaware that a Priesthood officer is officiating unworthily, say in a baptism, that Priesthood officer will be under personal condemnation, but it will not effect the efficacy of the ordinance of salvation – that would create chaos, disorder, and would be unfair to the individual receiving the ordinance if there was no way for them to know for sure whether or not the ordinance is valid.

        Then the Catholics still have valid priesthood authority, from Peter, as they claim, if you are correct. But I don’t think you are correct, partially for that very reason – and Snuffer actually makes a rather compelling argument to the contrary, based on D&C 121. I haven’t seen a scriptural justification offered yet for the position you have taken.

        I agree that power in this Priesthood (to move the elements, open the heavens, etc.) is only obtained through personal righteousness by following the laws necessary to obtain these powers, but it would not require some sort of additional ordination from God or additional authority bestowed by the voice of God, before sealing ordinances were recognized by heaven.

        That perhaps may be true, if the person performing the rites has power from God to do so. Snuffer alludes to that when he discusses Brigham’s (and the rest of the apostles’) having received their 2nd anointings from Joseph, who indeed did have the power, sealing them up unto eternal life (can’t find the cite). Whether anyone since Joseph has had that power is the matter under dispute.

      3. The bit about priesthood validity without heaven’s involvement is in chapter 12. I had hoped Dan Peterson would have responded, for he voiced the same argument you did (and, likewise, without scriptural justification).

    3. log,

      I think you’re missing entirely, the point Denver is making.

      The inclusion of Elijah in section 110 is due to one uncorroborated source. The principals in this revelation, don’t mention having visited with Elijah when recounting those they had interacted with, and Joseph made multiple references shortly before his death that strongly infer that Elijah’s mission is yet future.

      As I read it, Denver suggests that the inclusion of Elijah in this revelation is not supported by facts that can be corroborated, and is too convenient an explanation that supports the “proud descendent of Nauvoo’s” case.

      Simply assuming that the revelation is correctly transmitted to us and that it, in and of itself, refutes Denver’s suggestions, misses the point entirely.

    4. “Perhaps, but his taking of plural wives in 1832 required the power to seal. (PTHG p. 153)”

      I just looked and I couldn’t find this claim from Denver. He did seem to claim that the purpose behind plural marriage was for the purpose of sealing people back to him, “intended to accomplish a larger design involving salvation for the human family.” (pg. 153)

      But that plural marriage had anything to do with sealings at first is, from the evidence available, just a back-reading. Emma herself wasn’t even sealed to Joseph until 1843 (http://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/08/my-great-great-grandmother-emma-hale-smith) . Most historical treatments on the subject that I have read treat the early plural marriage as separate from the doctrine of sealing.

      1. The article you cite does not substantiate that claim, but rather assumes it coincided with the recording of D&C 132.

        I am of the opinion that the fact Joseph took plural wives in 1832 (as PTHG p. 153 says: “He began taking additional wives sometime in the early 1830’s.” Not mid-to-late 1830’s) implies of necessity that he had to have the sealing power by then.

        It would not surprise me that other histories, assuming Elijah gave Joseph the sealing keys in 1836, would not therefore link Joseph’s early plural marriages with the sealing power. I don’t make that assumption, but I rather assume eternal marriages, or sealings, require sealing power.

    5. “That’s not Snuffer’s claim. (PTHG, chapter 6)”

      You’re right, that was too sweeping of a statement. I meant to point out that Denver was using D&C 132 as evidence that Joseph Smith held the fullness of the sealing power by at least 1832. That is the part that I was pointing out was unfounded. That Joseph Smith was using some sort of sealing power, to seal people up to eternal life, is true — but since Joseph Smith said that was part of the keys belonging to the High Priesthood revealed in 1831 (see the article I linked to, to understand what was meant by high priesthood), I see no reason to equate this with the fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood, nor the keys for the promised.blessings of Malachi that Elijah needed to return for.

  73. Steve,

    Do me a favor. If you know of any factual errors – rather than disputed interpretations – contained in PTHG, that’s probably the most beneficial thing that can be contributed.

    1. I’ll do my best, but what I have also been doing is to show that many of his conclusions are based on assumptions that cannot be proven, and I have provided evidence to the contrary of those assumptions to show that not only are they not provable, but they are probably unlikely. I hope that will also be useful to some people too.

  74. Also, if you would be so kind, if you could cite specific pages in PTHG, or even quote it when responding so that everyone can follow along with Snuffer’s actual claims (as opposed to what you or I might be claiming for him) that would be, I think, a very beneficial thing.

  75. I’ll try to do that from here out, but I just can’t go back and put in references were I may have left some out in previous comments.

  76. My object is not to prove my narrative true, only to show it as a consistent faithful alternative that accords with the limited evidence we have available.

    I understand. I will explain, in part, why I find Snuffer’s narrative more plausible than what you term the “faithful alternative.”

    Snuffer’s not trying to write history. He’s putting church history through the lens of prophecy as found in the scriptures.

    Snuffer does make claims that exceed the evidence he brings to bear. For example, he cannot possibly know that Joseph offered his life in exchange for more time to prepare the Saints to received the proffered blessings of the fullness of the Priesthood, and for Zion to be established, based on historical evidence. Indeed, he cites no authority whatsoever for his view.

    However, that particular claim is not inconsistent with the scriptures and the facts of history as we have them. If it is true, it enhances the status of Joseph Smith, and makes the events of Nauvoo that much more tragic.

    Snuffer’s overall thesis is internally consistent, consistent with the scriptures, and consistent with the facts of history as we have them. In reading Snuffer, I laid aside all my own prejudices. I have to acknowledge his “readings” (and I hate to use even that word in this context) preserve the literal meanings of the text of the scriptures. And that is significant.

    There is more, however. His thesis accounts for other facts in our possession as well, such as the fact that the heavens have been pretty much sealed to us, as a Church, since Joseph (well, we might say since Brigham’s initial contribution to the D&C in section 136; D&C 138 was a personal revelation to President Smith). In fact, it accounts for why the Lord would say to us, as a Church, that we are unable to bear His presence (D&C 136:37). It accounts, to me, for why no temple since Kirtland has been accepted of the Lord (remember – the Lord changes not). It also accounts for why we don’t live in the holy city having all things in common with the Savior dwelling bodily among us. It accounts for why visitations of angels is pretty much only a matter of rumor anymore (or it’s unheard of). It accounts for why miracles have largely ceased among us in the Church, and are again largely a matter of rumor. Real miracles, mind, not simply highly implausible recoveries, chance meetings, and so forth. It accounts for priesthood blessings which are of none effect. It accounts for why no man claims to be a prophet, seer, and revelator among the Brethren (but always refer to the other guys as such). It accounts for apparent discrepancies between the teachings of the Brethren and the scriptures over the years, and our current cultural view that the Brethren outweigh the scriptures, and cannot lead us astray.

    In fine, it accounts for how we went from Hymn #2 to today.

    On a personal level, it accounts for why I did not receive the Holy Ghost through the baptism of fire at age 8 when I was confirmed. Apparently, the Melchizedek Priesthood holder who confirmed me did not have power to confer the Holy Ghost by the imposition of hands, despite his ordination by duly constituted authorities. Yet I know my baptism to have been honored of God, for it was answered with a remission of my sins, manifested by a warmth, or burning in the busom (I didn’t know what that meant at the time; I thought I had a fever).

    It accounts for why my endowments were not answered with fire from heaven, as Brigham said they should be. When in the pre-endowment chat with the temple president, I asked, directly, “so if the Spirit does not witness to me by fire that my ordinances are accepted, then they have not been, right?” To my surprise, the temple president replied, “I have never had any such manifestation.” Yet such a manifestation is what is meant by “the Holy Spirit of Promise,” – the Holy Ghost in His role as the minister of heavenly fire is the Holy Spirit of Promise (Ephesians 1:13). Hence, Brigham’s cry to help the Saints crossing the plains – “Let the fire of the covenant, which you made in the house of the Lord burn in your hearts like flame unquenchable.”

    It accounts for why I am unable to heal my children, despite my claiming in (seemingly impertinent) words that my blessings are done “by the power and authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood, which I hold.”

    In sum, I have to concede on the evidence that the rites are, indeed, merely symbolic, and to be made of effect, a man must humble himself into the dust, repent of all his sins, and call upon the name of the Lord until he receives the powers, gifts, and blessings he seeks.

    I could say a lot more on that topic from my own studies of the scriptures.

    I guess Joseph knew the score, too.

    Joseph, at this time, rebuked the Elders for administering the form without the power. Said he, “Let the Elders either obtain the power of God to heal the sick, or let them cease to administer the form without the power.” (Quoted by Joseph Noble, See Juvenile Instructor, 15:112) (cite)

    It’s not between faith and faithlessness – false traditions or explanations cannot be “faithful,” and knowledge cannot be “faithless.” This is a matter of coming to understand our true condition before God.

    I wanted the institutional mythos, which I, too, had been raised with, to be true, but on the evidence, it doesn’t appear to be. I wanted to be led by prophets in the Old Testament / Book of Mormon / Joseph Smith mold, and Apostolic eyewitnesses of the Resurrection, but it seems I am not. The gospel is true, the authority to administer in the outward ordinances is here, but apparently they cannot be made to stick eternally without each of us forging our own connection to heaven directly to obtain the promised blessings of God, and that requires repenting of all one’s sins and asking, in all humility and in mighty prayer, for that which we desire of God.

    In the meantime, I have to endure this state of not knowing, until the Lord sees fit to answer me. Until then, I must withhold judgement and continue consistency testing.

    1. I hear what you are saying, but I known it to be false. My experience has been almost the polar opposite of your own. I actually grew up being taught and believing the very narrative you just described, not the traditional narrative. I knew the gospel was true, but I believed the church as institution was not, that it was in apostasy and under condemnation in the eyes of God. I know how consistent that narrative is, because I believed it for decades, or close to. I am familiar with probably just about all the false ways to interpret the scriptures to support this narrative.

      But I am here to tell you now that I discovered that the spirit from which this narrative derives is not of God. I have seen the fruits bring several lives to the brink of ruin. It is a road, if not the road to personal apostasy.

      How easy it is to look at all the problems that exist (and I do admit problems have and do exist) and handily dismiss the whole of it as being out of the way of true righteousness, that the church has been under condemnation through the tenures of every President of the Church following Joseph Smith? So easy, in fact, that it has been the go to narrative for apostasy from all eternity to all eternity – “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.” – Joseph Smith. Is this not exactly what happened to Denver Snuffer? Think about it; honestly step back and see the parallel – Denver is no different than all the others who have gone before him who prefer a dead prophet over living ones, or than those like David Whitmer or others that turned against Joseph because they heralded his teachings of the past, but were confident that he had lost his way in the present.

      I give you a friendly warning to run from this narrative, to swim away now lest you sink and drown – I have seen it in the lives of many family members close to me, which is why I feel a personal responsibility to detect this false spirit when I see it manifest elsewhere, and warn others against it. It is a true statement that just because it’s bad doesn’t make it not true. But in this case, in the case of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, I give you my witness as one has moved beyond this destructive narrative, that the reality and true narrative is not half as depressing, in fact not even depressing at all as it is quite the opposite – it is truly the good news that fills the soul with light and joy of heaven. Sure, individually there are too many issues to even adequately address here, but collectively I know that the Church is exactly where the Lord would have it be on its path from apostasy (pre-restoration) towards the grand goal of Zion. Being somewhere in the middle of that process, you would expect to find errors and imperfections along the the long and bumpy road toward Zion; and that we are not in Zion now is evidence that we are not yet perfect and therefore will be able to identify very real problems in our current state. But this is not evidence of condemnation, this is not evidence of apostasy. Do you think we have not progressed looking at the Saints in Joseph Smith’s time, to this day? Do you think that the Church in Kirtland would have been able to support millions of members without imploding in a single year? I know it could not have supported the weight. Sure there were divine manifestations here and there, but numbers-wise I am convinced these things are happening a greater frequency today than they were then – the difference being that then the manifestations then were the direct result of powerhouses like Joseph Smith teaching a people with young and green faith, and they piggy-backed on the strength of Joseph Smith. But when I look at the real history of the saints then, I see a people young and immature in true faith, light, and knowledge. 14 years was not enough to make a nation of Kings and Priests, Queens and Priestesses all with faith like unto Abraham or the Brother of Jared. No, the work was to be far more comprehensive then saving an elect few elite, this work was and is to the whole of the humanity, past, present, and future. To build Zion that will become an entire nation of Kings and Priests, Queens and Priestesses that will fill the whole of North and South America is not small task, it is a marvelous work and a wonder, and a work that has steadily improved and progressed towards this ultimate goal since the days of Joseph Smith to today, lead by Christ through his anointed servants.

      If you can see the church through the Spirit of the Lord, as Joseph Smith said, you will find yourself merciful, more willing to overlook the mistakes, sins, and inadequacies of saints today and in previous generations, and you will desire to take their burdens and weaknesses and put them behind you and carry these people on your back to safety. That is the true lens, that is the true spirit of the Lord, the spirit of condemnation and lack of hope for the saints and humanity, finding fault past and present assuming a way other than what is taught by the authorized and accepted servants of the Lord, is the “real true” way, is the spirit of the devil.

      You put out a dichotomy that I think many Denver Snuffer supporters would reject. You say that he is either a true prophet, or a fraud. You recognize that his claims are so large and significant, that it can only be one way or the other – I agree with you. Let me offer you a key by which you may know a false prophet from a true one. A true prophet will always be ready and able to openly declare the source of his authority (save when his testimony has been given and rejected enough times that the testimony stands as the witness and no further declaration is needed). Additionally, a true prophet will teach you to follow his words, for he speaks for the Lord, and he knows he speaks on behalf of the Lord. Contrast this with Denver Snuffer. He has created very subtle allusions to authority, but when pressed he will not boldly proclaim the source of his authority. Additionally, Denver speaks in what I would call double-speak. He might seek followers, but he does not openly or candidly declare that people should follow his teachings, hiding behind his teaching that men are only to follow God and God only, which is a deceptive half truth. But the children of Israel were indeed supposed to follow Moses, and so it is with true prophets. Denver has never openly and candidly declare the authority by which he believes he operates, and has not been forth right in declaring that believers should follow him. Because his claims are to the extent of needing to be a prophet, and because he does not meet these qualifications, you may now with surety that he is indeed a false prophet.

  77. “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.” – Joseph Smith. Is this not exactly what happened to Denver Snuffer?

    Not by his own account. He claims he was commanded by God to do and say what he does and says. How does Isaiah or Jeremiah or Ezekiel fare when this standard is applied to them exactly as you apply it to Snuffer? Or even Joseph Smith himself, speaking of Christendom?

    The difference between me and you, I believe, is I have not rejected Snuffer’s claims. They, too, are on my “I don’t know” pile. I find them credible on their face, however, especially contrasted with what I see, or don’t see, in the Church. They are exactly what I would expect a prophet raised from outside of the hierarchy, as were the aforementioned prophets.

    Here’s the fun bit. Grant Snuffer’s claims, for the sake of argument – what are the implications with respect to what we should be doing right now? It seems to me that unless the answer boils down to “breaking the commandments,” then there is a problem with asserting him to be false; after all, what false prophet would enjoin repentance, prayer, forgiveness, obedience, and fidelity to covenants, and obedience to the authorities in the Church? For if you, seeking to obey God, obey His commandments, He immediately blesses you, and that is not something the devil can afford; hence, the devil persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one, and neither do they who follow him.

    I submit that Snuffer poses a greater conundrum than you have admitted. At least, to me, he does.

    Do you think we have not progressed looking at the Saints in Joseph Smith’s time, to this day?

    Absolutely not – we have not progressed from Joseph’s time to this day. I don’t think I’m evaluating it on the same criterion you are, however. I expect the gospel net to gather fish of all kinds, with the final sorting to be left in the hands of the angels, and I expect the wheat and the tares to grow together until the Savior comes and burns the wicked by the fires of His glory. Now is not the time for judgement.

    And Snuffer doesn’t claim that the Church is in apostasy. I don’t know that that is even a word which has useful semantic content in this context. Snuffer is suggesting that the Church is akin to the ancient Jewish Church after Moses was taken. I find that interpretation of Church history to be more plausible than what you call “the faithful alternative.” If true, all of a sudden the examples of those prophets, raised from outside of the hierarchy, become relevant to today.

    And whatever makes you think I’m condemning anyone? I cannot upbraid the leadership for being who and what they are – I cannot judge how they are fulfilling their stewardships – that is between them and God (though, I have to admit, Brigham did and said some things which I cannot defend). God calls whom He will to whatever place He desires them to be, knowing full well who and what they are when He does so. Who is condemning the Church? Snuffer doesn’t. If his thesis is correct, the Lord, however, has condemned the Church in the past. If President Benson was correct, the Lord still does condemn the Church because they do not do what is taught in the Book of Mormon. I have no power to condemn. I am seeking to understand; I want to know. “No man’s opinion is worth a straw.”

    Snuffer is quite clear we ought to follow Christ, and not follow him.

    A true prophet never points towards himself as the object of veneration, devotion, or authoritarian leadership, but always and only towards God. The task of a true prophet is to point the way to God. As Joseph, true prophets “teach [the people] correct principles and [the people] govern themselves.”

    Snuffer has explicitly stated he is speaking forth as he has been commanded of God (he says he’d rather have not done any of this at all).

    A true prophet does likewise.

    Snuffer has taught repentance, faith in the Lord, utter fidelity to covenants, charitability, love, and so forth, and said we ought to do those things.

    A true prophet does likewise.

    Snuffer has taught that we should not place our faith in men, but in God alone.

    The Savior taught likewise (JST Mark 9:44 – note the context!), as did Nephi, and others.

    In point of fact, the general thrust of all of Snuffer’s teachings is that rather than placing our faith in the salvific sufficiency of rites and cede our interactions with heaven to priesthood hierarchies (whose occupants may, or may not, be interacting with heaven), we each ought to forge our own connection to heaven directly, through repentance, faith, well doing, fidelity to covenants, charitability, scripture study, prayer, and so forth, that we may ourselves obtain the fullness of the priesthood, which he says is available to all on the same terms as it was available to Joseph Smith (which again makes sense, as the Lord is no respecter of persons). Ask and ye shall receive, and all that jazz.

    I can’t fault that. Maybe others can. But even if, to me, he shows forth all the signs of authenticity, I don’t know him to be a prophet. Neither do I know those in the hierarchy are prophets. In the end, does it matter? It only matters because I want to be able to trust someone without reservation – to have faith in them, I suppose – and if Snuffer’s thesis is correct, there is nobody I can place my faith in save God alone. Not President Monson, not Denver Snuffer. No man. But that remains true even if Snuffer’s thesis is wrong, according to Christ and Nephi (to say nothing of similar statements by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young).

    Therefore, for resolution to my personal inquiries and issues, I wait on the Lord.

    Until then, if someone wants to demonstrate factual inaccuracies in PTHG, I’m all ears. Otherwise, it’s a contest of opinions, and, as the First Presidency once rightly stated, “no man’s opinion is worth a straw.” However, opinions which do not conflict with the literal reading of the scriptures, or whatever we’re treating, have, by default, the upper straw.

  78. It occurs to me, I have not heard President Monson, as President, ever say “follow me.” Curious. Anyone know differently?

  79. I give you a friendly warning to run from this narrative, to swim away now lest you sink and drown – I have seen it in the lives of many family members close to me, which is why I feel a personal responsibility to detect this false spirit when I see it manifest elsewhere, and warn others against it. It is a true statement that just because it’s bad doesn’t make it not true.

    I have to point out something.

    Snuffer’s thesis, as I understand it, has explanatory power which accounts, again, for at least those things I have previously mentioned. A competing paradigm (for this is really an issue of which paradigm is more fruitful) must likewise account for the same facts in at least as parsimoniously a fashion. Occam’s Razor.

    I am willing to not choose between them until I am answered. This topic is of sufficient import that I can wait in an unresolved state until the full truth is known.

    But I think you guys read too much into things. I understand that giving facts, like swords, to babies sometimes results in decapitations, and the unlearned and unstable wrest the scriptures – but they also wrest textbooks and newspapers, so what changes there, eh?

    As I said, for the sake of argument, grant the truth of the thesis behind PTHG. If the direct conclusion is “break the commandments” or “rebel against ecclesiastical authority” or “elect Republicrats in the next election,” then certainly, there are grounds for rejecting the thesis. That is what is meant by “reduction to the absurd.” (I joke about the Republicrats – but I mean it sincerely.)

    But if instead the consequence is that we need to strive with ever more power heavenward, obeying every word of command with exactness, and so forth… what then?

    1. The conclusion of Denver’s narrative is more subtle, and therefore potentially more hazardous as it can go undetected – it is that the men at our head do not hold the authority they claim to hold, which inherently undermines the faith we have in their teachings or in their ability to teach us according to the mind and will of the Lord; this will directly lead to further disunity in the faith as disbelief will lead more people to follow the whims of their own wisdom and to ignore the voice of warning from the watchtower. The end result is a people with several minds and several hearts, with hearts sewn in discontent and chaos, leading the deceived in direct opposition to becoming a Zion people. Those are the fruits of this narrative/paradigm.

      You claim to still view this with an open mind, and I hope you’re right for your sake, but it comes across as if you have already picked a side as you accept and defend unsubstantiated beliefs that undermine the claims of the church. My testimony and warning still stands. I wanted to be helpful, but honestly I don’t think there is anything more I could say or do to be helpful at this point. I have provided a lot of evidence that could be useful to you if you desire to really look into it. I hope you will do so. If it takes you a long time in your journey to discover truth, I hope you come out on top and do not sink. If there is any more that I feel I can add to the discussion that may be helpful, I may comment again, but at this point I can’t think of anything off the top of my head.

      Instead of answering your question about the gentiles, here is a link to a previous explanation I gave for 3 Nephi 16:10 in another comment thread: https://www.latterdaycommentary.com/2013/08/23/denver-snuffer-disciplinary-council/#comment-9333 . Instead of going through everything Denver said on the subject of gentiles, you can probably get the basic flavor of how I will approach the scriptures in that one example. Although I believe the words of the scriptures provide better evidence for my interpretation than Denver’s, I don’t think my explanations will mean much to you as you currently seem particular tied to Denver’s overall narrative. If I am wrong about that, you can let me know, and I’ll go ahead and try to expound if I really believe it will be of any worth to you at this point. I genuinely wish you all the best!

      1. As I said, Steve, I’m not interested in a dispute of opinions or interpretations. Something I have learned over the decades is that there is always a contrary opinion, reading, interpretation, or whatever – and “no man’s opinion is worth a straw”. I am, however, exceedingly interested in factual errors.

        The conclusion of Denver’s narrative is more subtle, and therefore potentially more hazardous as it can go undetected – it is that the men at our head do not hold the authority they claim to hold, which inherently undermines the faith we have in their teachings or in their ability to teach us according to the mind and will of the Lord; this will directly lead to further disunity in the faith as disbelief will lead more people to follow the whims of their own wisdom and to ignore the voice of warning from the watchtower.

        The conclusion is more subtle than even that – it is that the men at our head may not hold all the authority they claim to hold. Snuffer does not take a position on whether any particular authority has the sealing power or not. According to his paradigm, any man must rise up and receive it for themselves; it cannot be bestowed from man to man, even if men may be ordained by men unto it – it requires the direct involvement of the Lord to grant the power thereof.

        I agree that unstable persons may indeed arrive at conclusions similar to what you outline here.

        But… I cannot agree with the implicit argument that it is better to be unified by a fable than to let a truth divide.

        Matthew 10:34-36
        34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

        35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

        36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

        However, here’s again the ironic part.

        Snuffer says pray to know – if the Spirit doesn’t witness the truth of his teachings to you, don’t give it a second thought, he says. Joseph said pray to know; depending on the prophet brings spiritual darkness. Brigham said pray to know; leadership can err. That’s brave, don’t you think?

        And if the leadership, or Snuffer, is teaching us according to the mind and will of the Lord, then the Lord will own their teachings and answer the inquirer, right?

        So I wait. But I am very, very interested in factual errors, again.

        Back to 3 Nephi 16, though.

        1 And verily, verily, I say unto you that I have other sheep, which are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem, neither in any parts of that land round about whither I have been to minister.

        2 For they of whom I speak are they who have not as yet heard my voice; neither have I at any time manifested myself unto them.

        3 But I have received a commandment of the Father that I shall go unto them, and that they shall hear my voice, and shall be numbered among my sheep, that there may be one fold and one shepherd; therefore I go to show myself unto them.

        4 And I command you that ye shall write these sayings after I am gone, that if it so be that my people at Jerusalem, they who have seen me and been with me in my ministry, do not ask the Father in my name, that they may receive a knowledge of you by the Holy Ghost, and also of the other tribes whom they know not of, that these sayings which ye shall write shall be kept and shall be manifested unto the Gentiles, that through the fulness of the Gentiles, the remnant of their seed, who shall be scattered forth upon the face of the earth because of their unbelief, may be brought in, or may be brought to a knowledge of me, their Redeemer.

        5 And then will I gather them in from the four quarters of the earth; and then will I fulfil the covenant which the Father hath made unto all the people of the house of Israel.

        6 And blessed are the Gentiles, because of their belief in me, in and of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses unto them of me and of the Father.

        7 Behold, because of their belief in me, saith the Father, and because of the unbelief of you, O house of Israel, in the latter day shall the truth come unto the Gentiles, that the fulness of these things shall be made known unto them.

        8 But wo, saith the Father, unto the unbelieving of the Gentiles—for notwithstanding they have come forth upon the face of this land, and have scattered my people who are of the house of Israel; and my people who are of the house of Israel have been cast out from among them, and have been trodden under feet by them;

        9 And because of the mercies of the Father unto the Gentiles, and also the judgments of the Father upon my people who are of the house of Israel, verily, verily, I say unto you, that after all this, and I have caused my people who are of the house of Israel to be smitten, and to be afflicted, and to be slain, and to be cast out from among them, and to become hated by them, and to become a hiss and a byword among them—

        10 And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.

        11 And then will I remember my covenant which I have made unto my people, O house of Israel, and I will bring my gospel unto them.

        12 And I will show unto thee, O house of Israel, that the Gentiles shall not have power over you; but I will remember my covenant unto you, O house of Israel, and ye shall come unto the knowledge of the fulness of my gospel.

        13 But if the Gentiles will repent and return unto me, saith the Father, behold they shall be numbered among my people, O house of Israel.

        14 And I will not suffer my people, who are of the house of Israel, to go through among them, and tread them down, saith the Father.

        15 But if they will not turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, I will suffer them, yea, I will suffer my people, O house of Israel, that they shall go through among them, and shall tread them down, and they shall be as salt that hath lost its savor, which is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of my people, O house of Israel.

        16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, thus hath the Father commanded me—that I should give unto this people this land for their inheritance.

        17 And then the words of the prophet Isaiah shall be fulfilled, which say:

        18 Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing, for they shall see eye to eye when the Lord shall bring again Zion.

        19 Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem; for the Lord hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem.

        20 The Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of God.

        Unfortunately, verse 10 does not distinguish between the believing and unbelieving of the Gentiles. It refers to the Gentiles as one people. And it indicates that the Gentiles shall sin against the Gospel, and shall reject the fullness thereof, and the Father will bring the fullness thereof out from the Gentiles, and bring it to the house of Israel. After that point, if the Gentiles will repent, they shall be numbered among the house of Israel. And if they do repent, those of the house of Israel will not tread them down. But if they do not repent, they shall be trodden down.

        How long is the gap between the Gentile rejection of the fullness of the Gospel and the receipt of same by the house of Israel? It’s not clear. The mechanism is also unclear.

        Yet, it happens. This is why it is the remnant of Jacob who will, along with as many of the house of Israel as will come, build the New Jerusalem, assisted by as many of the Gentiles as will repent; those specific Gentiles shall be numbered among the remnant of Jacob, the descendants of Lehi (3 Nephi 21:22 – 24). That’s not quite the tribal assignment of our patriarchal blessings. And when the city is built, the Lord shall dwell therein (v. 25). And this all starts whenever the remnant receives the Gospel (v. 26).

        So, it seems the New Jerusalem won’t be built by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

        Indeed, the end of the Church has also been described.

        JST, Matthew 21:47–56.
        Compare Matthew 21:45–46
        47 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

        48 And they said among themselves, Shall this man think that he alone can spoil this great kingdom? And they were angry with him.

        49 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they learned that the multitude took him for a prophet.

        50 And now his disciples came to him, and Jesus said unto them, Marvel ye at the words of the parable which I spake unto them?

        51 Verily, I say unto you, I am the stone, and those wicked ones reject me.

        52 I am the head of the corner. These Jews shall fall upon me, and shall be broken.

        53 And the kingdom of God shall be taken from them, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof; (meaning the Gentiles.)

        54 Wherefore, on whomsoever this stone shall fall, it shall grind him to powder.

        55 And when the Lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, he will destroy those miserable, wicked men, and will let again his vineyard unto other husbandmen, even in the last days, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

        56 And then understood they the parable which he spake unto them, that the Gentiles should be destroyed also, when the Lord should descend out of heaven to reign in his vineyard, which is the earth and the inhabitants thereof.

        The “other husbandmen, even in the last days, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons,” will be the remnant spoken of, and they shall hold the keys of the kingdom during the Millennium. So who then would the Gentiles spoken of in verse 56, who get destroyed, be? Apparently… us (D&C 109:60).

        And we should not be too surprised.

        D&C 112:23-26
        23 Verily, verily, I say unto you, darkness covereth the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the people, and all flesh has become corrupt before my face.

        24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.

        25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;

        26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

        What does that mean?

        Mormon 8:38 O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ? Why do ye not think that greater is the value of an endless happiness than that misery which never dies—because of the praise of the world?

        What does that mean?

        Alma 34:38 [C]ontend no more against the Holy Ghost, but … receive it, and take upon you the name of Christ….

        How?

        Alma 22:15-18
        15 And it came to pass that after Aaron had expounded these things unto him, the king said: What shall I do that I may have this eternal life of which thou hast spoken? Yea, what shall I do that I may be born of God, having this wicked spirit rooted out of my breast, and receive his Spirit, that I may be filled with joy, that I may not be cast off at the last day? Behold, said he, I will give up all that I possess, yea, I will forsake my kingdom, that I may receive this great joy.

        16 But Aaron said unto him: If thou desirest this thing, if thou wilt bow down before God, yea, if thou wilt repent of all thy sins, and will bow down before God, and call on his name in faith, believing that ye shall receive, then shalt thou receive the hope which thou desirest.

        17 And it came to pass that when Aaron had said these words, the king did bow down before the Lord, upon his knees; yea, even he did prostrate himself upon the earth, and cried mightily, saying:

        18 O God, Aaron hath told me that there is a God; and if there is a God, and if thou art God, wilt thou make thyself known unto me, and I will give away all my sins to know thee, and that I may be raised from the dead, and be saved at the last day. And now when the king had said these words, he was struck as if he were dead.

        Have we other witnesses?

        Moses 6:59-68
        59 That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory;

        60 For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified;

        61 Therefore it is given to abide in you; the record of heaven; the Comforter; the peaceable things of immortal glory; the truth of all things; that which quickeneth all things, which maketh alive all things; that which knoweth all things [there’s prophecy and revelation], and hath all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment [there’s your power in the priesthood].

        62 And now, behold, I say unto you: This is the plan of salvation unto all men, through the blood of mine Only Begotten, who shall come in the meridian of time.

        63 And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me.

        64 And it came to pass, when the Lord had spoken with Adam, our father, that Adam cried unto the Lord, and he was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water.

        65 And thus he was baptized, and the Spirit of God descended upon him, and thus he was born of the Spirit, and became quickened in the inner man.

        66 And he heard a voice out of heaven, saying: Thou art baptized with fire, and with the Holy Ghost. This is the record of the Father, and the Son, from henceforth and forever;

        67 And thou art after the order of him who was without beginning of days or end of years, from all eternity to all eternity [there’s Adam’s priesthood, by the voice of God].

        68 Behold, thou art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons. Amen.

        And, more.

        3 Nephi 9:20
        20 And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not.

        Which Lamanites?

        Ether 12:14
        14 Behold, it was the faith of Nephi and Lehi that wrought the change upon the Lamanites, that they were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

        These.

        Helaman 5:40-47
        40 And it came to pass that the Lamanites said unto him: What shall we do, that this cloud of darkness may be removed from overshadowing us?

        41 And Aminadab said unto them: You must repent, and cry unto the voice, even until ye shall have faith in Christ, who was taught unto you by Alma, and Amulek, and Zeezrom; and when ye shall do this, the cloud of darkness shall be removed from overshadowing you.

        42 And it came to pass that they all did begin to cry unto the voice of him who had shaken the earth; yea, they did cry even until the cloud of darkness was dispersed.

        43 And it came to pass that when they cast their eyes about, and saw that the cloud of darkness was dispersed from overshadowing them, behold, they saw that they were encircled about, yea every soul, by a pillar of fire.

        44 And Nephi and Lehi were in the midst of them; yea, they were encircled about; yea, they were as if in the midst of a flaming fire, yet it did harm them not, neither did it take hold upon the walls of the prison; and they were filled with that joy which is unspeakable and full of glory.

        45 And behold, the Holy Spirit of God did come down from heaven, and did enter into their hearts, and they were filled as if with fire, and they could speak forth marvelous words.

        46 And it came to pass that there came a voice unto them, yea, a pleasant voice, as if it were a whisper, saying:

        47 Peace, peace be unto you, because of your faith in my Well Beloved, who was from the foundation of the world.

        And that sounds remarkably similar to these, too – do the same thing, get the same results.

        Enos 1:1-8
        1 Behold, it came to pass that I, Enos, knowing my father that he was a just man—for he taught me in his language, and also in the nurture and admonition of the Lord—and blessed be the name of my God for it—

        2 And I will tell you of the wrestle which I had before God, before I received a remission of my sins.

        3 Behold, I went to hunt beasts in the forests; and the words which I had often heard my father speak concerning eternal life, and the joy of the saints, sunk deep into my heart.

        4 And my soul hungered; and I kneeled down before my Maker, and I cried unto him in mighty prayer and supplication for mine own soul; and all the day long did I cry unto him; yea, and when the night came I did still raise my voice high that it reached the heavens.

        5 And there came a voice unto me, saying: Enos, thy sins are forgiven thee, and thou shalt be blessed.

        6 And I, Enos, knew that God could not lie; wherefore, my guilt was swept away.

        7 And I said: Lord, how is it done?

        8 And he said unto me: Because of thy faith in Christ, whom thou hast never before heard nor seen. And many years pass away before he shall manifest himself in the flesh; wherefore, go to, thy faith hath made thee whole.

        Nephi did this as well.

        1 Nephi 2:16
        16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, being exceedingly young, nevertheless being large in stature, and also having great desires to know of the mysteries of God, wherefore, I did cry unto the Lord; and behold he did visit me, and did soften my heart that I did believe all the words which had been spoken by my father; wherefore, I did not rebel against him like unto my brothers.

        This is an example of what the Lord was speaking of.

        3 Nephi 11:35
        35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

        Doctrine and Covenants 5:16
        16 And behold, whosoever believeth on my words, them will I visit with the manifestation of my Spirit; and they shall be born of me, even of water and of the Spirit.

        What should we do? Repent and cry unto the Lord to receive His spirit, even until we have faith in Christ, that we may be cleansed by fire from heaven, hearing the voice of God, and from thenceforth keep the commandments and endure to the end.

        Does the truth or falsity of PTHG’s thesis, that the apostasy spoken of in 3 Nephi 16 is past, rather than future, change what we should be doing? I don’t think it does. Others may differ.

        1. Verse 6-7 talks about Gentiles with belief in Christ/God. Then verse 8 says, “wo…unto the unbelieving of the Gentiles” in contrast to the believing Gentiles in 6 & 7. If you notice verses 8-10 are one sentence, therefore with the subject being established in verse 8, it is not grammatically necessary to specify “unbelieving of the Gentiles” again – that would be pretty redundant in a single sentence.

          Even so, lets go ahead and apply your theory that Gentiles = “members of the LDS Church”. Meaning, LDS Church members have “come forth upon the face of this land [presumably America], and have scattered my people of the house of Israel [presumably Native Americans]” and “and my people who are of the house of Israel have been cast out from among [the LDS members], and have been trodden under feet by [LDS members]. (verse 8)

          And, “I have caused [Native Americans] to be smitten, and to be afflicted, and to be slain, and to be cast out from among [LDS members], and to become hated by [LDS members], and to become a hiss and a byword among [LDS members]” (verse 9)

          While it is a stretch, this interpretation could maybe true, but it’s a serious stretch to make that claim. It seems much more likely and apt that these actions are referring to the colonizers and immigrants to America in general.

          But since you care about facts, lets go back to verse 6 & 7. Verse 6 in under your interpretation says, “And blessed are the [LDS members], because of their belief in me, in and of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses unto them of me and of the Father.” And, “Behold, because of [the LDS member’s] belief in me, saith the Father, and because of the unbelief of you, O house of Israel, in the latter day shall the truth come unto [LDS members], that the fulness of these things shall be made known unto them.” (verse 7)

          This interpretation is factually not possible given the text. It says LDS members are blessed because of their belief in God, and because of this belief in God, the truth will come unto them. But for the restored church to exist and have members in the first place, the truth needs to be made known unto that group of people first so that they can convert to the truth and establish that Church. Without the truth being made known first, there can be no restoration and establishment of the LDS Church in the first place. Therefore it is impossible for the whole group of LDS members to exist as a restored church, prior to the truth coming unto them, by definition.

          Factually then, the Gentiles must refer to a group of people who believe in God (at least until verse 8), but have not as yet (by verse 6) had the “truth come unto them”. Therefore, given the text, the assertion that Gentiles = “members of the LDS Church” is factually impossible.

      2. Steve, that is not even a caricature of what I actually said. Your “grammatical redundancy” argument actually proves too much, since the entirety of the Book of Mormon was one solid paragraph, without punctuation, from beginning to end, according to the printer. Therefore, verse 6 would be part of the same sentence as verse 8 and 10 on your theory, and would actually strengthen what it pleases you to call “my” theory. And, gee, what fun, that argument might be extended ad nauseam. I wonder what other interesting things would fall out if we tried that.

      3. Tell you what, Steve, I really dislike contention. I appreciate our previous cordial conversation, and you can win, if you wish.

        1. I apologize if I offended you, contention was not my aim either. I was trying to take the hint that you no longer cared about my opinion, and only wished to address factual based evidence, so that was what I was attempting to do. I thought you’d expressed interest that I share if I saw factual errors. When I referred to “your theory” I did not intend that to be derisive in any way. “your theory” was meant to differentiate between “my theory” since we had differing interpretations of that scripture. It was simply taken as a proposal “theory”, to analyze your assertion from a logical reasoning stand point.

          I found some of your later scriptures and interpretations interesting, but outside of 3rd Nephi 16 I had nothing else to offer other than my opinion versus your opinion, which I thought you felt was unhelpful.

          If you don’t want me taking your opinions and putting them up to logical scrutiny to address factual errors, and you don’t want me sharing my opinions or interpretations, I’m afraid I have nothing else I can offer.

          I did enjoy the in depth conversation, maybe things you or I said will help others in their search for understanding as well. Again, all the best!

      4. Steve, I don’t feel that you accurately represented what I said in the first place, therefore your analysis was not based on my views – at all.

        What I said was this:

        Unfortunately, verse 10 does not distinguish between the believing and unbelieving of the Gentiles. It refers to the Gentiles as one people. And it indicates that the Gentiles shall sin against the Gospel, and shall reject the fullness thereof, and the Father will bring the fullness thereof out from the Gentiles, and bring it to the house of Israel. After that point, if the Gentiles will repent, they shall be numbered among the house of Israel. And if they do repent, those of the house of Israel will not tread them down. But if they do not repent, they shall be trodden down.

        How long is the gap between the Gentile rejection of the fullness of the Gospel and the receipt of same by the house of Israel? It’s not clear. The mechanism is also unclear.

        Yet, it happens.

        In that, I am really doing nothing but glossing verses 10 through 15.

        But I accept Joseph’s prayer, given him by revelation, at the dedication of the Kirtland temple, in the which he said this:

        D&C 109:60
        60 Now these words, O Lord, we have spoken before thee, concerning the revelations and commandments which thou hast given unto us, who are identified with the Gentiles.

        He didn’t say “us, who are identified as the Gentiles,” ie., not every Gentile is a member of the LDS Church. I acknowledge that the Gentiles are more than just us. At certain points in time, within the scriptures, we don’t exist, whereas the Gentiles do (say, before the Restoration).

        But, when we exist, in context, then we are to be identified with the Gentiles. Which brings us back to 3 Nephi 16:10, wherein God, the Father, declares that the Gentiles shall sin against the Gospel, and shall reject the fullness thereof, etc. We make our appearance in v. 7. And then woes are pronounced upon the unbelieving of the Gentiles, notwithstanding the blessing of the Gentiles in obtaining this land (among whom we are numbered, for we exist at this point), and then the Gentiles (as a group, among whom we are numbered) shall sin against the Gospel of the Father, and reject the fullness thereof, and be filled with all manner of iniquity, and be lifted up above the whole earth in their pride, and so forth, the Father says He will bring the fullness of the Gospel from among the Gentiles (among whom we are numbered) and give it to the remnant of the house of Israel (which, in context, is the descendants of the people whom the Savior was addressing, the posterity of Lehi).

        This is just what it says, on its face.

        1. It does look like I misunderstood your position. I’ve heard that argument before, and I thought you were making the same argument. It sounds like you agree with my logic, but simply stated Gentiles = “members of the LDS Church” is not the premise of your position. Fair enough, I’m sorry I mistook your real position, it was not intentional.

          So I understand your position now to be that the Gentiles that reject the fulness of Gospel in verse 10, are not merely “unbelieving of the Gentiles” at the beginning of the sentence in contrast to the believing Gentiles in the previous sentence, but rather you see it as chronological – the Gentiles are first believing and blessed, but then become unbelieving, reject the fulness, and the fulness of the gospel is taken from among them.

          Therefore the group of Gentiles that reject the fulness of the gospel and have it taken from among them include: at least all descendants of Americans during the time of Joseph Smith – or at time of the restoration of the gospel (when the truth came unto the Gentiles vs 7), but may include Europeans (since that is the group of people from which most Gentiles left to come upon this land in the first place, then scattering, casting out, smiting, and slaying the Native Americans vs 8-9), or it could even possibly include everybody on earth not scripturally considered a direct descendants of the House of Israel. In any case, of this larger group of Gentiles, members of the church are to be considered a part of the larger whole of Gentiles (although numerically they would only make up a relatively small part of that group). Therefore this prophesy applies to the whole group of Gentiles and applies equally to LDS members as a part or portion of that larger group.

          Is that a fair characterization of your position?

      5. SteveF: “The conclusion of Denver’s narrative is more subtle, and therefore potentially more hazardous as it can go undetected – it is that the men at our head do not hold the authority they claim to hold, which inherently undermines the faith we have in their teachings or in their ability to teach us according to the mind and will of the Lord; this will directly lead to further disunity in the faith as disbelief will lead more people to follow the whims of their own wisdom and to ignore the voice of warning from the watchtower. The end result is a people with several minds and several hearts, with hearts sewn in discontent and chaos, leading the deceived in direct opposition to becoming a Zion people. Those are the fruits of this narrative/paradigm.”

        Steve, there is danger in following a prophet solely because of his position. BY counseled against having so much trust and faith in a mere man. We “follow the prophet” because the Holy Ghost tells us his witness is true. In other words, we follow God.

        I have to admit, I am persuaded by DS’s testimony. I have lost my former “unchecked” faith in the Brethren. I still respect them and sustain them. But am I in awe? Do I “hang” on their every word? Heavens no! Admittedly, I did (before). I previously yearned to have someone I could blindly follow. I “read” into their testimonies what I wanted to hear. I wanted a “god” I could easily see and know. The Lord, however, I believe, would have none of that. Those who are “followers” of Paul and Apollos, etc., are “damned” to the telestial kingdom, He tells us. (I’ll let Log cite the scriptural basis for that! From D&C 76!)

        If we come unto a “unity of the faith” it will not be because we rally behind some man or earthly leader, either collectively or individually. The doctrine that “the prophet cannot lead the Church astray” is so pernicious a lie because it allows one man to do just that! As DS explained, if priesthood ordinations could convey power in the absence of divine involvement, a wicked priesthood holder could bind heaven and earth and sell indulgences, etc., something Peter said could not happen. Nevertheless, on earth, such ordinations, when done by “proper” (though not necessarily “righteous”) priesthood authority, for the record’s sake, are considered “valid”. However, to be efficacious in heaven, I believe DS’s assertion is correct: every priesthood holder must receive his errand from the Lord Himself before he can be imbued with power from On High; and said power will only be conferred by exercising principles of righteousness, namely, patience, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned, etc., never coercion, compulsion or dominion upon the souls of men in any degree of unrighteousness. Not even Christ ever said “Because I said so!”

        DS’s paradigm amazingly answers virtually all of my questions regarding the current conditions/operations now evident in the Church (and in my own life), whereas other “explanations” I have read here seem to be just more “hopeful” rationalizations striving to persuade based on assertion of testimony alone or a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of DS’s actual thesis.

        In short, do I know DS is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? No. But he has certainly taught me many truths. I know because so much of his experience is like my own, up to and including his spiritual experiences. I know he could be telling the truth because he is telling my truth, whereas so often I’ve been told by those in “authority” in the Church that my truth is suspect, out of place, forbidden to be shared in public or in Church, “way out there”, etc. In short, I am a “stranger and a pilgrim” even in my own faith, while Snuffer’s is a familiar voice in the wilderness to me.

        Thus I believe very strongly that what he says is true. But I’m willing to entertain opposing viewpoints regarding his historical analysis. Remarkably, after reading tens of thousands of words and thousands of pages of commentary, both for and against, I’ve yet to read even one substantial argument against that is sufficiently comprehensive or authoritative to warrant conviction. Even the comments shared here (thus far that I’ve read) opposing DS are filled with supposition, address only portions of his arguments, or ignore essential facts that refute the “opposing” arguments being made.

        For example, several above submit that Joseph Smith transmitted the “fullness of the priesthood” to BY, presumably in the red brick store. But (as Snuffer has pointed out), if the red brick store were “adequate” to enable such an endowment to be conferred and transmitted, why did the Lord demand a temple be built — with a penalty imposed for failing to do so?

        What pray tell, would the saints in Nauvoo have experienced if the penalty had, in fact, been meted out — if not the very cursing and sufferings the saints, in fact, suffered? Could things have gotten worse? How far “removed out of their place” must they be for the prophecy to be fulfilled? Wasn’t Salt Lake City — a barren waste, formerly considered uninhabitable by man — far enough “out of their place”?

        Log has done a remarkable job addressing these issues here. I can neither add to nor detract from his analysis and commentary. But I have yet to find reason to fault DS either in his teachings or his conduct. He has, in fact, done more to “bring me to Christ” and the expectation that I can receive a “fullness of the priesthood” than the cumulative sermons of 30+ years of Sacrament Meetings I have attended. In fact, my current attendance in Church leaves me “starving” for “more”. DS is the only one preaching the gospel as taught by Joseph Smith (as far as I know). Who are these other guys? Why are their teachings so much like “the teachings of men, mingled with scripture”, whereas DS actually reveals hidden truths, things I barely “remembered” but always “suspected” and almost instantly “knew” to be true? Why have I experienced a new surge of momentum in (what I feel) is the right direction under his tutelage, whereas “the Brethren” have merely kept the ship moving in increasingly tighter and tighter circles? (The current priesthood manuals are perfect examples of this woefully circuitous navigation.)

        DS impels people to come unto Christ and be saved in Him! To receive greater knowledge from Him! To experience revelation from Him! What could possibly be wrong with that? Do “the Brethren” seriously think they should get in the way of that?

  80. Oh yes, I forgot.

    Who is invited to Zion?

    Moses 7: 27 And Enoch beheld angels descending out of heaven, bearing testimony of the Father and Son; and the Holy Ghost fell on many, and they were caught up by the powers of heaven into Zion.

    This actually brings up a point – to my understanding, the gift of the Holy Ghost, received through the baptism by fire (D&C 20:41, 43), administered by the Lord Himself, is the heavenly gift (Hebrews 6:4, [Ether 12:8 + 3 Nephi 28:11]).

    The first Comforter is whereby we receive revelations, as well as heavenly power (Moses 6:61) and priesthood (Moses 6:67), and become the sons of God (Moses 6:68). It is wherein we are sanctified (3 Nephi 27:20) and, inasmuch as we abide in Christ, our prayers are answered (D&C 50:29) and we have power to work miracles (3 Nephi 8:1), and will in time be brought into the presence of the Lord if we seek Him (Moroni 8:26 + Ether 12:28).

    So, if anyone cares, I, too, have reservations about Snuffer, and am awaiting further light and knowledge, whenever the Lord chooses to send it. After all, as Snuffer says, no mortal teacher is to be trusted – and that’s a paradox.

  81. Steve,

    That is quite a bit closer.

    I guess I can just step through it. Please bear in mind that the original text of the Book of Mormon lacked any and all punctuation, footnotes, chapter titles, versification, etc.

    I think of the Gentiles as whites of European descent, as opposed to the Jews, which I think of as the admixture of the descendants of Judah and Levi, the house of Israel, which I think of as the descendants Israel and can in some contexts include the Jews, and the heathen, who I think of as Asians, both near and far east, Africans, and Middle Easterners who are not descendants of Israel.

    6 And blessed are the Gentiles, because of their belief in me, in and of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses unto them of me and of the Father.

    7 Behold, because of their belief in me, saith the Father, and because of the unbelief of you, O house of Israel, in the latter day shall the truth come unto the Gentiles, that the fulness of these things shall be made known unto them.

    There is where the Book of Mormon comes forth unto the Gentiles – “the fullness of these things,” or, in other words, the words which the Savior is now speaking.

    But wo, saith the Father, unto the unbelieving of the Gentiles—for notwithstanding they [the Gentiles, who are the overall subject] have come forth upon the face of this land [which covers more, obviously, than just the unbelieving], and have scattered my people who are of the house of Israel; and my people who are of the house of Israel have been cast out from among them [the Gentiles], and have been trodden under feet by them [the Gentiles]; and because of the mercies of the Father unto the Gentiles [confirming the subject], and also the judgments of the Father upon my people who are of the house of Israel, verily, verily, I say unto you, that after all this, and I have caused my people who are of the house of Israel to be smitten, and to be afflicted, and to be slain, and to be cast out from among them [the Gentiles], and to become hated by them [the Gentiles], and to become a hiss and a byword among them [the Gentiles] — and thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.

    Now, here’s an interesting twist. Watch this, remembering there was no punctuation in the original.

    … thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day[,] when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel,….

    That comma would significant, in context; if it were present, it would narrow down the time in which these things should happen. At the day the Gentiles smite, afflict, slay, and cast out the house of Israel from among them, and make them a hiss and a byword among them, that would be the day they shall sin against the Gospel of the Father, and reject the fullness thereof, and be lifted up, etc.

    Remember how the natives were treated, even by Mormons, in the 1800’s.

    Something to ponder.

    11 And then will I remember my covenant which I have made unto my people, O house of Israel, and I will bring my gospel unto them.

    And yes, we are lumped in with the Gentiles, according to D&C 109:60 – and, I would hazard to say, even some of us were, and are, among the unbelieving of the Gentiles.

    So, if the fullness of the Gospel of the Father gets withdrawn from the Gentiles, then it gets withdrawn from the Church. Nevertheless, those who repent of all their sins and take the Spirit for their guide may thereby obtain all there is to have.

    Moroni 8:24-26
    24 [R]epentance is unto them that are under condemnation and under the curse of a broken law.

    25 And the first fruits of repentance is baptism; and baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins;

    26 And the remission of sins bringeth meekness, and lowliness of heart; and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect love, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer, until the end shall come, when all the saints shall dwell with God.

    Ether 12:28 Behold, I will show unto the Gentiles their weakness, and I will show unto them that faith, hope and charity bringeth unto me—the fountain of all righteousness.

    Moroni 7:48 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.

    Alas… it seems not many will do this, even if we have been offered the opportunity to enter into the Lord’s presence (as He said in Ether 12:28).

    Ether 12:33-41
    33 And again, I remember that thou hast said that thou hast loved the world, even unto the laying down of thy life for the world, that thou mightest take it again to prepare a place for the children of men.

    34 And now I know that this love which thou hast had for the children of men is charity; wherefore, except men shall have charity they cannot inherit that place which thou hast prepared in the mansions of thy Father.

    35 Wherefore, I know by this thing which thou hast said, that if the Gentiles have not charity, because of our weakness, that thou wilt prove them, and take away their talent, yea, even that which they have received, and give unto them who shall have more abundantly.

    36 And it came to pass that I prayed unto the Lord that he would give unto the Gentiles grace, that they might have charity.

    37 And it came to pass that the Lord said unto me: If they have not charity it mattereth not unto thee, thou hast been faithful; wherefore, thy garments shall be made clean. And because thou hast seen thy weakness thou shalt be made strong, even unto the sitting down in the place which I have prepared in the mansions of my Father.

    38 And now I, Moroni, bid farewell unto the Gentiles, yea, and also unto my brethren whom I love, until we shall meet before the judgment-seat of Christ, where all men shall know that my garments are not spotted with your blood.

    39 And then shall ye know that I have seen Jesus, and that he hath talked with me face to face, and that he told me in plain humility, even as a man telleth another in mine own language, concerning these things;

    40 And only a few have I written, because of my weakness in writing.

    41 And now, I would commend you to seek this Jesus of whom the prophets and apostles have written, that the grace of God the Father, and also the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of them, may be and abide in you forever. Amen.

    I think, ultimately, the fact that we, as a people, do not repent of all our sins and call upon the name of the Lord, as explicitly and repeatedly instructed throughout the Book of Mormon, that we may receive the Holy Ghost and charity thereby, is why we are cursed as a people.

    54 And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—

    55 Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.

    56 And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.

    57 And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written

    58 That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion.

    59 For shall the children of the kingdom pollute my holy land? Verily, I say unto you, Nay.

    The teachings of the Book of Mormon, the most correct book on earth, give us both a way to diagnose our weakness, and also give us the prescription to cure it.

  82. It is to be remembered that salvation is, as far as each of us individually is concerned, is a single-player game, not a team effort. Each one of us must forge our own connection to heaven. None of us can repent for another, neither can we call upon the name of the Lord for another. It really doesn’t matter which model of Church history you believe, for the one thing God has asked of us is to repent of all our sins – cast them aside, no matter the cost, and make our eye single to the glory of God [meaning to focus our minds and hearts solely upon obedience to the teachings of the Savior and the promptings of the Spirit] – call upon His name to receive His Spirit, and endure to the end in faith, hope, and charity, always abounding in good works.

    1. Interesting thoughts, my interpretation is still quite a bit different, but that’s probably not helpful to go into now, and I find your position more consistent than Denver’s anyhow. So as not to detract from the overall conversation, I’m going to pull this back to Denver if that’s okay with you. Looking at chapter 14 of PTHG entitled “Gentiles Shall Reject the Fullness of the Gospel”, the premise hinges once again on verses in D&C 124 that we have discussed already, and then primarily 3 Nephi 16. While Denver avoids openly/directly committing to a position in any given sentence, he shows his position by using as a premise the interpretation for 3 Nephi 16 that Gentiles = “gentile church” (“The rejection by the gentile church is a condition to precede the remnant receiving a fullness.” PTHG, pg 382), by which Denver means “gentile latter-day church” (pg 383), by which he means “Us” or “Latter-day Saints” (pg 385).

      While Denver at this point leaves this open as a future event, by attempting to tie it in directly with his interpretations of D&C 124, it is clear he believes “gentiles” in 3 Nephi 16 refers to the “gentile church” / “Latter-day Saints” and that this prophecy of a rejection of the fullness, is now a past event. I think you’d agree since your major second point that you requested me to respond to was, “The Gentile rejection of the fullness of the Gospel, prophesied in the Book of Mormon, is a past event. This is the overall thesis of PTHG.”

      And as I pointed out, interpreting “Gentiles” to mean “Latter-day Saints” thus saying this prophecy has already been fulfilled by members of the LDS church “rejecting the fullness of the gospel” (due to not living up to the requirements in D&C 124), is a factually impossible interpretation given the text.

      So initially, instead of attributing the assertion to you, I should have written “Denver’s theory” instead of “your theory”, since it looks like your position/conclusion is quite a bit different than his.

      1. Steve F, You are correct again. One of Snuffer’s most egregious errors is to consistently (and exclusively I think) equate the terms Gentiles in the BOM with the Lord’s Covenant People, rather than the way the BOM text itself characterizes the Gentiles, as meaning all those who are outside of the tribe of Judah in the Old World. A careful reading of BOM passages makes it clear that the BOM is usually using the wide sense of the definition. This is an error, and Snuffer is forever trying to pound this interpretation down our throat as we read PTHG. Does this distinction matter? Yes it does. Because it serves Snuffer’s purpose to imply that the leadership of the Church is either in apostasy or just a step removed from it, and also the basis for his belief that the church as a whole are under condemnation. Also, that leadership is not getting revelations, at least not as Joseph Smith did in earlier times. But, how, short of direct revelation, does Snuffer or anyone else know this? As for Snuffer being asked to write: he stated this in Second Comforter, but I saw no reference to this in PTHG.

    2. “call upon His name to receive His Spirit, and endure to the end in faith, hope, and charity, always abounding in good works.”

      I agree with your sentiment here that we should be doing these things. Thanks.

  83. Before I go further, I think this might be profitable to ponder.

    When the Father pronounces a wo upon the unbelieving of the Gentiles, and, knowing we are identified with the Gentiles, then the Father is speaking of the unbelieving among us as well.

    This shouldn’t be objectionable, I don’t believe.

    Matthew 13:24-30
    24 ¶Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

    25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

    26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

    27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

    28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

    29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

    30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

    Matthew 13:47-50
    47 ¶Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:

    48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.

    49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,

    50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    I think that may address one of your objections.

  84. And what were they not believing? Apparently, the teachings of the Book of Mormon.

    And that was not a failing exclusive to non-members, looking again at D&C 84:54-59.

    1. I agree that being a member does not negate the individual member from being able to fall under the category “unbelieving of the Gentiles” with all is associated warnings. So I agree with you, and I believe we should be aware of these warnings as they very well have direct application to us. I think we are on the same page on this point.

      1. If we are on the same page, then you should agree we now have all the players (the [unbelieving of the] Gentiles, cf D&C 84), as well as the historical events (casting out of the posterity of Lehi, etc), in place to fulfill the conditions of the Father’s statement pertaining to the Gentile rejection of the fullness of His Gospel, as recounted in 3 Nephi 16, placing it in our past.

  85. I will address Snuffer’s claim, as you have presented it, and D&C 124, a bit later this evening, if that’s ok.

    1. Yes, that’s fine. I’ve had a some time to spend on this the past couple of days, but my time is going to be very limited the rest of the week. I’m honestly starting to get a little worn out too, but I’ll try to do my best to respond where you really want me to. You definitely should win some sort of stamina award here! I’m impressed. I don’t know if Geoff or some of the others are still around, but I hope they or others can step in where I might not be able to adequately answer you.

  86. I’m still here, following along. I’ve read all the comments.

    I just received PTHG and now kind of dread reading it given the conversation here.

    JSH 1:12
    “for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects cunderstood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible [scripture].”

    Log, you seem very convinced of your interpretation. A few things just don’t seem to square with reality or seem based on very sandy ground.

    I think you have way too much hinging on D&C 109:60, as well as very few passages of scripture which could easily mean something other than what you are interpreting. Just as I think Denver has way too much hinging on his interpretation of D&C 124 and 2 Nephi 16.

    I don’t believe the Lord considers us who have been gathered into the House of Israel (by covenant) to be Gentiles. I believe we are of the House of Israel. Two of my great grandparents were native American, so even by that interpretation I feel I may have some claim.

    Log, your interpretation of all these passages and linking them together just doesn’t seem plausible to me in the grand scheme of things. I don’t believe the Lord’s will for the Restoration was to set up a failure and for the Gospel not to spread, or alternatively roll on in some strange administrative/custodial fashion which everyone would misinterpret – like we are all deceived. I don’t think he designed this eclectic view, which the pure in heart and simple of faith will never even hear of, much less understand. I think SteveF is right – this feels like false doctrine and deception. The feeling is just off – it is not uplifting. The Church is spreading the Gospel to all the world and building Temples to the Lord everywhere we can. This is all sustained by huge consecrations of time and faith and material means. The Church and the Temple, the ordinances and covenants, enable each individual to come unto the Father by degrees.

    Part of your obvious disappointment I think spawns from improper expectations. For example, your expectation that miracles and supernatural manifestations would be commonplace and public, I think, is misplaced. I don’t think it was ever that way, except in rare cases, or when the collective group was united in faith. There are too many examples of this principle to mention, from every dispensation: the 3 Witnesses. Oliver while Joseph was translating and then when he tried to do it. Section 76, only Joseph and Sidney saw & heard. Moroni’s visits to Joseph while his family slept. Saul/Paul on the Road. Only those the Lord intended to receive, and who had the faith, eyes to see and ears to hear, experienced the manifestations and saw & heard for themselves. Often others were present and did not experience.

    Obtaining a perfect knowledge is not easy, is an individual effort, and is not intended to be publicly consumed. The Plan is not to wow people with supernatural power. That doesn’t seem to come until it is practically too late for them to exercise faith and repentance.

    I’m also convinced that the Lord’s perfect plan extends well beyond the veil. He is very patient with us and His mercy is boundless. For those of us who are sincerely trying to come unto Him, there is no collective condemnation. For most, even on the right course, the full realization of their blessings will occur after death. Heavenly Father is perfectly capable of accomplishing his eternal designs and most of it is through the very nature of this mortal life He has given us.

    I don’t feel like we are rejected as a Church or a people. I know I am not rejected. I feel loved and cherished as a son. My personal spiritual encounters are not for public consumption. But we can be sitting in the same meeting and have totally different experiences. Personal faith, repentance, righteousness, and preparation have everything to do with it.

    I don’t believe Denver is a prophet. The power of the Holy Ghost is real and is perfectly willing to reveal the truth to us.

    SteveF, I very much appreciate your sharing, particularly since you came out of this depressing perspective. I would very much like to hear your story. How did you go from this very narrow narrative of the Church being a shell to knowing that it is true and living?

    My parents were converts – from Baptist and Nazarene – and I grew up in the mission field. We are from Texas. My personal knowledge of the truth has come through faith, prayer, scripture study, particularly The Book of Mormon, obedience, repentance, service, and the Temple. So many spiritual experiences. Many of which are too sacred to share except when the Spirit directs. SteveF, please confirm if this is the same for you.

    Moroni 7
    29 And because he hath done this, my beloved brethren, have miracles ceased? Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither have angels ceased to minister unto the children of men.
    30 For behold, they are subject unto him, to minister according to the word of his command, showing themselves unto them of strong faith and a firm mind in every form of godliness.
    31 And the office of their ministry is to call men unto repentance, and to fulfil and to do the work of the covenants of the Father, which he hath made unto the children of men, to prepare the way among the children of men, by declaring the word of Christ unto the chosen vessels of the Lord, that they may bear testimony of him.
    32 And by so doing, the Lord God prepareth the way that the residue of men may have faith in Christ, that the Holy Ghost may have place in their hearts, according to the power thereof; and after this manner bringeth to pass the Father, the covenants which he hath made unto the children of men.

    D&C 46
    13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.
    14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

    We are on the Alma 32 path, as long as we keep striving to repent and obey the will of the Lord in our lives. He does not leave us in the dark.

    I know the ordinances have power. When my father said, “receive the Holy Ghost” – I was baptized with spiritual fire. I have felt the Spirit that powerful many times in my life.

    I hope you find your own connection, Log. I don’t think you will find it through this anti-orthodox narrative. But the Lord will help you as long as your heart and your life are right with him.

    I will agree with you on this: many aspects of Mormon culture are not true. They are false traditions, which I’m sure the Lord is working to purge, because they do hold us back. Hero worship of the Brethren is one of those false traditions. But it is so much a matter of perspective. Come unto Christ and be perfected in Him. But the brethren are great examples of discipleship, very mature spirits, whom the Lord has chosen to teach and inspire and to help us rise up, as we should help each other. Let him that is strong take with him, him that is weak. The scriptures are true: full of good examples and bad, to learn the truth from. The truth is things as they were, are, and are to come – that encompasses everything. We have to have the light of the Lord to discern the good from the evil. Do not underestimate the power of the evil one to mix truth and error.

    One very alarming part of Denver’s current example is that he is no longer a member of the Church. And yet he is still writing and speaking. I hope he does not lead people to follow his example of leaving the Church. He is at the center of a lot of confusion – it does not feel right.

    1. Geoff, from an early age I had a testimony of the truth of the gospel, the truth of the Book of Mormon, and a deep respect for Joseph Smith and a knowledge that he was a prophet of God. That testimony has continued to grow over time. I think wear I was stuck in this paradigm, is first I was raised in it, but second I did not understand people on a deeper level – what made them tick, where they came from, what backgrounds they were raised in, what struggles they were dealing with, and third I had a great understanding of justice but really lacked an understanding of God’s mercy and as a result I used to put principles before people rather than the other way around.

      But as I sought diligently to keep the commandments, to abide by the gospel principles while drinking from the scriptures and praying with all diligence, I think it was only natural that becoming familiar with light that eventually it would shed light on my false traditions. I attribute the large shift in paradigm to really two things that happened almost simultaneously. The first is that as I began to really study and listen to the words of our modern prophets and apostles, the same spirit that would burn within me as I studied the scriptures would fill my heart as I listened to their words. I noticed that my thoughts and worries for people, were the very problems they were addressing. I always thought they were nice decent men, but really had never considered them true prophets in the same sense that I saw Joseph Smith as a prophet. But as I felt this Spirit, I gained a testimony that these men were teaching the Church exactly what the Savior would have them teach. I then realized that the Savior had been in control this whole time, and my fears and worries for the state of the Saints began to dissipate – I was filled with the hope of the Savior, and I felt true peace not only for myself, but for the Church collectively. That did not mean all problems were solved, or that I suddenly thought we have reached a state of Zion, but I gained an assurance that we were on the path that God would have us be on.

      This happened about the same time as I really began to serve people around me with my might, mind, and strength. In my old paradigm, I often mourned for the Saints, mourned that they lived so far below their privileges. I thought if only they would turn to the words of Joseph Smith, they could enjoy visions and untold blessings, and come to see the face of God – but I mourned their complacency and feared that we as a collective people were condemned by God. I was sincere in my worries. But as I began to serve people, and got to know their stories, that not everyone was born of goodly parents, that not everyone was raised with daily scripture study, that not everyone had it as nice and easy as I did, I began to see the inherent goodness in people. I saw that they were truly striving to do what is right, I saw that there were reasons for their struggles and limitations. I grew in compassion towards these people, I wanted to forgive them of their sins, I wanted to overlook their faults and say, “God, have mercy on your children who are honestly doing the best they can with what they have been given.” In short, I began to truly love the Saints whom I once mourned for (and grew in love towards all of God’s children for that matter), and realized that they were not suffering from complacency for the most part, but rather were burdened with the toils of this mortal and difficult world. As I grew in love, I knew that God loved them. As I desired to be merciful, I knew that God was indeed merciful, and that God sent his Son not only to bring us the higher law, but to truly offer mercy to this burdened world. I knew then that God’s plan wasn’t so weak and narrow that he only intended to save and exalt a few of His children. No, the plan of God was not so limited as I supposed, his work was truly to all humans that have ever or yet will live, past, present, and future, and He restored this gospel so that eventually it would bless every last one His children. Somehow I missed that both Jesus and Joseph Smith were quite the Universalists when it really came down to it, and now having tasted the love of God to a greater degree, I am too.

    2. Geoff, I agree with you and Steve F. I believe, from my personal experience, that the Holy Ghost is alive and well and operating actively in the lives of the members and the leadership. It is for me a living reality. I believe the leadership is going through the same mortal testing experience all of us are being subjected to. For me, I believe it takes a prophet to understand a prophet, which for me means that the Holy Ghost can reveal to us individually where the leadership it taking us, and that for the most part, direction through the Holy Ghost is sufficient to move the Church to the destination it needs to go. Those who anticipate or demand even that the leadership be receiving direct revelations daily, are misunderstanding the nature of things. Most members have a long, long tutelage under the direction of the Holy Ghost before they are prepared for the greater manifestations. A refusal to go through this long and often tortuous path, is just an admission that we are unwilling to get onto the straight and narrow path and exercise out faith in pressing forward. Allowing the faults and failings of our history or current leadership (and there are ample areas of human error, folly and sin there to explore) to sidetrack us from our individual pursuit of the pathway is unwise spiritually. Uncritically accepting the “official” version of the church history is unnecessary, but so is the uncritical swallowing down of Snuffer’s version of church history too, which is, despite his recent insistence to having transcended history to arrive at the “truth,” At the end of the day, Snuffer has written a plausible interpretation of history, but it is but one interpretation amongst several possible and equally plausible interpretations. For me personally, I do not find his arguments persuasive.

      1. I was just looking back on this, and realized I probably didn’t get the chance to respond to you directly. I appreciated your thoughts and testimony throughout this whole conversation, so thank you.

  87. Eh. It’s ok. I’m only talking about Snuffer and PTHG here because, well, it was the topic of the post.

    If you don’t feel to read the book, don’t! But don’t discuss it, then. That would be a shame and a folly (Prov. 18:13).

    Indeed, as I said before, I would not recommend reading the book. And I’m not here to persuade you that the book is true, correct, or anything else.

    I’m saying the claims Snuffer makes are consistent with the scriptures and the acknowledged historical facts in our possession. That, in and of itself, is a problem.

    I have also said that the number of people with opinions about PTHG vastly exceed the number of people with knowledge of its contents. Most responses to claims raised in PTHG have been from people who haven’t read the book, or who are inaccurately representing what it says. That is another problem.

    I also have said I believe his narrative is more plausible than the traditional narrative, based on both the scriptures and the historical facts in our possession. But I am willing to wait. I have studied this out for the more part of a year, and I can wait until I am answered.

    And everyone’s entitled to their own interpretation of scripture. I reject, utterly, the notion that any mortal man has the power, or the right, to dictate the meaning of the scriptures, setting forth creeds to which one must assent or be asked out of the Church. I personally prefer to read the scriptures at face value, as Joseph taught (“What is the rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely as it reads”), and as Hugh Nibley practiced, and, at literal face value, they say what they say – even if that’s not what we’re taught that they say.

    For example, Christ came to the Nephites 9 months after the destruction of the wicked (seriously; look it up). Yet, for some odd reason, most people think it was the day after the darkness lifted, or shortly thereafter. Why is that, do you think?

    Lastly, I don’t have an agenda. I don’t start with a conclusion and try to reason backwards, wresting the scriptures to conform to what I think or feel ought to be true. When one consciously decides to read closely, even minutely, and ignore one’s teachers in preference to the voice of the Spirit in one’s readings, one finds that one sees things which were previously unsuspected, or even spoken against elsewhere.

    Anyways, all of this is a puzzle that each must work out for themselves – or even decline to work out for themselves. 🙂 No judgement from me either way. I appreciate Steve’s engagement, and the civility with which it has been done.

  88. Let me respond to this, though.

    And as I pointed out, interpreting “Gentiles” to mean “Latter-day Saints” thus saying this prophecy has already been fulfilled by members of the LDS church “rejecting the fullness of the gospel” (due to not living up to the requirements in D&C 124), is a factually impossible interpretation given the text.

    Actually, what I have stated is precisely what I understand Snuffer to be saying. He uses the phrase “the Gentile Church” because, in the prophetic narrative, after the Restoration, we are identified with the Gentiles (D&C 109:60). Whatever befalls the Gentiles, in the scriptures, once we have happened upon the scene, befalls us. Therefore, one may profitably interpret the phrase “the Gentiles” as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 3 Nephi 16:10 (and Ether 12, JST Matt 21, and so forth), or, more colorfully, “the Gentile church”. That draws out the message of the Book of Mormon, to us specifically, who are very nearly its sole readers anyways.

    As for D&C 124 – the early Saints understood the Lord was talking to them, and not the world at large. Hence the rush to close the barn door (complete the temple) after the horses escaped (Joseph’s martyrdom).

    Let me actually pass on explicating D&C 124. You can get my understanding of it by simply reading it without imputing anything to it at all.

  89. It’s interesting since President Benson some members have been reading the Book of Mormon more and more closely, and deeper meanings are surfacing. How many people skip over 2Nephi 32:6 and 3 Nephi 10:18 (like Log said) and don’t realize what they just read?

    Now the problem becomes one of who is understanding the correct meaning, even analyzing where commas are placed.

    All agree there are some serious consequences to befall the Gentiles including members who are too involved in the world.

    So understanding the BOM better also opens up an avenue for the adversary to try different angles, including the concept of church and leader apostasy.

    Where is Tim? I’m wondering about his thoughts/reviews of the recent DS lectures.

  90. I’ve spent $28 so I’m going to read it, I’m just not looking forward to it.

    One does not have to read a book to discuss some of its principles or assertions. This thread is more about Denver’s teachings and approach in general, not just PTHG. And, like I said, I read SC twice and like 95% of his blog (don’t know which entries I missed and I’m not going back through to find out because it was insanely long – he turned it into 5 volumes after all). But that’s why I’ve left most of the discussion of PTHG specifically to SteveF and you – no one else commenting here seems to have read it. 🙂

    SteveF doesn’t seem to think Denver’s interpretive lens is very well aimed and Steve actually had viewed the Church through a similar paradigm for several decades. That’s very interesting. I hope he shares more about how he came from there to here.

    For my part, I read your explanations and interpretations of these scriptural passages – your representation of what I’m guessing I’ll find more of in PTHG – and they just seem too erudite to be true. They don’t seem to fit the cosmic scale. They seem very provincial and narrow. They also don’t seem to harmonize with many prophecies which the Church as I see it does.

    For example:

    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 for ever.
    45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

    D&C 65 (corresponding)
    2 The keys of the kingdom of God are committed unto man on the earth, and from thence shall the gospel roll forth unto the ends of the earth, as the stone which is cut out of the mountain without hands shall roll forth, until it has filled the whole earth.

    This perspective/reading/interpretation of the Church being rejected and condemned collectively because they didn’t finish the Nauvoo Temple (and that the Lord’s provision of mercy, in the same section 124, was not applied), etc., doesn’t seem to fit these other prophecies of the scriptures.

    How about this one:

    2 Nephi 12:2 / Isaiah 2:2
    2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, when the mountain of the Lord’s chouse shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it.
    3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the chouse of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

    Sounds a lot like the Salt Lake Temple, literally, to me.

    I was married and sealed there. What a cool place.

    I feel the Spirit of the Lord very strongly in the Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I don’t think they are rejected.

    Maybe you could lay out your perspective a little more clearly. Maybe I just don’t understand it – maybe that’s why it seems so full of holes to me.

    How does your view account for all these prophecies about the Gospel and The Book of Mormon flooding the earth and going to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, and filling the whole earth fit? Who else is accomplishing this but the LDS Church? Maybe explain plainly what your view of the current Church is, and if it is the same as Denver’s?

    Thanks, and I mean no offense, just trying to really understand.

  91. This perspective/reading/interpretation of the Church being rejected and condemned collectively because they didn’t finish the Nauvoo Temple (and that the Lord’s provision of mercy, in the same section 124, was not applied), etc., doesn’t seem to fit these other prophecies of the scriptures.

    Ah. The negative consequences pronounced for failure, especially the publicly noticeable one – the casting out of the Saints from Nauvoo, and the following cursings they experienced, however, were applied, unquestionably.

    Assume “If P, then Q” is a true statment (P and Q are some propositions, and this relationship is a correct one). Modus ponens says if P occurs, Q must necessarily occur. Modus tollens says if Q doesn’t occur, then P did not occur.

    If they built the temple within the allotted time, then they would not be moved from their place (Nauvoo), the Lord would come and restore that which He had taken, and so forth.

    The Saints were most definitely, and literally, moved from their place (Nauvoo), with wrath, judgments, and cursings, and so forth – at least, it reads that way to me from the history books.

    The fullness of the Gospel, which either has been, or will be, taken from the Gentiles, and brought to the posterity of Lehi, has to get to them somehow, doesn’t it?

    2 Nephi 12:2 / Isaiah 2:2
    2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, when the mountain of the Lord’s chouse shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it.

    3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the chouse of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

    Sounds a lot like the Salt Lake Temple, literally, to me.

    Joseph taught this.

    President J Smith arose and said it is impossible to continue the subject that I spoke upon yesterday in Consequence of the weekness of my lungs. Yet I have a proclamation to make to the Elders you know the Lord has led the Church untill the present time I have now a great proclamation for the Elders to teach the Church hereafter which is in relation to Zion, The whole of North and South America is Zion, the mountain of the Lords House is in the Centre of North & South America, when the House is done, Baptism font erectd and finished & the worthy are washed, anointed, endowed & ordained Kings & priests, which must be done in this life, when the place is prepared you must go through all the ordinances of the house of the Lord so that you who have any dead friends must go through all the ordinances for them the same as for yourselves; then the Elders are to go through all America & build up Churches untill all Zion is built up, but not to commence to do this untill the Temple is built up here and the Elders endowed then go forth & accomplish the work & build up stakes in all North and South America, Their will be some place ordained for the redeeming of the dead I think this place will be the one, so their will be gathering fast enough here. President Smith lungs failed him and he appointed Elder G. J. Adams to occupy the time during the foornoon He however remarked that his proclamation just made was the greatest ever made as all could not come here; but it was necessary that enough should come to build up the temple & get an endowment so that the work could spread abroad. (Words of Joseph Smith, p. 364. This took place on April 8, 1844. The temple he’s referring to was Nauvoo, which was never completed.)

    In this context, check out 3 Nephi 21. I think it will come about in an unexpected manner.

    I feel the Spirit of the Lord very strongly in the Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I don’t think they are rejected.

    The Spirit is strong there, indeed. That, however, doesn’t mean they are accepted. It just means the Spirit is strong there.

    How does your view account for all these prophecies about the Gospel and The Book of Mormon flooding the earth and going to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, and filling the whole earth fit? Who else is accomplishing this but the LDS Church? Maybe explain plainly what your view of the current Church is, and if it is the same as Denver’s?

    I don’t have a pat answer for the fulfillment of prophecies, which are always open to interpretation until they come to pass.

    And I actually don’t have an answer for what my view of the current Church is. I find Snuffer’s take, that we are in much the same way as the Jews anciently were after Moses was taken, to be extremely plausible – but I don’t know. That would be a subject repeatedly addressed in prayer, and I am waiting on the answers. For now, as I see things, whether Snuffer is right or wrong, whether the traditional narrative is wrong or right, whether the Church holds the sealing keys or not, it doesn’t change what I should be doing from moment to moment.

    There are some things which are known to me, among which are these: the Brethren are servants of God, for God has referred to them as such to me, and the Church’s teachings pertaining to the salvation of men are true, because God said so to me. I also know Joseph to be a true prophet, because God told me just that.

  92. I don’t know that Joseph was quite as much a universalist as claimed.

    In what might be the very first FAQ published by the Church, we find this.

    When asked “Will all be damned but Mormons?” Smith replied, “Yes, and a great portion of them unless they repent and work righteousness” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 119).

    Now, it is consistent to say that someone will be both saved and damned, in our religion.

    After all, the telestial kingdom is salvation (D&C 76:88). Yet they are damned.

    Moreover, there will be inhabitants of the celestial kingdom who will be damned (D&C 132:17). Yet they are saved.

    And there are those who shall be cast out, who cannot be saved, according to the scripture.

    Our goal is not salvation – for almost all shall indeed be saved. Our goal is far loftier, and far harder to obtain – indeed, it costs everything we are and have.

  93. Thanks for sharing, SteveF. My experience and growth toward the Lord has many similarities. The greatest discovery has been one of the simplest – if you want to know God, learn to truly love, to love and serve Him and His children. This requires all out service. There’s no other way to get to know the Godhead: the Holy Ghost, the Son/Christ, and the Father – if any man will do His will, he shall know. Not to plagiarize LDS Family Services’ motto, but it’s all about love. Moroni 7 is not trivial, it is fundamental to coming unto Christ and being perfected IN Him. I see a much more universal view now, too. Degrees of glory, mercifully prepared. I’m not even so sure we know what the Lord means by certain scriptures. I think D&C 19 is a great example in which He defines what He means by eternal.

    I found a very interesting transcription of something attributed to Joseph Smith by one of his close associates in which he is reported to have said that one “eternity” or eternal round was something like 2.5 billion years. Think of it. Perhaps our views are too narrow. Maybe many won’t make it to the celestial glory, perhaps they go to the terrestrial – for what seems to us like a long time, eternity, but maybe one eternity is finite, however large, given we speak of it in plural sometimes. Maybe they have an opportunity to progress. I know I’ve heard some Apostles give their hardline opinions to the contrary, but we really don’t have any doctrine on it. There really is so little we know for sure, unless it is revealed to us clearly. I know this, though, He wants to aim and strive, as hard as we can, in this life for the highest we can achieve with His help.

  94. “I’m saying the claims Snuffer makes are consistent with the scriptures and the acknowledged historical facts in our possession.”

    They aren’t, unless someone reads them with the intent and purpose of using them to make or defend those claims. They have to be isolated and twisted to get Denver’s claims from them, but once they are isolated and twisted, those claims can be justified. I’m a former History teacher (which is why I decided to write this comment), and I’ve seen this same pattern over and over and over again in bad history textbooks.

    /back to only reading these posts and comments

  95. I think Tim should add one to his list in his post – #21 – “He’s reading it wrong!”

    /chuckle

  96. If we are on the same page, then you should agree we now have all the players (the [unbelieving of the] Gentiles, cf D&C 84), as well as the historical events (casting out of the posterity of Lehi, etc), in place to fulfill the conditions of the Father’s statement pertaining to the Gentile rejection of the fullness of His Gospel, as recounted in 3 Nephi 16, placing it in our past.

    Log, starting tomorrow I will have very little time, so I won’t be able to respond to all the points/concerns you brought up, although most of my answers will just repeat many of the things I’ve already said.

    But you seem particularly hung up on 3 Nephi 16. So I’m going to throw you a bone here and give you an interpretation as it has been revealed to me by the Spirit. I am not an authority, and therefore you are under no obligation to receive it, but I know if you will seek to understand the spirit of my words, you will know that I speak the truth.

    No, I do not think that a handful of saints who apostatized in Nauvoo are able to represent the whole of the Gentiles, and decide their fate for them. I do not believe in a God that would inflict such a curse due to the unfaithfulness of a handful of individuals. This is not the meaning of these verses.

    Here is a doctrine revealed by Joseph Smith, “This first Comforter or Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence. It is more powerful in expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, and storing the intellect with present knowledge, of a man who is of the literal seed of Abraham, than one that is a Gentile though it may not have half as much visual effect upon his body; for as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene; and his whole soul and body are only exercised by the pure spirit of intelligence; while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have new creation by the Holy Ghost.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.149)

    If you will understand this doctrine, you will come to see that one of the purposes of the Church, particularly as the truth that comes unto the gentiles, is to gather these believing gentiles, baptize them and give them the gift of the Holy Ghost that by abiding by gospel covenants, they may actually become the seed of Abraham.

    So then, these righteous believing gentiles, once they abide in truth and receive the Holy Ghost, and their blood is purged, are they then considered Gentiles or the House of Israel? Be faithful in your response, and you will recognize the truth of the matter.

    But how then once these gentiles are made Israelites, how are they properly gathered? The Savior declared to the Jews, sons of Israel, in his day, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” How did the Savior desire to go about this gathering? Joseph knew that in 1835 that the church was still identified with the Gentiles, as you have frequently pointed out, but in 1836 here comes D&C 110, and what do we see but Moses giving Joseph and Oliver the keys of the gathering of Israel. Missionary work was well under way, but how was Israel to be gathered? Look no further than the rites restored in Nauvoo following the restoration of these keys. It is the temple where Israel is gathered.

    So what today is called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is the means by which the truth is being taken to the world, and more particularly and primarily to those believing gentiles who because of their belief will have the truth come unto them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost, have their blood purged, and be grafted in to the House of Israel.

    But the day will come that the large remainder of the Gentiles will be unbelieving, and they shall sin against the gospel, rejecting the fulness of the gospel, and they shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations. And because of this wickedness, and their rejecting of the fullness of the gospel brought forth unto them by God’s Church, the LDS Church, God will take the gospel from among them, and our missionary work will no longer be about gathering in these gentiles, save for the few who will repent and return unto God that will still be able to join the Saints, have their blood purged, and be numbered among God’s people. At this time the work will turn both to focusing on gathering Israelites internally through a greater focus on the work of the temple, but also the gospel and missionary efforts will be turned to the House of Israel still outside of the Church that they may be brought unto this fullness. And in this way will the gospel be then taken to Israel. Those who were once Gentiles, and as the gospel that came first to the Gentiles, set up this standard and ensign to the nations, and then shall they turn this standard toward Israel, and shall go forth and bring the sons of Israel in their arms, and the daughters of Israel on their shoulders, and Kings & Priests and Queens & Priestesses shall be the nursing fathers and mothers of the Israelites. And thus the Lord shall remember the covenants He has made with His people, and He will gather them, that Zion and Jerusalem will be established in all their glory. This is the glorious path of the stone cut out of the mountain without hands, truly a marvelous work and a wonder.

    You need not waste your breath in trying object or convince me otherwise, I know what the Spirit has revealed to me, and if you will receive this Spirit, you will know that I speak the truth.

    I know you are praying for answers, I also pray that your heart may be softened, and the Spirit may be upon you that the scales may fall from your eyes as they have mine, and you will see as I see. I will not be able to address all your concerns, but if you will listen to the testimony that I have offered, and the testimonies of several others here who also speak according to the Spirit of truth, you will find those answers you are looking for.

    Your brother in Christ.

    1. *I will also add, that it is at this time when the unbelieving gentiles will be rejecting the fullness of the gospel, that their doctrine and their ideology will be so strong and believable, that those members of the Church who have not abided by their covenants and become part of blood Israel, the great majority of them will be deceived, and they will leave and join the ranks of the unbelieving gentiles. This is one of the meanings behind the parables of the Ten Virgins parable and the Wheat and the Tares.

  97. No, I do not think that a handful of saints who apostatized in Nauvoo are able to represent the whole of the Gentiles, and decide their fate for them. I do not believe in a God that would inflict such a curse due to the unfaithfulness of a handful of individuals. This is not the meaning of these verses

    He did so before – to Israel. God changes not.

    And you are mischaracterizing Nauvoo. The Church, as a whole, failed to do what the Lord commanded, and the threatened consequences were fulfilled, publicly.

    Apostasy? I don’t use that word; it truly means very little to me. The gate is still there, and the way to it is described in the Book of Mormon, and the Holy One of Israel is still waiting to baptize by fire and the Holy Ghost any who will come through it.

    So then, these righteous believing gentiles, once they abide in truth and receive the Holy Ghost, and their blood is purged, are they then considered Gentiles or the House of Israel? Be faithful in your response, and you will recognize the truth of the matter

    Yes, they are Gentiles, as far as the scriptural identification is concerned – whatever else may be said. That’s the point of D&C 109:60. And that is consistent with 3 Nephi 22, as well, whereas on the interpretation you are proffering, nobody can meet that description (since all Gentiles who repent automatically are no longer Gentiles). And your view also makes hash out of JST Matt 21, and aims the warnings of the Book of Mormon safely away from the members of the Church and onto those outside of it, who will more than likely never read it.

    You need not waste your breath in trying object or convince me otherwise, I know what the Spirit has revealed to me, and if you will receive this Spirit, you will know that I speak the truth.

    Ok. Conversation over. Once someone uses their personal revelation as a club, there really is nowhere left to go.

    I would like to point out that you are interpreting me through your experiences, your thoughts, your concerns, your history, and, by your own words, it seems you are doing the same to Snuffer, and it seems you are unable to correctly perceive his words either. You’ve gotten me wrong, at the least, and I can say this with authority.

    But I appreciate your concern and acknowledge your good intentions. You mean no harm, and are trying to salvage someone you see as going apostate.

    1. I do not think you are going apostate. If I understand right, in the end you are not committing to a position at this point in time. If you said you had committed to a position, I would not have put nearly this much effort into this. I think if you are sincere and your heart is right, which I cannot judge, the Lord will guide you to the answers you seek.

      Like I said, I spent nearly two decades in a very similar paradigm, and I did not apostatize. I do think it is dangerous ground, but again for the sincere in heart, I believe God will lead them aright in the end.

  98. I just realized you have implicitly conceded the identification of the Gentiles in Isaiah and the Book of Mormon (ie, the nursing kings and queens, who are in the scripture not described as “those who had once been Gentiles,” but as Gentiles [2 Nephi 10:9, etc.]), and have gotten who will be joining whom backwards (again, 3 Nephi 21:22-25).

    I do not accept revelations which contradict scripture.

      1. Yes, they shall be numbered among the house of Israel, however, they are still referred to in the narrative as Gentiles.

        After all, the Gentiles who repent and are numbered among the posterity of Lehi are still described separately.

        3 Nephi 21:14-25
        14 Yea, wo be unto the Gentiles except they repent; for it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Father, that I will cut off thy horses out of the midst of thee, and I will destroy thy chariots;

        15 And I will cut off the cities of thy land, and throw down all thy strongholds;

        16 And I will cut off witchcrafts out of thy land, and thou shalt have no more soothsayers;

        17 Thy graven images I will also cut off, and thy standing images out of the midst of thee, and thou shalt no more worship the works of thy hands;

        18 And I will pluck up thy groves out of the midst of thee; so will I destroy thy cities.

        19 And it shall come to pass that all lyings, and deceivings, and envyings, and strifes, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, shall be done away.

        20 For it shall come to pass, saith the Father, that at that day whosoever will not repent and come unto my Beloved Son, them will I cut off from among my people, O house of Israel;

        21 And I will execute vengeance and fury upon them [the Gentiles], even as upon the heathen, such as they have not heard.

        22 But if they [the Gentiles] will repent and hearken unto my words, and harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them [the Gentiles], and they shall come in unto the covenant and be numbered among this the remnant of Jacob, unto whom I have given this land for their inheritance;

        23 And they [the Gentiles] shall assist my people, the remnant of Jacob, and also as many of the house of Israel as shall come, that they [the remnant of Jacob, and as many of the house of Israel as shall come]may build a city, which shall be called the New Jerusalem.

        24 And then shall they [the Gentiles] assist my people that they may be gathered in, who are scattered upon all the face of the land, in unto the New Jerusalem.

        25 And then shall the power of heaven come down among them [all of them]; and I also will be in the midst.

        The Gentiles who will repent are described separately from the people of the Lord. Again, the scriptures are consistent in this, even if the Gentiles who repent are, indeed, numbered among the people of the Lord.

        And, again, we have the interpretive key, given by revelation through Joseph, at Kirtland – D&C 109:60 – whereby we know that when the Gentiles are referred to in the scriptural narrative, after the Restoration, we are lumped in with them.

  99. And, here’s another thing.

    Let us identify what the fullness of the Gospel actually is.

    Doctrine and Covenants 133:57
    57 And for this cause, that men might be made partakers of the glories which were to be revealed, the Lord sent forth the fulness of his gospel, his everlasting covenant, reasoning in plainness and simplicity

    Doctrine and Covenants 42:12
    12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.

    So, the everlasting covenant which comprises the fullness of the Gospel is to be found in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Or, it could be read that the fullness of the Gospel is in the Book of Mormon.

    Indeed, this seems to be the more likely reading, because of this.

    Doctrine and Covenants 27:5
    5 Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of my everlasting gospel…

    This is the fullness of the Gospel which the Gentiles believed not.

    But wait.

    That’s precisely what the Lord says we, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, believed not.

    D&C 84:54-58
    54 And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—

    55 Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.

    56 And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.

    57 And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—

    58 That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion.

    (Incidentally, that gives us an interpretive key to 2 Nephi, where he talks about “All is well in Zion, yea, Zion prospereth; all is well!” – he’s talking about us and our attitudes.)

    What should we expect of them who receive the fullness of the Gospel?

    Doctrine and Covenants 39:18
    18 And inasmuch as they do repent and receive the fulness of my gospel, and become sanctified, I will stay mine hand in judgment.

    Sanctification, or, in other words, receiving the Holy Ghost (3 Nephi 27:20) is the result of receiving the fullness of the Gospel, contained in the Book of Mormon.

    And, as we learned from Moses 6, receiving the Comforter, who is the Holy Ghost, is wherein we receive “all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment,” among other things.

    What would we expect to see if we were, indeed, under condemnation, according to the word of the Lord?

    I think it might look something like this.

    We have done very well at distributing the authority of the priesthood. We have priesthood authority planted nearly everywhere. We have quorums of elders and high priests worldwide. But distributing the authority of the priesthood has raced, I think, ahead of distributing the power of the priesthood.

    The authority of the priesthood is with us. After all that we have correlated and organized, it is now our responsibility to activate the power of the priesthood in the Church. Authority in the priesthood comes by way of ordination; power in the priesthood comes through faithful and obedient living in honoring covenants.
    (Packer, Boyd K., The Power of the Priesthood, April General Conference)

    We have the form of Godliness, but the power is missing. That, I believe, is a significant admission by President Packer.

    Because if we were receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, we would be sanctified, and have power.

    Doctrine and Covenants 50:29
    29 And if ye are purified and cleansed from all sin, ye shall ask whatsoever you will in the name of Jesus and it shall be done.

    3 Nephi 8:1
    1 [T]here was not any man who could do a miracle in the name of Jesus save he were cleansed every whit from his iniquity.

    Mormon 9:20
    20 And the reason why he ceaseth to do miracles among the children of men is because that they dwindle in unbelief, and depart from the right way, and know not the God in whom they should trust.

    But we don’t have power, generally speaking. Therefore we, generally speaking, don’t have the gift of the Holy Ghost, and have departed from the right way, and know not God.

    And the prophets strongly hinted this would be the case, accepting that we “are identified with the Gentiles.”

    2 Nephi 33:9
    9 I also have charity for the Gentiles. But behold, for none of these can I hope except they shall be reconciled unto Christ, and enter into the narrow gate [wherein they would be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, being sanctified], and walk in the strait path which leads to life, and continue in the path until the end of the day of probation.

    Ether 12:35-37
    35 Wherefore, I know by this thing which thou hast said, that if the Gentiles have not charity, because of our weakness, that thou wilt prove them, and take away their talent, yea, even that which they have received, and give unto them who shall have more abundantly.

    36 And it came to pass that I prayed unto the Lord that he would give unto the Gentiles grace, that they might have charity.

    37 And it came to pass that the Lord said unto me: If they have not charity it mattereth not unto thee….

    Charity matters because receiving the Holy Ghost is wherein we receive charity.

    Moroni 8:26
    26 And the remission of sins bringeth meekness, and lowliness of heart; and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect love, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer, until the end shall come, when all the saints shall dwell with God.

    So those who have the gift of the Holy Ghost have charity – perfect love, or the love of God dwelling in them.

    But, if we cannot be identified with the Gentiles, scripturally, it is a complete mystery why we should lack priesthood power, generally speaking.

    A conundrum, indeed.

    I can never leave it hanging like that, though.

    Here’s the way out.

    Moroni 7:48
    48 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.

    Remember.

    2 Nephi 25:29
    29 [T]he right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.

    That, of course, is a specific, actionable direction from Nephi, with a promise attached to it.

    Enos 1:2
    2 And I will tell you of the wrestle which I had before God, before I received a remission of my sins….

    1. “But we don’t have power, generally speaking. Therefore we, generally speaking, don’t have the gift of the Holy Ghost, and have departed from the right way, and know not God”.

      Is your assertion here a statement of fact, or an interpretation on your part? How do you know that the power is not with the members of the church generally, unless you yourself have discerned this by the power? Have you had revelation from the Holy Ghost on this point?

      Your general level of argumentation here is exactly like Snuffer, who repeatedly asserts as “facts”, historical opinions which are nothing more than his own interpretations of historical events. Snuffer has many arguments in the book which are nothing more than one plausible interpretation among many plausible explanations. The fact that Snuffer is “blind” to his own limitations of historical exegesis, should tell you something important about him, and your willingness to swallow down and repeat his interpretations on point after point.

      Steve F, Geoff, and others through these posts are trying to kindly and thoughtfully point out some of the limitations of Snuffer’s analysis. You are not open to any of it. I will hope that you will go back through all the threads and open your heart to what these brethren are trying to say to you.

      1. Is your assertion here a statement of fact, or an interpretation on your part? How do you know that the power is not with the members of the church generally, unless you yourself have discerned this by the power? Have you had revelation from the Holy Ghost on this point?

        Would you believe any answer I should give?

        President Packer’s statement is clear enough to those with ears to hear.

  100. Perspective
    Remember, a microscope can make small things look large!

    Let’s have some perspective about these “Gentiles” in our days.
    There are 6.1 million mormons in the US.
    There are 316 million people in the US.
    This represents 1.9%.

    There are 14 million mormons in the world.
    There are 7 billion people in the world.
    This represents .2%, that’s point 2 percent!

    Since mormons don’t make a dent in the population, Gentiles are the population.

    You have to admit the Gentiles have not embraced the restored gospel, or the Church, or its leaders.
    (They even rejected Mitt Romney)

    So why are you making such a big deal out of it???

    1. I’m not. What’s at stake here is not doctrinal, not behavioral, and doesn’t even really relate to our salvation except insomuch as people have not faith in Christ, but faith in institutions and men.

      All that’s really at stake is the institutional mythos – our cultural self-image.

      It is, and I kid you not, simply a discussion over how we should view our history, current state, and future.

      The Church put out a video at one time, wherein a parable was portrayed – how we all are like actors who have been thrust into a play without knowing our lines, what the play is about, or anything. I think that’s a good way to look at this.

      What we are discussing here is essentially which genre of play it is we are currently engaged in. Are we in an action flick where the hero inevitably triumphs over every enemy – who never misses a shot, while his enemies can’t seem to aim straight? (Think about that Rambo spoof in UHF.)

      Or are we in a tragedy, where the protagonist takes heavy losses, and reconciliation and restitution come only at the end, after toil, trouble, and much sadness?

      The story is the Lord’s. Which view we take may well impact just how diligently we pay heed to the director and script.

      It may be possible to interpret our history honestly either way. I personally think one way flows much more consistently with the script I have been handed, but hey, the director knows what kind of play he’s producing and I am content to wait until I get that information from him, as well as my lines and direction.

      After all, a lot of actors are arrogant blowhards, seeking to magnify their own glory, rather than the glory of the picture and He who is crafting it.

  101. Witnesses

    Ether 5:4
    4 And in the mouth of three witnesses shall these things be established; and the testimony of three, and this work, in the which shall be shown forth the power of God and also his word, of which the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost bear record—and all this shall stand as a testimony against the world at the last day.

    The law of witnesses. Let’s say Denver has 10,000 followers. He is planning to speak 10 times, 500 at each lecture. So 5,000 of his followers will hear him.

    Have any of them received the Second Comforter? Will they boldly stand forth and proclaim the apostasy of the Church and the custodial leaders?

    Lehi wasn’t the only prophet who spoke to the jews of his day.

    If the message that Denver claims Christ has instructed him to give is correct, where are the other witnesses of this information? Denver claims his history is the truth, where are the witnesses???

    1. Suppose Snuffer is authentic, and suppose further someone knows he is authentic. Snuffer has said that none should defend him (consistent with Acts 5:38-39). Should we expect this hypothetical witness to defend him? What about if this hypothetical witness doesn’t follow blogs? What then?

      And what is it about this “apostasy” thing? Do you really, in your heart of hearts, not recognize that very little in this world is either all good, or all bad?

      There is a story about an unrelated man and a woman who, through poverty, were residing under the same roof, along with others. This couple did not violate the law of chastity, not even in their hearts. They decided to marry. When they approached their ecclesiastical authority in the Church for permission to be sealed, they were told they would not be permitted to enter the temple because they were fornicating. There was no confession on their part, neither did a witness arise to accuse them. They appealed to the next level of hierarchical authority and were denied relief. They married outside of the temple, despite lifelong dreams of marrying in the temple.

      What think ye? What conclusions should this couple draw, on your black-or-white view of the Church?

      1. One year later they get sealed in the temple. If they are offended, maybe they leave the church. They should forgive even though they were in the right.

      2. I’m afraid that didn’t really answer the question. What should the couple think of the Church, given your black-or-white view of the Church?

      3. What they think of the church will depend on their faith and testimony. If they believe in the restored gospel, if they believe Christ is leading His Church though his Apostles, they will follow the counsel of their local leaders, they will forgive and pray for them. And in a year, their sealing will be sweeter than they could ever imagine.

        And they will be blessed in their lives in many ways. Remember the story that President Hinckley gave on the young man who threw a frozen turkey through a car windshield and caused great damage to a woman? Her incredible forgiveness saved her and the young man.

        Or they can be bitter, hate the church and live outside it.

        The Savior didn’t deserve what he suffered in Gethsemane, in the trial, the stripes, and on the cross. He did it for us. He is the great example.

        When Denver stands before the appeals council, one or several men there will be personal witnesses of the Savior and they will know the truth.

        I hope this couple watches conference this weekend. The Spirit will bear witness that the Apostles are indeed Special Witnesses of Christ, not custodians. And at least one talk will resonate with them.

      4. Rick,

        I’m afraid you’re still missing the point. I’m asking you what they should think of the Church, given the black-or-white paradigm you have brought to the discussion. I’m not asking for a conditional reaction based on their faith; of course they will do one thing or another. I’m asking what you make of the data, how you think they should respond, and why they should do what you counsel.

        To put a finer point on it, given the data, should they believe Christ directs the Church through the apostles? Why should they not believe that the apostles are not just like this local leader? Remember – you have insisted on a black-or-white approach to the Church. Does this fall in the black, or the white, side of things?

      5. Also, please remember that knowing the restored Gospel to be true, and not knowing the apostles to be directed by Christ, is a perfectly possible situation. On the data, should they believe the apostles to be directed by Christ? Why, or why not?

      6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive church, namely, apostles…

        If people base their testimonies on history or the like, they will be disappointed. Having the Holy Ghost bear witness that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is true, that Joseph Smith was called of God to begin the restitution, that The Book of Mormon is true, this is what it is all about. That the prophets that have succeeded Joseph Smith are prophets and receive direction from The Lord for His Church, also confirmed by the Holy Spirit, is also essential.

        The commandment to forgive others is black and white. I hope this couple have or can do this. Elder Bednar gave a talk once on being offended, it would be good to read.

        Certainly an issue in the church is members living lower than they should, not living the law of tithing, etc. Does that equate to our leaders being in a state of apostasy? I don’t think so.

      7. Ok, Rick. You don’t have to answer the question on the terms I have presented it.

        I’m sure you can imagine that a person who has not been told those things by God may well depart the Church in bitterness. In point of fact, the man in the story not only forgave the leaders, but even forgot their names.

        Which brings me to another point.

        I cannot condemn a man for not knowing what I know. God reveals things, and witnesses of things, to whom He will. To judge another because they act or speak in a manner not conforming to my knowledge or my beliefs is to judge them unjustly.

  102. Rick, that is a very good point. I have not heard anyone on Denver’s or Tim’s blogs claiming, even anonymously, to have attained what Denver claims, nor to have had a tangible revelation or visitation confirming Denver’s claims or teachings. So far it is all rhetoric and pontification.

    Log, I think you have too much hinging on D&C 109:60 – the key to your interpretation, as you call it – “us, who are identified with the Gentiles.” – in 1836. It’s too narrow.

    1. Geoff,
      I have not experienced the full range of experiences Snuffer claims. However, I can bear at least as strong an experiential witness as the one you quoted from your grandfather as a direct result of me reading and following what is outlined in “The Second Comforter.”

      However, I’m not sure that really proves your point, as the outline in that book is quite scriptural. Thus, I’ve only proved the truthfulness of the scriptures (again).

    2. Except that DS’s interpretation of D&C 109:60 (and everything else) explains everything else (as you put it) at a “cosmic” scale (though you don’t see it that way).

      I see a really great LDS Church — one filled with decent, nice, mostly wonderful people, nice buildings, loads of doctrine, order, programs, rich history, leadership, etc. But I also see many Mormons who couldn’t talk about Christ on a personal level or engage in any enthusiastic conversation about Him or His doctrine for more than five minutes…because He is far from the thoughts and intents of their hearts and far removed from their personal experience. They do not know Him. And, like some of the Book of Mormon writers — and many of our modern “prophet” leaders today — they have never had a revelation either from Him or of Him.

      Think of that. A “true Church” filled with people who don’t know Christ and who have never (knowingly) experienced the gifts of the Spirit. (The “unconverted”, “born-in-the-Church” types largely fill the ranks of the latter category. “15 million strong” largely over-states the number of those who have any “oil” in their lamps.)

      Almost nobody I know who is Mormon talks about Christ as someone they have personally interacted with. Almost nobody I know who is Mormon has vivid, personal, powerful experiences with Christ.

      This is a problem with our faith.

      We are so sure we are the “true Church” we are not careful to insure that we are true saints or true disciples of Christ. And, if we are careful, we find there is little that distinguishes us, behaviorally, from the rest of those who, likewise, claim to be devout Christians.

      In fact, we may not be as good. I know several non-LDS who claim to have a personal relationship with Christ, whose works testify to that fact. Are they deceived?

      Our prideful claim of being the “one true Church” seems incongruent with our experience. Recognizing the parallels between our own situation and that of the Jews after Moses best explains (in my view) our current condition and crisis.

      1. Good Whatever –
        D&C 1:30
        30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

        Supposedly Christ said it is The Only True and Living Church.

        So what would you have us do?

        Only 500 can attend Denver’s lectures at a time.

        What would you have us do?

      2. Rick,

        What does “true and living” mean? If something was “true and living” on November 2, 1831, does that mean it was “true and living” on November 3, 1832?

        Can something which was once “true and living” cease to be true? Can something which was once “true and living” cease to be living?

      3. Come on Log, you’re quoting scripture. It is straight from the Lord.

        You tell me what it means, from yours and Good Wilt’s standpoint.

        What does it mean? What are you saying? Just say it so everyone understands your position.

      4. I’m asking you a question, so we can see if your interpretation is internally self-consistent and sound, or if it rests, in the end, upon unsupported assumptions. If you don’t want to answer the question, that’s fine.

      5. Log, you are being a jerk right now. You have posted that you interpret scripture exactly as it is. Christ said in D&C 1:30 that it is the only true and living church on the face of the whole earth.

        Millions of mormons have born testimony stating to that effect. It is not being boastful or prideful, it is saying exactly what Christ said. What do you say?

        And I wonder about you being internally consistent. I just want some straight forward answers and statements.

        This is what I hear you and Good Will and Denver saying:

        1. The church stopped being true when Joseph Smith was martyred. Christ just forgot to tell the rest of us.
        2. Since the church isn’t true now, the apostles are not real apostles.
        3. We are fortunate to have Denver truly interpret the scriptures and he has been assigned by Christ to tell us the true message.
        4. With the impending destructions, 14,990,000 mormons will be destroyed, and the 10,000 who listen to Denver will now build Zion.

        Is this what you mean? If not, just say what you mean.

      6. On November 1, 1831, the Lord said this.

        30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individuall

        Notice the words being used. “The only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased…”

        So, I asked a straightforward question: what do you, Rick, understand “true and living” to mean? if a thing is “true and living” at one point in time, does that mean it is “true and living” at another point in time?

        Can a thing which is, at one point in time, “true and living” cease to be true?

        Can a thing which is, at one point in time, “true and living” cease to be living?

        I imagine at one point in time the Christian Church was also “true and living.”

        I imagine at one point in time the Jewish Church was also “true and living.”

        I say exactly what I mean, Rick. You can impute whatever you like to my, and “Good whatever”‘s words, but then what you are reacting against is your own imputations.

        How can it be that asking a straightforward question of you provokes you into reviling?

      7. Actually, if indeed these questions provoke you into reviling, then I had ought not continue the “conversation.”

        I’m sorry to have provoked you.

      8. Log, how can it be that on one scripture you read it as it is, on another scripture you start putting in scenarios?

        You didn’t answer the questions. You are the one with internal congestion.

        I’m sorry that your faith has been fractured. The Church is true, and so are the Apostles. You can try to find solace with Denver as much as you like, but you will always be empty. 🙂

        1. Daniel A. Rogers

          I am guessing from Log’s posts, that what he is getting at is that on November 1, 1831, the Lord called the organization that existed at that time true and living (referring collectively and not individually). Just because on that day there was a true and living church it does not necessarily follow that every group that claims continuity from that organization is also true and living.

  103. Geoff, I’m not here to persuade you otherwise. People dispute interpretations all the time. That’s why I’m not so much interested in controverted readings, but whether the facts are as Snuffer says they are – and it seems nobody’s disputing the facts. Everyone’s disputing the interpretation.

    Truth is narrow, indeed.

    3 Nephi 27:33
    33 And it came to pass that when Jesus had ended these sayings he said unto his disciples: Enter ye in at the strait gate; for strait is the gate, and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few there be that find it; but wide is the gate, and broad the way which leads to death, and many there be that travel therein, until the night cometh, wherein no man can work.

  104. I mean your interpretation of Gentiles via D&C 109:60.

    Nice scriptural play on narrow. I didn’t say your interpretation was strait, though.

    : )))

    Interpretations aren’t facts. They are meanings or explanations of facts from one’s point of view. Tell me what you mean by facts in this case. Show me a fact that is not interpreted, for example, that is critical to your argument.

    Maybe it would be profitable to go through ALL the scripture verses, in context, which reference Gentiles. Perhaps that will shed some light on whether it means the Gentile Church or even the Nauvoo Latter-day Saints? Maybe start with Book of Mormon, D&C, and PoGP – since Joseph restored those.

    Then we’re not hinging on one interpretation of one verse. I think that’s one reason why the Lord gave us like 2500 pages of scriptures, addressing the same subjects in several places, by several prophets, in several contexts. The law of witnesses, by Rick above, is a good point. Nephi explains prophetically that this is one reason we have the Book of Mormon to supplement the Bible, that they “shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.”

    What do you say? It will probably be an enlightening discussion, one way or the other.

  105. Geoff, I understood what you meant. What I am saying is I am not here to convince you otherwise. To me, for example, that “interpretation” doesn’t require justification – that is the straightforward meaning of the words.

    60 Now these words, O Lord, we have spoken before thee, concerning the revelations and commandments which thou hast given unto us, who are identified with the Gentiles.

    Throughout that prayer, both before and after, Joseph repeatedly referenced the sons, and the remnant, of Jacob, which, in context, is the posterity of Lehi, and he spoke also of the children of Judah. Now, if there is a reading – that when we see the Gentiles referenced in the scriptures, pertaining to the days in the prophetic narratives after the Book of Mormon has come forth, that we are identified with them – which requires fewer interpolations or assumptions to reach, I don’t know what it is. But each may decide that matter for themselves.

    I privilege readings which require the fewest, or even no, assumptions. That is what I mean by “the literal reading.”

    We can certainly go through the Book of Mormon, from the beginning, and examine the prophetic statements concerning the latter days, and see if it is profitable to identify us with the Gentiles (once the Book of Mormon has come forth in the narrative, of course).

    I suppose we can start from the beginning and work our way through!

  106. Steve, Log, & Geoff,

    I really appreciate your enlightening and (mostly) civil conversation. I’ve read PTHG and am uncertain, but more inclined toward log’s view. i believe the interpretation of D&C 124 that the Saints were moved out of their place because they failed to build the temple. Although, I don’t think it means that we are just another christian church. I think that the Lord always wants to establish Zion with his church. He wanted to with the children of Israel, but they rejected him. He wanted to with the Saints in Missouri, and I think maybe he would’ve done so in Nauvoo and would’ve given us our Joseph for a much longer time (maybe 85 years) if the Saints had been diligent in building the temple.

    Again, I don’t think the LDS church is a dead faith, and the Lord’s hand is behind everything. If Brigham and others were bad leaders, the Lord could’ve given us better ones.

    Keep it up guys! This is really interesting.

    1. Thanks for chiming in Ty. I agree with you that the Saints being moved out of their place was/is evidence that the conditions for that blessing were not met. What were the conditions for that blessings? Verse 45, “And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people…they shall not be moved out of their place.”

      Even if we concede that completed the temple was also a requirement, what was the cause of that the temple was not able to be completed? Was it the collective unfaithfulness of the Saints? I have seen no evidence to believe this. All the history I have read shows the Saints anxiously engaged in the cause of building the temple, just as the Prophet asked it of them.

      However, there was a handful Saints that apostatized, and therefore did not hearken unto God’s voice, or the voice of His servants. And in large measure due to the apostasy and actions of these few Saints, Joseph Smith was martyred, which was the direct cause of Nauvoo breaking apart and the Saints being forced to leave before the temple was fully completed. Being “moved out of their place” was definitely as a result of a select few Saints not hearkening to the voice of God.

      But let’s compare this today, to give us a better idea what Denver’s theory is promoting. Say that we live in a large city in Utah, in a multi-stake region, where most members are faithfully adhering to the words of the Prophet. However there is a small group of disaffected members within that region that get so angry with the teachings of President Monson, that they plan and successfully assassinate President Monson. (I fear for their consequences in the afterlife). Do you think because of the actions of these few apostate murderous individuals, that God would then curse the faithful husbands, wives, and children of the entire multi-stake region? And curse their children’s children to the third and forth generation, despite that they themselves were faithful? And not only this, that God would because of the actions of those few individuals, then curse the whole of the Church, and not even come close to stopping there, but then curse the millions, hundreds of millions, and maybe even billions of Gentiles who all were entirely removed from this single event?

      That is the claim Denver is making. I don’t think God prepared the world for hundreds or even thousands of years, spreading Christianity so that the Gentiles could become “believing Gentiles” both in Christ and in God, just so that God could restore the gospel and take the truth to a negligible percent of those Gentiles, and only 14 years later let one event in a single city curse the whole of these possibly billions of believing Gentiles baring them from the fulness of the gospel before ever giving them a chance.

      I don’t believe in that type of God.

      And even with the Saints being moved out of their place in Nauvoo due to the wickedness of a few individuals, I do not see why this would prevent God from giving all those large majority of faithful Saints the fullness. And not only is it my testimony that God would not prevent the fullness from them due to a few apostate individuals, I believe there is strong factual evidence that God actually did give the Saints the fullness months before the death of Joseph Smith (see my response to Log below). And I believe that fullness has continued, and is still unto the Gentiles this day.

      1. Geoff,

        You keep making the claim that it was a relatively “small” number of saints who became disaffected or apostatized at Nauvoo, insufficient to warrant the Lord “cursing” the Saints or driving them out of their place for failing to do as they covenanted to do.

        I’m not an historian — or inclined to look it up — but I heard just a few Sundays ago in Sunday School that as many as half the Saints in Nauvoo elected to stay behind with Emma (or join other “splinter” groups) rather than follow BY out west. The number was something like 45,000 staying behind.

        That’s not a “small” group, Geoff. On the contrary.

      2. Geoff: “That is the claim Denver is making. I don’t think God prepared the world for hundreds or even thousands of years, spreading Christianity so that the Gentiles could become “believing Gentiles” both in Christ and in God, just so that God could restore the gospel and take the truth to a negligible percent of those Gentiles, and only 14 years later let one event in a single city curse the whole of these possibly billions of believing Gentiles baring them from the fulness of the gospel before ever giving them a chance.”

        I believe you get it wrong, again, here, Geoff. The saints at Nauvoo who are “identified with the Gentiles” were subsumed back into the “Gentile” fold after they failed (or refused) to receive the “fullness of the priesthood”. The surviving “Church” (even the LDS) nevertheless becomes heady and high-minded, for whom a “great and spacious building” seems an apropos identifier. (The LDS certainly have a few of those!)

        The fact that “God prepared the world for hundreds or even thousands of years, spreading Christianity so that the Gentiles could become ‘believing Gentiles'” does not confirm that they were “believing enough” to embrace the fullness of the priesthood. And that’s the problem. Neither the world-at-large nor the body of saints at Nauvoo apparently were “believing enough” to do that.

        And so we languish.

  107. Geoff – sorry, just noticed you asked me what a “fact” was – a fact would be something like “the provenance of D&C 110 cannot be traced back to Joseph,” or “neither Joseph nor Oliver ever once unambiguously referred to the events which D&C 110 describes,” or or “Joseph, without exception, taught that the mission of Elijah was a future event, even after 1836,” or “the Saints were driven from Nauvoo,” and so forth. That’s the stuff nobody debates, because the documentary evidence (or utter lack thereof) is a matter of public record; that’s the stuff it would take new discoveries to overturn.

    I was going to throw in “Joseph started taking plural wives in 1831,” but it appears some members of the Reorganites or affiliated parties dispute Joseph ever took plural wives, at all, and dispute the authenticity of D&C 132, or claim Joseph was at that time a “fallen prophet” looking to pursue carnal appetites with pretended divine justification. And I was also going to add “the Nauvoo temple was never completed,” but some would dispute that, even though contemporary media reports indicated its lack of completion, and George Q. Cannon admitted, in Conference, that it was never completed.

    I think, however, those, too, are facts.

    1. Fact: Joseph Smith taught that the purpose or mission of Elijah is so that people will have “power to hold the keys of [all the ordinances and blessings belong to] the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood”. This then enables a person to “receive, obtain and perform all ordinances belonging to the Kingdom of God”. The “last law” is to receive “the “fullness of the law” or “the fullness of the Priesthood”. Receiving this last law or the fullness of the Priesthood “constitutes [the person as] a king and priest after the order of Melchesideck”, just as Abraham became a King and Priest after receiving this last law, or fullness of the Priesthood, from Melchizedek. (WoJS 245-247, also see note 30)

      Fact: On August 27, 1843 Joseph Smith taught that there are 3 orders of the Priesthood – 1. Levitical, 2. Patriarchal, and 3. Melchizedek. He taught the Patriarchal Priesthood was the Priesthood Abraham held, and that this Priesthood was sufficient to “walk and talk with God” (i.e. the fullness of the Priesthood is not a perquisite to coming into the presence of God, and is not obtained simply by walking or talking with God), but that there was a greater Priesthood held by Melchizedek – that of a “King and Priest” that held a “greater power even power of an endless life”. Abraham eventually obtained this greater Priesthood after he received a blessing under the hands of Melchizedek, then giving Abraham “the fullness of the Priesthood” making him “a king and preist after the order of Melchesideck ”. (WoJS 244-247)

      Fact: As of August 27, 1843 Joseph said that the Patriarchal Priesthood was “the greatest yet experienced in this church”. And since the Patriarchal Priesthood is not the fullness of the Priesthood, it is therefore factually impossible to interpret D&C 124:28 (received on Jan. 19, 1841) to mean that the fullness of the Priesthood was taken away or lost from the Latter-day Saints , since they had never yet experienced the fullness of the Priesthood as of Aug. 27, 1843.

      Fact: Joseph Smith began performing ordinances, ordaining men as Kings and Priests, therefore ordaining them unto the fullness of the Priesthood, starting on September 28, 1843, and over the next 5 months was given/administered to at least 20 men whom Joseph Smith found worthy to receive as much.

      Fact: Given the above facts, there are only 2 options remaining.
      Either 1) Joseph Smith was not authorized to ordain these men Kings and Priests after the order of Melchizedek, and thus performed these ordinances in unrighteousness (which would not necessitate that Elijah had restored the keys belonging to the fullness of the Priesthood),
      or 2) Elijah had fulfilled his mission passing on the keys belonging to the fullness of the Priesthood, and Joseph Smith ordained these men as Kings and Priests in righteousness, therefore giving these men the fullness of the Priesthood under Joseph’s hands, just as Abraham received it “under the hands of Melchizedek”.

      Log, which option do you choose to believe? I believe the 2nd.

      1. Fact: As of August 27, 1843 Joseph said that the Patriarchal Priesthood was “the greatest yet experienced in this church”. And since the Patriarchal Priesthood is not the fullness of the Priesthood, it is therefore factually impossible to interpret D&C 124:28 (received on Jan. 19, 1841) to mean that the fullness of the Priesthood was taken away or lost from the Latter-day Saints , since they had never yet experienced the fullness of the Priesthood as of Aug. 27, 1843.

        Joseph had it.

        Fact: Joseph Smith began performing ordinances, ordaining men as Kings and Priests, therefore ordaining them unto the fullness of the Priesthood, starting on September 28, 1843, and over the next 5 months was given/administered to at least 20 men whom Joseph Smith found worthy to receive as much.

        We are explicitly told this.

        “… If you are true and faithful, the day will come when you are chosen, called up, and anointed kings and priests, whereas now you are only anointed to become such.”

        Do you think Joseph said these words to those men? I’m guessing so, though it is known Brigham took liberties with the endowments, such as adding a prayer of vengeance which was removed when it caused political problems for the Church.

        Likewise, each apostle was charged that their ordination as apostles was incomplete until the Savior had physically interposed His hands on their heads. We lack a record of any of them receiving that, and Brigham was forthright in denying it ever occurred, at least to him; President Grant forthrightly denied any since Joseph had even seen the Savior.

        So I’ll go with option 3 – Joseph said Elijah’s mission would be fullfilled in the future, therefore it shall be as he said; being ordained to receive things does not mean things have been received; Joseph wanted to give his closest friends and confidants all that he could before he was to be betrayed by his people and slain by the mobs, and had permission from God to administer in the outward ordinances to them.

        Whether the promises offered in those ordinances was received by those men was between them and their God, to be received predicated upon their faithfulness.

        The outward ordinances are nothing without ratification from heaven. Even baptism by water, taught Joseph, is of none effect without the corresponding baptism by fire.

        1. Sorry, wrong answer, your position isn’t possible and does not accord with the actual facts. The endowment is the ordinance that promises the faithful that they might one day be called up to receive this anointing, based on their faithfulness. These men had already received their endowment. Factually speaking, these ordinances actually ordained these men to the office of King and Priest, no conditions about it. Because of the sacredness of that subject however, I will refrain from discussing it further. You may believe how you please, but your response is not factually possible.

      2. Log, I apologize for using the phrase “wrong answer”, that was too far. I wish to take that back, as I don’t think the sentiment of that phrase is true in regards to your thoughts.

      3. Sorry, wrong answer, your position isn’t possible and does not accord with the actual facts. The endowment is the ordinance that promises the faithful that they might one day be called up to receive this anointing, based on their faithfulness.

        Yes, as I obviously know.

        These men had already received their endowment. Factually speaking, these ordinances actually ordained these men to the office of King and Priest, no conditions about it. Because of the sacredness of that subject however, I will refrain from discussing it further. You may believe how you please, but your response is not factually possible.

        The second anointing is simply another outward ordinance. See the section in PTHG treating this topic, beginning on page 433. If you are unfamiliar with the power of God, then what Snuffer talks there won’t be very significant to you. If, however, you have ever been filled with the power of God, then you will not be able to miss the significance of what is said.

        As Joseph said, the baptism by water is of none effect without the corresponding baptism by fire.

        You can believe otherwise, of course.

      4. “Chosen and called up,” to me, means exactly that. “Up” means into the heavens. Therefore, this phrase means “chosen by God and called up into His presence.”

        I cannot tell you how many times I went to the temple hoping against hope that this time, it would be the Lord on the other side of the veil, and that instead of a room representing the Celestial Kingdom, I would be ushered into the Celestial Kingdom, there to behold God upon His throne, surrounded by numberless concourses of angels singing His praises, there to behold the works of His hands, the history and future of the world, and to have my questions answered.

        Alas. It was always a veil worker, and while the seats in the Celestial room are nice, it’s not quite the same thing.

        Anyways, my point is – Brigham was never chosen and called up, by his own admission – a very curious thing, if indeed he was a king and a priest in spirit and in truth, as opposed to ordination only. We have no record of any since Joseph being chosen and called up.

        Outward ordinances don’t confer heavenly power – they merely open the gate that we may pass through.

        1. But ordinations do confer authority, something it seems you and Denver have both yet to understand. Until you know this, succession and Church order (as opposed to utter chaos and confusion) will be impossibly confusing to you. In your model, many people can and probably do not have ordinances like baptism, et. al, properly bestowed on them. Thus unwittingly, these people do not even have a heavenly recognized “invitation” to go and gain power in the first place, and their efforts to gain pwer without an authorized invitation will be fruitless. If you admit that this “invitation” was authorized or recognized by heaven, then you admit that the Priesthood bearer did have authority to give that invitation.

          You mentioned how Dan Peterson shared my views on this, and that you contacted him before, maybe you can contact him again and see if he can give you a better explanation than I have on this subject, because it seems what I have said has not made any headway.

      5. As Snuffer rightly points out – if you, and Dan, are right, then the Catholics are right and the Restoration is a fraud.

        Please refer to chapter 12 in PTHG, beginning on page 318.

        1. Not so, in my model if the Lord revokes his authority from the church collectively, due to wide spread apostasy, then ordinations are no longer valid. So in my model, if the Lord rejected our Church today collectively, then no ordinances/ordinances, etc. would be valid at all. It then comes down to personal testimony, and I have a witness that we have not been rejected collectively, therefore that which is authorized by the church and put on the church records is bound and recognized in heaven.

      6. Not so, in my model if the Lord revokes his authority from the church collectively, due to wide spread apostasy, then ordinations are no longer valid. So in my model, if the Lord rejected our Church today collectively, then no ordinances/ordinances, etc. would be valid at all. It then comes down to personal testimony, and I have a witness that we have not been rejected collectively, therefore that which is authorized by the church and put on the church records is bound and recognized in heaven.

        Let me refer to you again President Packer’s admission that we have, generally speaking, not got power in the priesthood.

        We, of necessity, have at least got the Aaronic priesthood.

        The fact that most members of the Church have not received the Holy Ghost – the only possible explanation for President Packer’s observation about the state of the Church, as I demonstrated fromthe scriptures – would be evidence that many confirmations are invalid. And if confirmations are invalid… what does that say about anything after that?

      7. I don’t see how unrighteousness can revoke a man’s priesthood, making the ordinances performed invalid–since we don’t know which priesthood holders are righteous and which ones are not.

        It makes me nervous that D&C 121 says “amen to the authority” instead of “amen to the power” though.

        As to the Catholics still having authority, I think they lost it when they changed the ordinances, not when they became unrighteousness.

  108. Woops, need to clarify – “we have no record of Joseph, nor Oliver, ever once unambiguously referring to the events which D&C 110 describes,” and “Joseph, without known exception, taught that the mission of Elijah was a future event, even after 1836.”

    Lack of evidence is, of course, not evidence of lack.

    1. What are your thoughts on secret combinations in Ether 8. What is this secret combination?

      23 Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain–and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.

      24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.

      25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning.

  109. I don’t know. That’s the problem with secret combinations. They’re secret.

    But we can get some idea of the kinds of things we might look for. Let’s look at the relevant stuff.

    Ether 8:8-26
    8 Now the daughter of Jared being exceedingly expert, and seeing the sorrows of her father, thought to devise a plan whereby she could redeem the kingdom unto her father.

    9 Now the daughter of Jared was exceedingly fair. And it came to pass that she did talk with her father, and said unto him: Whereby hath my father so much sorrow? Hath he not read the record which our fathers brought across the great deep? Behold, is there not an account concerning them of old, that they by their secret plans did obtain kingdoms and great glory?

    10 And now, therefore, let my father send for Akish, the son of Kimnor; and behold, I am fair, and I will dance before him, and I will please him, that he will desire me to wife; wherefore if he shall desire of thee that ye shall give unto him me to wife, then shall ye say: I will give her if ye will bring unto me the head of my father, the king.

    11 And now Omer was a friend to Akish; wherefore, when Jared had sent for Akish, the daughter of Jared danced before him that she pleased him, insomuch that he desired her to wife. And it came to pass that he said unto Jared: Give her unto me to wife.

    12 And Jared said unto him: I will give her unto you, if ye will bring unto me the head of my father, the king.

    13 And it came to pass that Akish gathered in unto the house of Jared all his kinsfolk, and said unto them: Will ye swear unto me that ye will be faithful unto me in the thing which I shall desire of you?

    I have read of multiple instances where, in interviews for certain military or intelligence positions, they ask plainly, if you will do certain things without question on orders.

    14 And it came to pass that they all sware unto him, by the God of heaven, and also by the heavens, and also by the earth, and by their heads, that whoso should vary from the assistance which Akish desired should lose his head; and whoso should divulge whatsoever thing Akish made known unto them, the same should lose his life.

    They swear by good things – God, the heavens… kind of like our current oaths of allegiance to the United States Constitution, which they then proceed to trample upon, as revealed in the Bradley Manning / Edward Snowden NSA revelations.

    15 And it came to pass that thus they did agree with Akish. And Akish did administer unto them the oaths which were given by them of old who also sought power, which had been handed down even from Cain, who was a murderer from the beginning.

    16 And they were kept up by the power of the devil to administer these oaths unto the people, to keep them in darkness, to help such as sought power to gain power, and to murder, and to plunder, and to lie, and to commit all manner of wickedness and whoredoms.

    17 And it was the daughter of Jared who put it into his heart to search up these things of old; and Jared put it into the heart of Akish; wherefore, Akish administered it unto his kindred and friends, leading them away by fair promises to do whatsoever thing he desired.

    18 And it came to pass that they formed a secret combination, even as they of old; which combination is most abominable and wicked above all, in the sight of God;

    19 For the Lord worketh not in secret combinations, neither doth he will that man should shed blood, but in all things hath forbidden it, from the beginning of man.

    20 And now I, Moroni, do not write the manner of their oaths and combinations, for it hath been made known unto me that they are had among all people, and they are had among the Lamanites.

    21 And they have caused the destruction of this people of whom I am now speaking, and also the destruction of the people of Nephi.

    22 And whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations, to get power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed; for the Lord will not suffer that the blood of his saints, which shall be shed by them, shall always cry unto him from the ground for vengeance upon them and yet he avenge them not.

    I’m going to pause Ether here and change the channel to D&C 87.

    D&C 87:1-8
    1 Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;

    2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.

    3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.

    4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.

    5 And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.

    6 And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;

    7 That the cry of the saints, and of the blood of the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.

    8 Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold, it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen.

    As we shall reap the promised consequences of national destruction, by war, it appears that we may well already have these secret combinations above us.

    Back to Ether 8.

    23 Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.

    So the course of action is to repent of your sins – not repent of some of your sins, not engage in a lifelong imperceptible process of repentance, but to cast them aside, and not suffer the combinations to get above us. But, as D&C 87 has shown, the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon us, implying it is too late – the combinations may well already be above us.

    And what is the Obamacare contention about, in the final analysis, if it isn’t power and gain? Isn’t most of what our government does simply wealth and power transfers anymore?

    Ether 9:11
    11 Now the people of Akish were desirous for gain, even as Akish was desirous for power; wherefore, the sons of Akish did offer them money, by which means they drew away the more part of the people after them.

    Do they not have the propaganda machines going for war?

    Alma 48:1-4
    1 And now it came to pass that, as soon as Amalickiah had obtained the kingdom he began to inspire the hearts of the Lamanites against the people of Nephi; yea, he did appoint men to speak unto the Lamanites from their towers, against the Nephites.

    2 And thus he did inspire their hearts against the Nephites, insomuch that in the latter end of the nineteenth year of the reign of the judges, he having accomplished his designs thus far, yea, having been made king over the Lamanites, he sought also to reign over all the land, yea, and all the people who were in the land, the Nephites as well as the Lamanites.

    3 Therefore he had accomplished his design, for he had hardened the hearts of the Lamanites and blinded their minds, and stirred them up to anger, insomuch that he had gathered together a numerous host to go to battle against the Nephites.

    4 For he was determined, because of the greatness of the number of his people, to overpower the Nephites and to bring them into bondage.

    Lest we forget.

    Mormon 4:5
    5 But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed.

    Thereby we know those who cry for war.

    Incidentally, we ignore the Lord’s standard for justification in warfare – at least, I have not once, since 9/12/2001, seen a mainstream LDS writer or authority deal with this, relevantly and in context.

    DC 98:33-38
    33 And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.

    34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;

    35 And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord;

    36 Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people.

    37 And I, the Lord, would fight their battles, and their children’s battles, and their children’s children’s, until they had avenged themselves on all their enemies, to the third and fourth generation.

    38 Behold, this is an ensample unto all people, saith the Lord your God, for justification before me.

    War is only justified at the Lord’s command. We are not to even ask Him to go to war without having been hit, entirely without provocation, entirely without repercussions, having made genuine offers of peace at each offense, thrice. This standard applies to all mankind for justification before the Lord, in war, not just the members of the Church. I leave it to the reader to decide how well this standard has been met.

    Back to Ether 8.

    24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.

    25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning.

    26 Wherefore, I, Moroni, am commanded to write these things that evil may be done away, and that the time may come that Satan may have no power upon the hearts of the children of men, but that they may be persuaded to do good continually, that they may come unto the fountain of all righteousness and be saved.

    I think it’s clear – at least, it’s clear to me – that the combinations are already entrenched above us, and the consumption decreed therefore shall come to pass, as the Lord has said. Our government, the industrial-military-political-ecclesiastical-financial complex, are, to my eyes, the combinations spoken of.

    We had an open power structure. Power attracts the corrupt. Absolute power attracts the absolutely corruptible.

    No man who seeks for power should have it.

    3 Nephi 6:15
    15 Now the cause of this iniquity of the people was this—Satan had great power, unto the stirring up of the people to do all manner of iniquity, and to the puffing them up with pride, tempting them to seek for power, and authority, and riches, and the vain things of the world.

    Any who seek for power, authority, riches, and the vain things of the world show who they follow – no matter their church affiliation.

    3 Nephi 13:24
    24 No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.

    And mammon, Nibley points out, is the common Hebrew word for business and finances.

    Matthew 13:22
    22 He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

    With the treasures of the earth, and the backing of the financiers’ gold and silver, they have bought up armies and navies, priests and popes and propagandists, and have executed the plan of their master.

    America had a real chance for repentance – there was a candidate for president who preached peace, and the Golden Rule, for relations between nations. We rejected him in favor of warmongers who promised to deliver us other people’s wealth in the form of healthcare and other gov’t benefits.

    The only thing we can do is repent, individually, become holy, and stand in holy places. Politics is a dead end.

  110. Rick, that is part of what I’m getting at when I say Log’s and Denver’s interpretations seem too narrow to me.

    For example, when I started reading Denver’s Nephi’s Isaiah, he kept pushing this interpretation that The Book of Mormon was addressed almost exclusively to the members of the Church. His evidence for this was that only members of the Church would read it or believe it.

    That didn’t feel or seem right for many reasons. One is that The Book of Mormon often seems to address a much broader audience and it’s prophetic content is so sweeping.

    Book of Mormon, Title Page:
    Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile
    to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile
    Which is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever–And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations

    So remnant of the house of Israel, Jew, and Gentile – this is not just members of the Church, or the Nauvoo LDS, etc.

    I think Denver is obviously wrong in his interpretation here. And a lot of his arguments stem from this type of interpretation.

    1. I think you almost got it when you said “The Book of Mormon often seems to address a much broader audience and it’s prophetic content is so sweeping.”

      Let me rephrase to drive the point home.

      “The Book of Mormon addresses an audience.”

      Or…

      “Audience.”

  111. One more example of stuff to look out for…

    Helaman 7:4-5
    4 And seeing the people in a state of such awful wickedness, and those Gadianton robbers filling the judgment-seats—having usurped the power and authority of the land; laying aside the commandments of God, and not in the least aright before him; doing no justice unto the children of men;

    5 Condemning the righteous because of their righteousness; letting the guilty and the wicked go unpunished because of their money; and moreover to be held in office at the head of government, to rule and do according to their wills, that they might get gain and glory of the world, and, moreover, that they might the more easily commit adultery, and steal, and kill, and do according to their own wills—

    1. We’re not quite there yet (in the U.S.), but we’re close. Getting away with murder hasn’t become the “norm” – except among the police.

  112. Also, Steve, I don’t think it is consistent to take Joseph for an authority in some things, but to ignore or rationalize away what he said about others. He consistently taught Elijah’s mission was yet future. You can claim Joseph was lying or mistaken, but if you do so, then you have undermined him as an authority for anything else, too.

    1. I have already explained to you earlier reasons for why Joseph would be speaking of Elijah mission as a future, although the event had already taken place. Yet, you have not explained why Joseph Smith was secretly performing the ordinances explicitly tied to Elijah’s coming, if Elijah really hadn’t indeed come first.

      1. You are making an assumption – that the ordinances Joseph performed are explicitly tied to Elijah’s mission.

        I don’t make that assumption, and, on the basis of Joseph’s public teachings, you have no grounds for linking them.

        1. Then don’t pretend I didn’t just give the evidence. If you read it already, and then to say I “have no grounds for linking them”, that’s simply disingenuous to what I’ve already provided.

      2. Steve,

        I don’t know how much more plainly I can speak. You have no grounds for linking the ordinances Joseph performed with Elijah’s mission, which Joseph always said was yet future.

        If you had Joseph saying “I received these ordinances from Elijah,” or something functionally equivalent, then we have new information. You haven’t produced this. Indeed, the Lord said in 1841 in D&C 124 that He would reveal them to Joseph (D&C 124:42).

        That’s a problem.

        1. I’ll go ahead and copy and paste then:

          Fact: Joseph Smith taught that the purpose or mission of Elijah is so that people will have “power to hold the keys of [all the ordinances and blessings belong to] the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood”. This then enables a person to “receive, obtain and perform all ordinances belonging to the Kingdom of God”. The “last law” is to receive “the “fullness of the law” or “the fullness of the Priesthood”. Receiving this last law or the fullness of the Priesthood “constitutes [the person as] a king and priest after the order of Melchesideck”, just as Abraham became a King and Priest after receiving this last law, or fullness of the Priesthood, from Melchizedek. (WoJS 245-247, also see note 30)

          Mission of Elijah linked with the fullness of the Priesthood linked with the ordinance of being ordained a King and a Priest, as Abraham was “under the hands of Melchizedek”.

      3. I’m afraid you haven’t understood my response to that point – Joseph consistently saying Elijah’s mission is yet future, and the Lord Himself saying in 1841 He would reveal the priesthood of the temple to Joseph mean you are reading into your evidence things which on its face it cannot bear.

        Your evidence does not mean what you think it means.

        1. In your model, Joseph already held the fullness of the Priesthood. You’re contradicting yourself.

      4. If you wish to explain my contradiction, please, by all means, do so. I, however, cannot see a contradiction between Joseph having the fullness of the priesthood in 1831, by the voice of God, and having the rites of the temple revealed to him sometime after January 19, 1841 by the Lord, which rites you claim Elijah revealed in 1836.

        The contradiction I perceive is not mine.

        1. But in your model, if Joseph Smith had received the fullness of the Priesthood before section 124 (1831 or whatever) and he was the only one who held this fullness, then your interpretation of verse 28 that the fullness was taken away from the current Saints could only refer to Joseph Smith having lost that fullness, because none of the other saints ever had it.

          In my model Joseph received the keys of the fullness of the Priesthood in 1836 (not the rites), but did not reveal/restore all of the ordinances belonging to the fullness of the Priesthood until 1843. Just as when Joseph Smith received the keys of baptism, it did not make him already baptized, so also when he received the keys of fullness of the Priesthood from Elijah it did not complete an ordination to the fullness of the priesthood. Joseph was ordained a King and Priest in 1843.

        2. The contradiction I was referring to is when you said, “the Lord Himself saying in 1841 He would reveal the priesthood of the temple to Joseph.” It sounded like you were saying that the Priesthood was yet given to Joseph, but it now sounds like what you meant to say was “He would reveal the priesthood ordinances of the temple…” I agree with that interpretation, and it fits into my model.

          Again, I already gave an explanation for why Joseph publicly taught that Elijah yet a future event. Note that in my model, not only was Joseph not revealing that Elijah had already come, but he was also performing the ordinances associated with Elijah’s coming in secret – likewise not revealing it to the general membership. It is clear these things were not to be revealed to the general membership at this point.

      5. the fullness was taken away from the current Saints could only refer to Joseph Smith having lost that fullness, because none of the other saints ever had it.

        It is consistent to say that Joseph was no longer permitted to exercise the fullness on behalf of the Church; thus Joseph had the fullness, and the Church did not. Therefore, it is strictly not true that yours is the only possible understanding.

        Just as when Joseph Smith received the keys of baptism, it did not make him already baptized, so also when he received the keys of fullness of the Priesthood from Elijah it did not complete an ordination to the fullness of the priesthood.

        We have no record of Joseph receiving any keys from Elijah at any point in time. What Elijah referred to, granting the authenticity of D&C 110 – “the keys of this dispensation” – was already conferred by Peter, James, and John (see, among other sources, D&C 27:13, in 1830, and D&C 128:20, referring to an event which probably happened in May, 1829).

        Joseph was ordained a King and Priest in 1843.

        What is your source which claims exactly this?

        1. But in section 110, if you take the meaning to be parallel with the other heavenly beings that appeared, it is very clear that Moses was committed keys to Joseph and Oliver right then and there, Elias committed the dispensation of Abraham right then and there, then it seems most reasonable to read that Elijah also committed his dispensation to them right then and there, fulfilling the prophecy of Malachi, the time had “fully come”.

          There may be some wiggle room for other interpretations, but that seems to be the reading “with no interpretation at all”.

      6. Can you please post the citation from WoJS verbatim? I went to those pages in my electronic copy and cannot see what you are citing.

        I also searched for “king and priest after the order of Melchesideck” and was unable to get a hit.

        1. “Hebrewes 7 chap. Paul is here treating of three different preisthoods, namely the preisthood of Aron, Abraham, and Melchizedeck, Abraham’s preisthood was of greater power than Levi’s and Melchizedeck’s was of greater power than that of Abraham. The preisthood of Levi consisted of cursings and blessings carnal commandments and not of blessings and if the preisthood of this generation has no more power than that of Levi or Aron or of a bishhoprick it administers no blessings but cursings for it was an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. 27 I ask was there any sealing power attending this preisthood. Oh no that would admit a man into the presence of God. 28 Oh no, but Abraham’s was a more exalted power or preisthood he could talk and walk with God and yet consider how great this man was when even this patriarch Abraham gave a tenth part of all his spoils and then received a blessing under the hands of Melchesideck 29 even the last law or a fulness of the law or preisthood 30 which constituted him a king and preist after the order of Melchesideck or an endless life Now if Abraham had been like the sectarian world and would not have received any more revelation, what would have been the consequence it would have damned him. Book of Covenants. 31 The levitical preisthood was an appendage to the Melchesideck preisthood or the whole law of God when in full face or power in all its parts and bearings on the earth. 32 It is understood by many by reading this chapter that Melchesedeck was king of some country or nation on the earth, but it was not so, In the original it reads king of Shaloam which signifies king of peace or righteousness and not of any country or nation. 33”

          I’m not comfortable giving a public reference to Joseph’s ordination.

      7. [I]it seems most reasonable to read that Elijah also committed his dispensation to them right then and there, fulfilling the prophecy of Malachi, the time had “fully come”.

        Even granting the authenticity of D&C 110, Elijah only said “Therefore, the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands.”

        And, indeed, the keys of this dispensation were in Joseph’s hands, having previously been conferred by Peter, James, and John. Elijah didn’t confer them upon Joseph. Elijah did not confer anything upon Joseph, so far as the records show.

        We can assume he did, if we are inclined to assume such things. But, in the end, it is just that – an assumption.

        1. Just curious, do you think the keys committed to Joseph and Oliver by Moses in section 110 were also previously committed to Joseph and Oliver by Peter, James, and John?

          What about the dispensation of Abraham committed by Elias, was that already previously committed by Peter, James, and John too?

          Just trying to see if committing a “dispensation” is the part you feel is not clear. Because I agree, given the text alone, it is not fully clear what exactly is meant by committing a dispensation. (Given all the other evidence I’ve already brought up, and the claims of the Church after Joseph Smith though, I do believe this refers to committing keys from their respective dispensations, which I concede is not a full-proof interpretation given the text alone).

          And if your answer is no on the keys brought by Moses, how could Joseph already have the fullness of the Priesthood without all the keys that a man can receive on earth?

      8. it now sounds like what you meant to say was “He would reveal the priesthood ordinances of the temple…”

        I quoted the Lord directly.

        Again, I already gave an explanation for why Joseph publicly taught that Elijah yet a future event.

        You are essentially crafting networks of assumptions which would explain away the lack of evidence for your position. You are not reasoning from the evidence to conclusions, but are instead conforming evidence to your conclusions.

        Note that in my model, not only was Joseph not revealing that Elijah had already come, but he was also performing the ordinances associated with Elijah’s coming in secret – likewise not revealing it to the general membership. It is clear these things were not to be revealed to the general membership at this point.

        Only if the things which you are assuming, and for which you have no evidence, are true. The public statements and the scriptures, on their face, say something else.

        Once again, the totality of your argument against PTHG is not that he’s got the facts wrong.

        I don’t see that this is going anywhere.

        1. I agree I don’t see this going anywhere from this point. But when you keep claiming that I don’t disagree with any of Denver’s “facts”, you are ignoring the many places I have pointed out how several of his interpretations are factually inaccurate or impossible altogether, but because you desire to cling to Denver’s interpretations over the facts I have presented you have ignored these things. You are free to do that, but I wish you weren’t so blinded by your position to see that Denver’s interpretations are just that, interpretations, and in many cases factually impossible. You like to pretend that all of your’s and Denver’s interpretations are more straightforward, but it is simply not true. You believe you are open minded, but you have refused to concede even when I have brought forth facts, and instead you choose not to respond to those points preferring to debate the unprovable points instead, pretending I never brought forth any facts. You don’t respond to many of my direct questions – like the recent one about your thoughts on the keys Moses committed in D&C 110 – when you know it does not support your position. That’s what makes a conversation like this impossible, along with the fact that some points really are just not objectively provable.

      9. I ask was there any sealing power attending this preisthood. Oh no that would admit a man into the presence of God.

        Joseph was admitted into the presence of God in 1820, implying therefore he had the higher priesthood and sealing power at that time.

        1. And notice how Joseph then goes on to imply that since Abraham’s patriarchal priesthood did admit him into the presence of God, that it did contain sealing power.

          This would insinuate that the use of some sealing power is not evidence of the fullness of the Priesthood, showing that Joseph’s use of sealing power prior to 1836 is not sufficient evidence to claim he held the fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

  113. Let’s go into D&C 124, I suppose.

    25 And again, verily I say unto you, let all my saints come from afar.

    26 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 antiquities; 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;

    27 And with iron, with copper, and with brass, and with zinc, and with all your precious things of the earth; and build a house to my name, for the Most High to dwell therein.

    Come quickly, saints, and build a temple with all precious things for God to dwell in, not merely visit.

    28 For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood.

    The fullness of the priesthood is lost to, or has been taken from, the audience, and there is no place on the planet where the Lord may come – He, Himself – to restore it. Whether you read “you” as being the world at large, or the Church, the outcome is the same. But, since He had heretofore been addressing the saints, it seems unjustified to now claim he’s addressing anyone else.

    29 For a baptismal font there is not upon the earth, that they, my saints, may be baptized for those who are dead—

    30 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.

    31 But I command you, all ye my saints, to build a house unto me; and I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me; and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me.

    He will give enough time for this temple to be built.

    32 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.

    Whenever the time He has allotted for completing the temple is past, our baptisms for the dead will no longer be acceptable – and we shall be rejected as a Church along with our dead. Note he’s still talking to “you,” about “your” stuff. Can’t be the world at large, it would appear.

    33 For verily I say unto you, that after you have had sufficient time to build a house to 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;

    34 For therein are the keys of the holy priesthood ordained, that you may receive honor and glory.

    After we’ve had enough time (and He said He’d give us sufficient time), our baptisms for the dead are no longer acceptable to Him.

    35 And after this time, your baptisms for the dead, by those who are scattered abroad, are not acceptable unto me, saith the Lord.

    36 For it is ordained that in Zion, and in her stakes, and in Jerusalem, those places which I have appointed for refuge, shall be the places for your baptisms for your dead.

    The temple is the only place appointed for the baptisms.

    37 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?

    38 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.

    39 Therefore, verily I say unto you, that your anointings, and your washings, and your baptisms for the dead, and your solemn assemblies, 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 judgments, for the beginning of the revelations and foundation of Zion, and for the glory, honor, and endowment of all her municipals, are ordained by the ordinance of my holy house, which my people are always commanded to build unto my holy name.

    40 And verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal mine ordinances therein unto my people;

    The Nauvoo temple, “this house,” is where the Lord may reveal the ordinances of the temple.

    41 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.

    42 And I will show unto my servant Joseph all things pertaining to this house, and the priesthood thereof, and the place whereon it shall be built.

    Joseph knew all things of the priesthood of that specified house.

    43 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.

    44 If ye labor with all your might, I will consecrate that spot that it shall be made holy.

    Holy places are where those who are unclean cannot come, without desecrating it.

    45 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.

    If they listen to the appointed men, the people shall not be moved out of their place. Incidentally, this applies to all who are not Joseph.

    46 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 mine holy grounds, and mine holy ordinances, and charters, and my holy words which I give unto them.

    “I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.”

    47 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 fulfil the promises which ye expect at my hands, saith the Lord.

    Even if they “complete” the temple, if it is not within the time allotted, none of the promised blessings will be given (the revelation of the ordinances by the Lord, the restoration of the fullness of the priesthood, the place being consecrated by the Lord that it be made holy, the people not being moved from their place).

    48 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 practice before me, saith the Lord.

    Seems to be an apt description of the Saints being driven from Nauvoo.

    49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.

    50 And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God.

    51 Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God.

    This principle doesn’t apply to Nauvoo, since, as the Lord said, He’d given them sufficient time to do what He commanded.

    52 And I will answer judgment, wrath, and indignation, wailing, and anguish, and gnashing of teeth upon their heads, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord your God.

    53 And this I make an example unto you, for your consolation concerning all those who have been commanded to do a work and have been hindered by the hands of their enemies, and by oppression, saith the Lord your God.

    George Q. Cannon tried to claim this principle for Nauvoo – but it doesn’t work.

    54 For I am the Lord your God, and will save all those of your brethren who have been pure in heart, and have been slain in the land of Missouri, saith the Lord.

    55 And again, verily I say unto you, I command you again to build a house to my name, even in this place, that you may prove yourselves unto me that ye are faithful in all things whatsoever I command you, that I may bless you, and crown you with honor, immortality, and eternal life.

    Promised blessings for obedience, and cursings for disobedience.

    And, as we know from our own history, the Saints never completed the temple, therefore, since the Lord is not a liar, we may know the other judgements, combined with the painfully obvious being “moved out of their place,” took place.

    The Lord gave what seems to be a farewell letter to the Church.

    D&C 136:37-38
    Therefore, marvel not at these things, for ye are not yet pure; ye can not yet bear my glory [what He offered at Nauvoo]; but ye shall behold it if ye are faithful in keeping all my words that I have given you, from the days of Adam to Abraham, from Abraham to Moses, from Moses to Jesus and his apostles, and from Jesus and his apostles to Joseph Smith, whom I did call upon by mine angels, my ministering servants, and by mine own voice out of the heavens, to bring forth my work; which foundation he did lay, and was faithful; and I took him to myself.

    And the heavens have been sealed against the Church ever since.

    1. You’re asking questions or bringing up points that I’ve already responded to in a way entirely consistent with what is written. What good would it do to bring it all up again? You can go back, but it isn’t very helpful to the conversation to go in circles.

      1. Steve, if you feel I have mischaracterized the content of D&C 124, then that’s one thing. If, instead, your position is that there are multiple ways to read it, well, any text admits of almost infinite readings – just others may require a lot more assumptions, and others yet are based on assumptions which are contrary to the text (think “epicycles”).

        I’m just reading the text as it stands, without making assumptions

      2. Log, I do not feel that your reading is based any any less assumptions, but even if somehow we could prove your reading was the most direct or obvious reading, it would not make it true. Someone might use the bible to prove with the most obvious reading that Jesus ministered to the wicked in spirit prison before his resurrection, and yet if they held to that belief until doomsday, it would still not make it true. The same may be said of the Book of Mormon and eternal damnation or eternal punishment.

        So even conceding that your interpretation is the most direct, which I do not concede, it is still valid to bring in evidence elsewhere trying to look at the bigger picture to aid in that interpretation. And that’s exactly what I, Geoff, and others have done.

    2. “And the heavens have been sealed against the Church ever since.”

      Really? And by what evidence do you support this assertion? How could you even approach this from an historical point of view?

  114. In fact, as it stands, D&C 124 is so clear I don’t think it needs commentary.

    As Joseph taught, “What is the rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely as it reads.”

    If you cannot apply this rule, then chances are good you are dealing with the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture, and are engaged in wresting the scriptures, and are not perceiving the word of God.

  115. Also, Steve, it’s not a matter of disingenuity. I simply am not making the assumptions you are making. In fact, I make very nearly no assumptions.

    That’s how I read PTHG – I made no assumptions. Even when I wanted to disagree with Snuffer, I was forced to concede that yes, the facts of history are what he said they were (I spent nearly 2 decades engaging anti-Mormons on LDS apologetics sites, and was familiar with the history), and the scriptures at face value said what he was representing them to say.

    I can’t tell you how many times I said “darn it. It does say that.”

    When we assume things, we wrest the scriptures to conform to our assumptions. That’s why so many believe that the Savior appeared to the Nephites at Bountiful almost immediately after His resurrection – instead of 9 to 11 months afterwards, just to pick one harmless example. Those assumptions are profitably understood as “the philosophies of men.”

    You have a paradigm, and I have a paradigm, and what we have here is a conflict between paradigms. See Kevin Christensen’s wonderful articles on Kuhn in the Farms Review of Books on the Book of Mormon. We don’t share the same assumptions, you and I. We aren’t solving the same problems. What are to me open questions are to you not even subject to inquiry.

    1. And, I might add, when people have sufficiently divergent paradigms, it can easily lead to them talking right past one another – sometimes they use the same words but attaching very different meanings to them, for example.

  116. Steve,

    It really isn’t going anywhere. I understand you have concerns and feel you must appear to triumph; this would be consistent with how you perceive your covenants. I fully appreciate that.

    I’m going to suggest something that just occurred to me, consistent with D&C 121 and the lack of formal revocation of priesthood to the primitive Christians. It wasn’t necessary to formally revoke their priesthood.

    They didn’t have the Aaronic priesthood. John was the last having that authority in antiquity.

    D&C 84
    25 Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also;

    26 And the lesser priesthood continued, which priesthood holdeth the key of the ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel;

    27 Which gospel is the gospel of repentance 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 filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb.

    28 For he was baptized while he was yet in his childhood, 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 before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all power.

    We have the Aaronic priesthood.

    Doctrine and Covenants 13:1
    1 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering 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, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

    The primitive Christians had the Melchizedek priesthood, at one point in time, from Christ Himself, which can officiate in the ordinances of the lesser priesthood. The Melchizedek priesthood is automatically revoked in the case of unworthiness

    The Aaronic priesthood apparently does not depend upon personal worthiness, as the Jews demonstrated through the millennia, so baptisms performed under its authority would be valid. Moreover, Aaronic priesthood is sufficient to validly administer in ordinances in the temple, as the Jews demonstrated yet again.

    And we have at least got that much authority (see, again, D&C 13).

    Food for thought.

  117. you are ignoring the many places I have pointed out how several of his interpretations are factually inaccurate or impossible altogether

    That is not how I perceive what you are doing.

    but because you desire to cling to Denver’s interpretations over the facts I have presented you have ignored these things.

    And you judge the desires of my heart.

    You are free to do that, but I wish you weren’t so blinded by your position to see that Denver’s interpretations are just that, interpretations, and in many cases factually impossible.

    You offer assumptions which have to be true for your conclusions to follow. The facts remain untouched.

    You like to pretend that all of your’s and Denver’s interpretations are more straightforward, but it is simply not true.

    And you accuse me of hypocrisy.

    You believe you are open minded, but you have refused to concede even when I have brought forth facts, and instead you choose not to respond to those points preferring to debate the unprovable points instead, pretending I never brought forth any facts.

    I am not sure you understand the difference between facts and supposition. Maybe it’s honestly possible to fail to see that one is wresting evidence to conform to conclusions, if one believes sufficiently strongly in one’s conclusions, but it is not persuasive in the least to those who don’t share those conclusions.

    You don’t respond to many of my direct questions – like the recent one about your thoughts on the keys Moses committed in D&C 110 – when you know it does not support your position.

    And you judge what you suppose are my thoughts.

    That’s what makes a conversation like this impossible, along with the fact that some points really are just not objectively provable.

    If it’s not objectively provable, then it’s not a matter of fact, but supposition, assumption, and interpretation.

    But that’s what I said was the reaction to PTHG from the outset.

    1. But your form of argumentation seems to be blind to the reality that what constitutes the relevant “facts” in any discussion, is at the mercy of the historian. The historian must select the “facts” most important to the interpretation he is trying to assert. Then, the historian is forced to assert his paradigm (or theory or worldview) based on his assertion of these facts. To defend Snuffer on the basis that he is only dealing with facts, is indeed disingenuous on your part. As soon as anyone steps from the facts into the realm of explanation, as they necessarily must, then you are right into the realm of interpretation.

      1. Karl,

        I explained, multiple times, that I was interested in errors of fact, not disputations concerning interpretations.

        As the First Presidency once rightly observed, “No man’s opinion is worth a straw.”

        And, as is truly said today, opinions are like *******s. Everyone’s got one, and everybody’s but yours stinks.

  118. Just curious, do you think the keys committed to Joseph and Oliver by Moses in section 110 were also previously committed to Joseph and Oliver by Peter, James, and John?

    I have no reason to – but I do have reason to believe that the keys of this dispensation were, because Joseph said so.

    What about the dispensation of Abraham committed by Elias, was that already previously committed by Peter, James, and John too?

    I do not have any record of the dispensation of Abraham being committed by Peter, James, and John to Joseph – but I do have a record of the keys of this dispensation being conferred by Peter, James, and John to Joseph.

    1. If Moses needed to give Joseph Smith the keys (authority) of the gathering of Israel, isn’t this evidence if true, that factually Joseph Smith did not hold the fullness of authority that a man can obtain on earth, or in other words, is this not evidence that Joseph didn’t hold the fullness of the Priesthood previous to 1836?

      1. My thinking is that a man may receive the “fullness of the priesthood” without receiving everything that said “fullness” entails — just as Jesus did not receive a “fullness” at first, but afterward received it (see D&C 93:12-14).

        The priesthood enables one to receive all things; it is not “reception” in fact. There were things Jesus didn’t know, or have power to give, though He possessed a “fullness”.

  119. I apologize for inundating the comment section. I will respectfully bow out at this point, and leave this to others who wish to also contribute.

    1. Gosh, I just can’t shake the feeling that somehow I sinned in this whole conversation. I know we both desired that this not enter the realms of contention, but I fear I may have entered that territory somewhere. I apologize for approaching this or treating you, Log, in an un-Christ-like way. Maybe we can just do the old agree to disagree thing since it seems like our viewpoints are not reconcilable right now, and I hope we can still be friends if we run into each other in comment sections elsewhere. It is my desire to value you, as a brother in Christ, over principles, which thing I may have unfortunately temporarily forgotten at times today. I hope you can forgive me if you also felt I did so. Truly, all the best!

      1. Gosh, I just can’t shake the feeling that somehow I sinned in this whole conversation.

        Me too, on my part. I think that it is best to let it lie. Each man has to judge these things for themselves in the light of Christ.

        Peace.

        1. On the bright side, I think we, and the others involved in the conversation here, have done a pretty good job at outlining the major points of contention surrounding PTHG, and have given a solid debate supporting both sides probably just about as good as could be done by any group of non-experts or non-historians. Hopefully that will be helpful to those who want to view many of the merits of both paradigms to come to a conclusion on their own.

      2. Don’t be hard on yourselves. You were both far more civil than the folks on LDSFF.

        Seriously. Great conversation.

    1. The same thing they should be doing even if it isn’t correct.

      1. Repent of all their sins.
      2. Call upon the name of the Lord in mighty prayer to be forgiven and to receive the Spirit, and pursue this prayer until the Holy Ghost is sent down from heaven into their heart as by fire that they are filled with that joy which is indescribable and full of glory, and hear the voice of God from on high.

      Both of these together are what the Book of Mormon terms “repentance.” The resulting power which fills one is what the Book of Mormon terms “faith.”

      From thence, it is as Joseph said – continue to hunger and thirst after righteousness and live by every word of God, and their calling and election shall be made sure, and they shall receive the Second Comforter (WoJS p. 13-14, 27 June 1839). Then they shall have what is termed “knowledge,” a foretaste of which is given when we are born again.

      Nephi summed it up thus.

      2 Nephi 25:29
      29 And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.

      As some don’t have the single-minded devotion to do this in a day, as Enos did, in the meantime, members should be keeping the commandments of God, and obeying His precepts – they are contained in Mosiah 4, and 3 Nephi 12-14. Give unto them that ask, suffer not the beggar to put up his petition to you in vain, judge not, turn the other cheek rather than revile, and so forth.

      All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets.

      That’s all there ever was to it.

      1. D&C 59:9-12
        9 And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day;

        10 For verily this is a day appointed unto you to rest from your labors, and to pay thy devotions unto the Most High;

        11 Nevertheless thy vows shall be offered up in righteousness on all days and at all times;

        12 But remember that on this, the Lord’s day, thou shalt offer thine oblations and thy sacraments unto the Most High, confessing thy sins unto thy brethren, and before the Lord.

        So, there is that.

        Did you have anything specific in mind that you wanted to ask about?

  120. If the church is wondering in the wilderness, does it matter if one is a member? Go to the temple? Keep the word of wisdom?

    I suppose what I am asking, what would one’s membership/life be like compared to before understanding the church went awry?

    1. My view is that it’s the same, either way. The sole differences would be in the significance we personally attach to things, but hey, that’s true no matter what, for no two members think alike anyways, and we’re mostly all at different spots spiritually.

      President Benson once said something to this effect (though, for the life of me, I can’t find the cite again) – inasmuch as you are faithful, you shall not be permitted to fail.

      So, if your eye is single to the glory of God, He’ll tell you what He expects of you, and this includes with respect to the Church. Of course, you’ll be praying always and ever hearkening to the promptings of the Spirit, too. 🙂

  121. Ok, let’s catalog some major spiritual experiences in the Book of Mormon and see what we can learn.

    Ether warns us of secret combinations, but there are at least 2 major experiences. Do you know of Emer?

    He was a righteous king and did good all his life. It was his privilege to see the Son of Righteousness near the end of his life (Ether 9:22)

    This would suggest it might take a lifetime to see the Savior, assuming you have been righteous.

    1. It might, indeed. Or, as Joseph exemplified, it might be quite a bit earlier.

      D&C 88:62-68
      62 And again, verily I say unto you, my friends, I leave these sayings with you to ponder in your hearts, with this commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall call upon me while I am near—

      63 Draw near unto me and I will draw near unto you; seek me diligently and ye shall find me; ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

      64 Whatsoever ye ask the Father in my name it shall be given unto you, that is expedient for you;

      65 And if ye ask anything that is not expedient for you, it shall turn unto your condemnation.

      66 Behold, that which you hear is as the voice of one crying in the wilderness—in the wilderness, because you cannot see him—my voice, because my voice is Spirit; my Spirit is truth; truth abideth and hath no end; and if it be in you it shall abound.

      67 And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things.

      68 Therefore, sanctify yourselves that your minds become single to God, and the days will come that you shall see him; for he will unveil his face unto you, and it shall be in his own time, and in his own way, and according to his own will.

      Ask, and ye shall receive. Knock, and it shall be opened unto you. I honestly can’t think of a more repeated promise in all of the scriptures.

      Therefore, do we live for these things? Do we do as Moroni says?

      Mormon 9:28
      28 Be wise in the days of your probation; strip yourselves of all uncleanness; ask not, that ye may consume it on your lusts, but ask with a firmness unshaken, that ye will yield to no temptation, but that ye will serve the true and living God.

      1. Note that Jacob (Nephi’s brother 2 Ne 2:1) and Mormon (Mormon 1:15) both were visited by the Lord in their youth. It does not say how young Jacob was (“in thy youth”) but Mormon says he was 15. We can therefore conclude scripturally that it can take as little as 15 years.

        Bottom line: This is not an issue of time, but of faith and dedication. I can’t find the quote now, but there is a good one from Joseph Smith where he says, in effect, the Nephites and Lamanites were much more dedicated than we are. They were able to obtain promises (and curses) from God in very little time.

      2. I don’t take Mormon’s statement that way, even though it could be read that way.

        I believe Mormon was visited with the manifestations of the Spirit of the Lord, and baptized by fire at age 15, and I believe when Nephi said he cried unto the Lord and the Lord visited him (1 Nephi 2:16), that he was speaking of the same thing (D&C 5:16).

        See similarities in language deployed in Mosiah 4:11, Hebrews 6, and Alma 32:4-5.

        However, all that aside, I believe as you do – that being visited of the Lord, or being brought into His presence, is a matter of faith and dedication.

  122. So are the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles today claiming authority/power/keys they do not possess?

    (2013 April General Conference, “Come unto Me”, Sat. Morning Session – By Henry B. Eyring)
    I am a witness of the Resurrection of the Lord as surely as if I had been there in the evening with the two disciples in the house on Emmaus road. I know that He lives as surely as did Joseph Smith when he saw the Father and the Son in the light of a brilliant morning in a grove of trees in Palmyra.
    This is the true Church of Jesus Christ. Only in the priesthood keys held by President Thomas S. Monson is the power for us to be sealed in families to live forever with our Heavenly Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. We will on the Day of Judgment stand before the Savior, face to face. It will be a time of joy for those who have drawn close to Him in His service in this life. It will be a joy to hear the words: “Well done, thou good and faithful servant.” I so testify as a witness of the risen Savior and our Redeemer in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

    “As surely as” is a significant phrase in the scriptures. It is usually part of an oath. Denver and those who subscribe to his view/interpretation must play word games to refute these witnesses – they have to accuse the brethren of playing word games, too (which really amounts to dishonesty, intent to mislead). Apostle doesn’t mean Apostle like Joseph was. “Witness of the Resurrection of the Lord” doesn’t mean he saw anything or anyone. “As surely as if I had been there” couldn’t be a veiled reference to his own experience in which he was there. If you concede that Pres. Eyring is not a liar or a deceiver, intentionally using declarative/authoritative language, and being in an authoritative position – in other words, he is an ordained Apostle, in the presiding council of the Church, and he is declaring his witness, in very clear language – you cannot say that this is just in reference to a personal experience. Because he is a member of the First Presidency and his witness and testimony are directly connected to other statements. Plus, how could someone standing in his position – either knowingly or unknowingly – have such a theophany and be deceived or ignorant otherwise? It does not stand to reason. You either have to accept his witness as genuine, grossly redefine it (the word games Denver plays), or flatly reject it as pretense or deception. You cannot say he’s a good guy, who just is using the words wrong, but he’s just custodial/administrative.

    This logic applies just as well to President Joseph F. Smith and Section 138. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say it was a personal experience and he just wasn’t aware that he was just a custodial Apostle, a prophet, seer, and revelator in title only. Denver’s reasoning for this accusation contains too many contradictions to the facts. He uses and interprets their words against them when it suits his purpose and says he is just taking them at their word. But he does not consider all their words together, only convenient quotes in isolation.

    Log, you have done the same thing with Pres. Packer’s words about the authority and power of the Priesthood.

    To quote you:
    “I think it might look something like this.

    We have done very well at distributing the authority of the priesthood. We have priesthood authority planted nearly everywhere. We have quorums of elders and high priests worldwide. But distributing the authority of the priesthood has raced, I think, ahead of distributing the power of the priesthood.

    The authority of the priesthood is with us. After all that we have correlated and organized, it is now our responsibility to activate the power of the priesthood in the Church. Authority in the priesthood comes by way of ordination; power in the priesthood comes through faithful and obedient living in honoring covenants.
    (Packer, Boyd K., The Power of the Priesthood, April General Conference)

    We have the form of Godliness, but the power is missing. That, I believe, is a significant admission by President Packer.”

    He didn’t say that the Church doesn’t have power in the priesthood. He said distributing the authority has raced ahead of distributing the power. It is much more likely to mean there are not enough priesthood holders with power in the priesthood – not that there aren’t any. You and Denver have both misused this quote several times. And you have also quoted a man, one of the presiding brethren (so in a position of authority), for the purpose of using his own words to strengthen your claim/paradigm that he does not possess that authority. It is very ironic. Accuser of the brethren keeps coming to mind. And let’s not pass over the fact that he is saying “the authority of the priesthood is with us.” If you and Denver are going to quote the brethren, stop using their words against them and only in pieces. They are not saying what you are saying.

    And what about this Joseph Smith quote doesn’t apply to Denver?
    “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 that man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying 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.” Denver says he is right, condemns all the Apostles after Joseph Smith, finds fault with the church saying they are out of the way, and in a very particular but subtle way says that he himself is righteous. Without playing word games, he fits the bill. Make no mistake he has now very publicly claimed divine authorization for what he is teaching and doing. He is no longer an insider with a divergent opinion – “I have an assignment given to me I intend to discharge.”

    If I’ve misread you, my upfront apologies and feel free to correct me by clarifying your position. This is how you’ve come across to me.

    I would like to discuss the contradictions in Denver’s representation/paradigm. I think there are many that do not fit the scriptures/prophecies, nor the Church today.

    1. Geoff,

      President Packer’s statement describes the fact that the Church, generally speaking, has not got power in the priesthood. That indisputable fact, that we, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, generally speaking, have not got power in the priesthood, says nothing about any particular individual.

      Just as our potentially having been rejected as a Church along with our dead would say nothing about any particular individual.

      I disagree with President Packer that power and authority can be distinguished. I do not believe there are any scriptural grounds to support that concept, and I believe that the conclusion to that position implies that the Restoration is a fraud, because the Catholics’ claim to priesthood authority from Peter would be valid. No need to restore what was already here.

      D&C 121:37
      37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

      The withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord is the withdrawal of power, since the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, is the source of priesthood power (Moses 6). No power = no priesthood = no authority.

      This analysis doesn’t apply to the Aaronic priesthood.

      About your issues with PTHG, I have done discussed it to death, and won’t defend it.

      But how does Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Lehi fare against your citation from Joseph Smith? Accept, for the sake of argument alone, that Denver is telling the truth about his divine commission. Please explain how Joseph Smith’s statement about apostasy would condemn him as an apostate, and not those others. If you are unable to even for the sake of argument take his claims seriously enough to consider them, you are unable to fairly evaluate his claims.

      I don’t see that he has condemned anyone, actually, which to me renders Joseph Smith’s observation about apostasy moot.

      1. log, et al

        Could I be a Johnny come lately to what appears to be a very spirited discussion.

        Is it possible that the sealing keys of the Priesthood were given to JS by Elijah and he, JS, was the repository of the same for a period of time. Is it also plausible that JS conferred those sealing keys unto the twelve before his death.

        I have prayed earnestly about the temple ordinances and the endowment. I have sought the Lord on why the words are spoken, “if you do thus and thus there will come a time that you are called up”,….and so forth.

        What does it mean to be called up?

        The Lord answered my prayers. He brought me to an understanding of what He means in the endowment.

        Question: Has anyone here on this blog ever interviewed a Temple President about what keys he is a possessor of? And if he possess these keys then they had to undoubtedly been bestowed upon him by one who held the keys and authority to do so.

        For me I know without doubt that the sealing keys of the Holy Priesthood are found in the President of the Church, and with his death, are found in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

        Do we really understand what the “holy anointing” is as it bears to this conversation? These are sacred things brothers and sisters. They are not secret — for the Lord will reveal them to all who seek His will concerning the matter.

        As far as the Church falling under condemnation I am sure that we all fall short of the glory of the highest but I don’t think that the Lord would be double minded in any of His doings.

        To come to understand something we can seek to have light and knowledge poured out upon us so as to understand the things of heaven. We struggle to understand the things of a lesser significance and while thus struggling we ask to view the higher things. I put myself in the same category brothers and sisters so this is not a me vs you, we’re all in this together. And we can help one another to come unto Christ by understanding how to do so.

        Have the brethren come unto Christ? If one takes the time to read their writings then one will see, 100% of the time, where each disciple shares some sacred experience with others. One will not see this with their physical eyes but it will be clear to the spiritual eyes.

        Each President of each Stake and each President of each Temple has a complete understanding of that which I write. It is too sacred to write here but I always love the discussion in as much as possible.

      2. I have my own opinion about this, Log, but I would appreciate hearing yours.

        If a man, perchance, has “lost” his priesthood (by committing any one of the above infractions or sins), how might he get it “back” again?

      3. Will,

        By receiving again the Holy Ghost through repentance and faith, as it is written in the Book of Mormon.

        I found a quote of interest on this subject, in fact.

        There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized, which was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the Gospel, but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized. Had he not taken this sign or ordinance upon him, the Holy Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him. Until he obeyed these ordinances and received the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of hands, according to the order of God, he could not have healed the sick or commanded an evil spirit to come out of a man, and it obey him; for the spirits might say unto him, as they did to the sons of Sceva: ‘Paul we know and Jesus we know, but who are ye?’ – Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 4:555

        Here, we see supporting evidence again for my observation that it is the lack of receipt of the Holy Ghost – the baptism by fire is very rare today – which accounts for the lack of power in the priesthood mentioned by President Packer. That is, in fact, the sole possible explanation.

        Our confirmations are without power. There are deep and disturbing implications to that.

        That’s why the Gentiles have not charity, as hinted by the Lord would be the case (Ether 12). And those without charity shall not abide the day of His coming, for they are unholy and impure, ordinations and ordinances notwithstanding.

        In any event, I have decided that it is better to not participate in this thread any longer. I may post something at justandtrue sometime.

    2. “As sure as” could be because President Eyring has completed the charge originally given to all the Apostles in this dispensation by [at the time] Church Co-President Oliver Cowdrey. It could also be a gift of the spirit (see D&C 46:11-13). President Eyring’s declaration doesn’t tell us for sure which it is. I pray that it is the former, but would be content even if it were the later since that would be a blessing to and for the Church (cf. D&C 46:14).

      Regardless, we are blessed to have someone of the caliber of President Eyring as a counselor in the First Presidency as opposed to past generations that had to deal with an adulterer such as John C. Bennett or someone like Amasa M. Lyman who repeatedly taught that Christ’s atonement was not necessary, or a pure businessman like Charles W. Nibley, about whom his grandson Hugh said
      (in The Faith of an Observer transcript, page 5.):

      HN: I think it was that last talk I had with Grandpa, and I went to see Grandpa Nibley, and that’s when he died. He had a suite on the top floor of the Hotel Utah. He said, “D’you see that window there?” Considering the things he’d done in his life, he says, “If an angel were to come through that door I would jump right out that window,” he said. He couldn’t face an angel; he was talking about the culture shock of meeting an angel and so forth. And, uh, that was our parting conversation. The last words to me. Then we said good-bye, and so forth. But that left it with me, you see. Here he was in the First Presidency, had been Presiding Bishop for all those years, and yet he says now that he could not face an angel, and it has been because–we’d been talking about it–because of the things he had to do in the way of business. So I don’t have much choice.

    3. Please, let’s stop playing the guessing game in terms of what the Brethren say. If they say they saw something, fine. They are only saying “as if” they saw something. You can only imply what they are actually saying.

      A strike against what you would like to believe is the “evolution” of the apostolic charge given to newly called Brethren. You can research this in Quinn’s Hierarchy books—I cannot recall which of the 2. Interestingly, though the charge was originally as Log stated somewhere above (your ordination is not complete until you have seen and handled), it degraded to “your job is to witness of the Lord as if you have seen him” by the early 1900s. This is precisely the language used. So we have vague language that happens to be the exact vague language given in the charge. If that is not a great reason to not impute more than what is actually being said, I don’t know what is.

  123. When Denver posts all the communication from the Church leaders and fails to post his own appeal letter, it doesn’t lead me to believe his motive is transparency.

  124. Fwiw, log, I do not think “authority” means what you think it means, in the context of how President Packer used it. I think you and he are talking about two very different things, using the same word to do so. It happens all the time in English (and other languages), and it’s interesting to watch it happening.

    I agree with you that power and authority are synonymous if both come directly from God, but I also agree with Pres. Packer that someone can be given authority to do something but lose power associated with the original authorization. It all comes down to the source of the authorization, and anyone who rejects people as the source of legitimate authorization also will reject the difference between authority and power – since, as Pres. Packer uses it, the authority comes from God through human representatives, while the power comes from God alone. If someone believes the authority comes straight from God alone (not through ordination by human representatives), then authority and power can be synonymous.

    This is symptomatic of the entire discussion up to this point: You (and with regard to this specific topic, Denver) start from a totally different foundation than the people with whom you have been talking (polar opposites, in some regards), so the perspectives used and the conclusions reached are different, as well.

  125. log = denver snuffer alter ego

    how do you claim to sustain your local leaders while refusing to attend stake conference?

    it would be interesting to have denver’s neighbors share their observations

  126. I’m not Snuffer. Moreover, I am pretty sure I have garbled his actual position.

    But I am saddened to behold mockery and the pointing of fingers in scorn from within the household of faith.

  127. To those who are new to the conversation, please show brotherly kindness. What possible good does ignorant and false accusation serves.

    Log has seemed nothing but sincere in his position. And though we see things differently, we are trying to reach understanding in a respectful and considerate way. Most people online are protecting their identity these days, for good reasons. He has not abused his pseudonym to troll or be a jerk.

    Please contribute to the discussion, which is about Denver’s teachings, and particularly those in his recent book, PTHG – whether they are true or not, and how his recent excommunication and speaking tour relate.

    I have to admit, Denver is confusing to me. I read his first book, Second Comforter, twice, and loved it. I was very disappointed to find out about PTHG and its content via his blog, etc., and even more disappointed to find out he had chosen excommunication over stopping publishing PTHG.

  128. I actually muddled quite a few things very badly, and I don’t think I adequately described Snuffer’s argument in PTHG. The meat of it is the literal reading of D&C 110 not supporting the the interpretation placed upon it in the teachings of the Church, and the fact that the threatened consequences of failing to build the Nauvoo temple in D&C 124 were fulfilled in a very public manner.

    I conflated the keys of the kingdom – divine authorization to perform outward ordinances – which I believe the Church does have, with fullness of the priesthood, which D&C 124 logically implies we, as a Church, don’t have (but any particular individual may have it). And then there’s the conflation of the rites of the priesthood, and ordination to the priesthood, with priesthood itself, the priesthood of the temple conflated with the rites of the temple conflated with the fullness of the priesthood, and the issue of whether obtaining one’s second anointing, wherein one is declared a king and a priest, even under the hand of Joseph in the context of D&C 124, constitutes receiving the fullness of the priesthood – and I do not believe that it did or does; neither do I believe any outward ordinance confers power (and I believe I stated some reasons for that belief on the thread) – unless the recipient is qualified. And the one qualification is holiness (1 Peter 1:15-16, Leviticus 11:45).

    I don’t do so well in adversarial situations, and the position I was trying to explain was not my own (except for the literal readings of D&C 84, 110, 124, 109:60, 3 Nephi 16, 3 Nephi 21, etc.), and these issues are way more complicated than it seems. Terms are ofttimes ill-, or even un-, defined.

    I know eventually all will be explained to me (hopefully soon). But, as I have said, and as I consistently keep saying, I don’t know that the thesis of PTHG is correct. I do find it more plausible than the Church’s position, because it happens to be consistent with the scriptures, the history that I’m aware of, and it explains both what I have experienced and observed with my own eyes.

    As the Lord essentially told me and Steve to shut up, I’m not going to revisit the thread except to clarify my own contributions to the discussion – that is, to clarify those words and positions which are my own.

    I guess since the topic is Snuffer and PTHG, that means I won’t be saying much.

    1. But, as I have said, and as I consistently keep saying, I don’t know that the thesis of PTHG is correct. I do find it more plausible than the Church’s position, because it happens to be consistent with the scriptures, the history that I’m aware of, and it explains both what I have experienced and observed with my own eyes.

      But it sounds as though you’ve accepted Snuffer lock stock and barrel. I would encourage you to continue analyzing Snuffer until you receive revelation on the subject. This is how I had to do it: I read Second Comforter and loved the book. I read PTHG and was quite disturbed by it, but knew it was (and is) a very important work. So, I read it again, and then very carefully a third time. I don’t think I have ever read the same book back to back three times in my life. All the while, because of the importance of the subject I was praying to have the main threads of Snuffer’s thesis opened to my spiritual mind, and any flaws if they were present in his analysis. Finally, on the third reading, nearly every main historical argument Snuffer put forward was exposed to my mind to be either incorrect, or at the least, merely, one argument among other equally plausible explanations for the reality of things. What the Spirit told me was sufficient for me to understand the truth of Denver Snuffer. I would simply suggest that you keep an open mind until the Spirit reveals the truth to you,, when and however he chooses to do so. By putting it this way, I am not trying to use my experience as a club to force you to accept anything I say as legitimate. Obviously, spiritual experiences are personal and not transferable.

      Having said all that, I do not agree that anyone, including Denver Snuffer, should be subject to church discipline simply for what he sincerely believes (and I do think that he is sincere). This is for me a troubling development in the church, that members are chastised or tossed out for their intellectual beliefs. I think that this is error on the part of leadership. The church is, and should be, a “big tent.” Surely we must believe and trust that the Spirit is sufficiently operative, that members can discern truth from error. Frankly, I wish we had a church of 10,000 Snuffers, and 10,000 Nibley’s, and all those who have the ability to keep us on our toes and keep us stretching forward to the things of eternity. Joseph Smith wouldn’t have anything to do with the provincialism that is currently one of the cornerstones of the church.

      I don’t agree with Snuffer’s conclusions. But I defend his right to state whatever he believes. If I think he is wrong, then it is my duty to try to use kindness, persuasion and long-suffering to bring him back into the correct way of thinking. That would be charity; that would be the Lord’s way, and it is His Church after all. Peace.

  129. Good friends! I hope you are listening or watching conference. The Church is true, our leaders are prophets, seers and revelators! The Spirit is strong and confirming.

    President Uchtdorf’s talk relates to Denver’s situation. One of the things he said, “doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith”.

    I hope you read it, and listen or watch the rest of conference.

  130. I agree! And I cannot believe that such striving, such diligence, and such consecration would not be rewarded by The Lord with absolute knowledge. I truly believe that the living Apostles KNOW whereof they speak.

    Denver repeated 3 times in his his first book this counsel, “choose your teachers carefully.” I choose to take the Lord’s counsel on this one:

    D&C 1
    14 And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;

    Don’t follow Denver’s example of not giving heed to the words of the prophets and apostles and being cut off from among the people. It really is that clear and simple, siblings and friends.

    Again, I pray and hope his appeal to the First Presidency will help him repent

  131. If I may observe something, D&C 1 was given in November, 1831. The Quorum of the Twelve was organized in 1835. The phrase “the words of the prophets and the apostles” means, in context, the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

    So the Lord is saying that if someone does not listen to at least one of these three things:

    1. His voice,
    2. the voice of His servants (among whom are the Brethren, and any others He chooses to set on His errand)
    3. or the scriptures,

    that person shall be cut off from among the people.

    I think the landscape changes, if indeed Snuffer is also a servant of God. And, if he is as servant of God, praying for his repentance is impertinent (in context, what such a person is really saying is they reject the idea that he is or can be a servant of God – I get it). I dunno ’bout y’all, God hasn’t been too free with telling me when this or that person has cause to repent – but has rather commanded that I should not judge.

  132. Also, soliciting guidance from God is one thing. Receiving it is another. A claim to the former is not a claim to the latter.

  133. Log, I respect you as a person and your point of view. But I don’t believe the Lord speaks in historical context the way you’re interpreting it, i.e. I think He inspired Joseph Smith and others to write scriptures that would have much longer term meaning and relevance. Hence, I think he meant prophets and apostles in the future tense, so in anticipation that he would organize the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles.

    I also do not believe that, in the Restoration Dispensation, he is calling unauthorized servants to steady the ark of the covenant, so to speak. So I believe he spoke these scriptures in the future context of His Church being fully organized as well:

    D&C 42:11
    “I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church.”

    Articles of Faith
    5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
    6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

    That’s one reason I believe the scriptures are still relevant. The Lord knows no one would be able to truly go back and establish the proper historical context for every scripture.

    Denver does not qualify as a servant, given the context of the established Church.

  134. Chief Inspector Clouseau

    “If I may observe something, D&C 1 was given in November, 1831. The Quorum of the Twelve was organized in 1835. The phrase “the words of the prophets and the apostles” means, in context, the Bible and the Book of Mormon.”

    log, the restored church had apostles in it long before the quorum of the 12 was called.

    On September 22 and 23, of 1832 the Lord acknowledged that Joseph Smith and several others were in fact “apostles” and “high priests” and “friends” of God, even as Abraham was a friend of God.

    62 Therefore, go ye into all the world; and unto whatsoever place ye cannot go ye shall send, that the testimony may go from you into all the world unto every creature.
    63 And as I said unto mine apostles, even so I say unto you, for you are mine apostles, even God’s high priests; ye are they whom my Father hath given me; ye are my friends;
    64 Therefore, as I said unto mine apostles I say unto you again, that every soul who believeth on your words, and is baptized by water for the remission of sins, shall receive the Holy Ghost.

    He was not initiating their calling as apostles at that time, only acknowledging that they were all apostles.

    There is no reason to believe that they were not apostles at the time section one was given 11 months earlier.

    Indeed, Oliver was informed that he held the same calling as the apostle Paul as early as 1829 (See section 18:9)

    Your logic that “The phrase “the words of the prophets and the apostles” means, in context, the Bible and the Book of Mormon.” is not supported in modern revelation.

  135. There were no apostles in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at that time it was given, therefore the Lord had no reference to apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Section 1.

    There is no reason to believe the men who would be in the future apostles were apostles at the time Section 1 was given. They were not ordained, nor upheld by common consent of the Church, as such, until they were ordained, and upheld by the common consent of the Church, as such, in 1835.

    Moreover, to interpolate the future apostles into Section 1 introduces both redundancy between “servants” and “prophets and apostles.” Not only that, but the language has been deployed since and it meant the same thing – the scriptures – there, too. See D&C 52:9, 52:36, 66:2, and 98:32.

    Now, having said that, it really doesn’t matter, because the outcome you’re seeking – that whoever doesn’t obey the Brethren shall be cut off – still doesn’t follow from the interpolation you’ve made. After all, if Snuffer is listening to the voice of the Lord, then he doesn’t fulfill the conditions listed in D&C 1:14. A person must not be hearkening to any of the three things listed.

    To address Geoff’s concern – objection, really – Snuffer’s not on a mission from the Church, neither is he founding branches, which is what is meant by building up the Church. Each member is under an active commandment to persuade all men unto repentance (2 Nephi 26:27). And Snuffer has been duly ordained by recognized authority as both a Aaronic and a Melchizedek priest, and I refer you to Alma 13.

    And if you know that Snuffer is not on the Lord’s errand, and is not hearkening to the voice of the Lord, and is not authorized of God to call all men unto repentance – the sole member of the Church not so authorized, I might add – because the Lord has said as much to you, then there is no need to wrest the scriptures to make the appearance of a scriptural case against him; just say “I know he’s false” and be done with it.

    I’m waiting still to hear a response as to how Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, or even Lehi, fare against the citation from Joseph Smith about apostasy. I think I’ve asked this thrice, now, without a response.

    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 that man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying 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.

    1. Whom has Snuffer condemned?
    2. What fault has Snuffer found with the Church?
    3. In what way does Snuffer claim the Church is out of the way, while he, himself, is righteous?

    Disagreeing on the interpretation of our history doesn’t qualify, in my book, to fulfill any of these conditions.

    Without showing that he fulfills all three conditions, you are proceeding on no basis at all to condemn a man.

    And you are free to do that. I simply point out that your conclusions don’t follow from your publicly declared premises.

    1. 1. Whom has Snuffer condemned?
      2. What fault has Snuffer found with the Church?
      3. In what way does Snuffer claim the Church is out of the way, while he, himself, is righteous?

      1. The Church, and the leaders of the Church who have authorized decisions in Denver’s proclaimed phases 2-4 of our history.
      2. I think the back of the book gives a decent overview of some of the condemnations, ” Phases two through four have all abandoned doctrine. Growth in these subsequent phases has been defined in terms of political influence, financial gains, cultural inroads, and population growth; while the underlying religion has been curtailed. Today, marketing the institution has become more important to Mormon success than preserving the original religious content. The changes from phase to phase have completely transformed Mormonism, sharing a vocabulary but redefining the terms. Modern Mormonism has now institutionalized change. ” But this list is not all inclusive.
      3. He claims that the church promises salvation through outward ordinances alone, claiming that the church intends this to replace the doctrine of receiving an audience with Christ: “By the fourth phase of Mormonism, a church controlled ceremony known as the Second Endowment… replaced the first phase aspiration to receive an audience with Christ.” (pg. 433, PTHG) While Denver has self proclaimed that he himself has sought the true and righteous path, seeking the Lord himself, and he himself has been righteous enough to achieve this very thing.

      1. 1. Can you substantiate that by direct reference to words he has actually written?

        2. How does that blurb constitute finding fault? I’m not seeing condemnations, but conclusions which are documented.

        3. I’m confused. Is the statement he makes factually correct, or are you aware of the Church administering audiences with Christ? Is it not the case that the Church does, in fact, administer Second Endowments? If Snuffer has, indeed, received the Second Comforter, as he claims, how does any of this constitute that the Church is out of the way?

        I’m not seeing it substantiation of what I asked, but I am seeing rhetoric being deployed.

        1. 1. My number 2 & 3 did just that.
          2. If you can’t see this as a list of faults Denver has found with the Church in phases 2-4, I’m afraid there is probably no amount of evidence I could ever provide that would convince you otherwise.
          3. This is a clear cut accusation from Denver, he doesn’t say the Church started emphasizing this ordinance more, or taught the doctrine of receiving an audience with Christ less, but clearly makes the unfounded and unprovable accusation that they “replaced the first phase aspiration to receive an audience with Christ” with this ordinance – whereas Denver promotes the opposite (i.e. he himself is righteous).

          This is quite clear in my eyes. If you haven’t even paused in the face of this evidence and won’t give even the smallest concession seeing this, I’m afraid there is truly nothing I can say or do at this point that will change your mind. Good luck working through this, I don’t think I can help beyond my witness.

          Something that maybe worth considering is how clear some of this is to many of us here. I have received my answer, I have a witness for myself that the Church holds the fullness of the Priesthood and the associated keys. And I have a witnessed that Denver is deceived, taken by a false spirit. Unless he repents and submits to the rightful authority above him, his excommunication will remain. If he does not repent, I pray there will not be many that fall prey to his same deception.

          You have admitted that you have not received an answer, and it seems that there has been confusion evident in you periodically throughout our conversation. Maybe it would be better to take our testimonies, study them, and pray about them with the same diligence you have given to Denver’s witness. You may be surprised to find that it bears better fruit. Wonderful quote by President Uchtdorf today that would be wise for you and all of us here to continually abide by, “Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith.” These may be some ways that could aid you in receiving an answer sooner than later.

      2. 1. My number 2 & 3 did just that.

        I’m sorry – I have to disagree that they did any such thing.

        2. If you can’t see this as a list of faults Denver has found with the Church in phases 2-4, I’m afraid there is probably no amount of evidence I could ever provide that would convince you otherwise.

        That is correct. To find fault, be it remembered, means “to censure.” To list facts cannot be censure; there is no moral approbrium attached to brute facts. They are only faults if you think they are necessarily bad things – in which case, the accuser in this situation is not Snuffer. If they are factual, and, please forgive me, they appear to be factual, then the problem appears to be that you don’t like what they imply, to you, about the Church.

        3. This is a clear cut accusation from Denver, he doesn’t say the Church started emphasizing this ordinance more, or taught the doctrine of receiving an audience with Christ less, but clearly makes the unfounded and unprovable accusation that they “replaced the first phase aspiration to receive an audience with Christ” with this ordinance – whereas Denver promotes the opposite (i.e. he himself is righteous).

        I just went and re-read the paragraph and I can now say with certainty you have read an accusation towards the Church where there is none.

        He did not say “the Church replaced….” Indeed, he lays no responsibility on anyone.

        Something that maybe worth considering is how clear some of this is to many of us here.

        I cannot see why that is worth considering at all. I have personally witnessed persons claiming things far removed from their actual state of knowledge, and beyond any evidence they could bring to bear upon the subjects, commonly.

        These may be some ways that could aid you in receiving an answer sooner than later.

        Steve, I do not look to you for answers, neither do I look to any man’s declaration that one thing or another is so, beyond his giving sufficient grounds to warrant his conclusions.

        I will await the further light and knowledge the Lord has promised me.

        1. “I will await the further light and knowledge the Lord has promised me.”

          And wouldn’t it be sad to discover, that the Lord attempted to send that light and knowledge to you through the testimonies offered by lowly members, but that you dismissed/rejected that light without further thought to it because of their lowly station or because they didn’t give you the kind of evidence you assumed/decided that they should have.

      3. And wouldn’t it be sad to discover, that the Lord attempted to send that light and knowledge to you through the testimonies offered by lowly members, but that you dismissed/rejected that light without further thought to it because of their lowly station or because they didn’t give you the kind of evidence you assumed/decided that they should have.

        I spoke literally. Let that suffice.

  136. Any man the Lord assigns a task to is authorized to perform that task. The Church is not the sole arbiter of the will or voice of the Lord, who today is just as capable of speaking unto men Himself as He ever was, neither is the Church the sole channel through which the Lord’s assignments come – any man who has hearkened unto the promptings of the Spirit to perform any task unto the Lord may testify of this principle.

    1. The Lord authorizing someone, or giving them authority, is synonymous in the Doctrine & Covenants with giving that individual keys. In a previous comment, I related this story about a man who claimed to have received authority outside the established Church, and Joseph Smith said he knew that the man was lying because of the following: “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)

      Joseph related that at any time on earth, when authority has been sent to men from heaven, it has been by Adam’s authority (that angels acting under Adam would be sent to give this authority to men on earth). But then as stated above, “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.”

      If the all Priesthood keys are established on earth, God will not send men from outside of that system.

      1. If the all Priesthood keys are established on earth, God will not send men from outside of that system.

        I remember that case – it was a case of a man who was seeking to be made a High Priest. He claimed to have been ordained by an angel. I think it’s referred to in PTHG.

        Your “if” is the very point under dispute with respect to PTHG, and D&C 124 renders it very difficult to affirm that all Priesthood keys are established on earth.

      2. D&C 124 makes it very difficult to affirm that all Priesthood keys are established on earth if the fullness of the priesthood incorporates keys.

  137. And it’s not kosher to avoid the thrust of the question I’ve asked by saying “in retrospect…” – the thrust of the question is how you would recognize one like unto them today.

    After all, the Lord changes not, we teach, and I verily believe – therefore why should we not expect to see prophets raised up from outside of the hierarchy, crying repentance and so forth?

    These are principled questions which I believe warrant straightforward answers.

    1. The principles are this, if there is only a lower level authority Priesthood existing on earth, then yes, God can give further keys to men to come unto and cry repentence / exercise authority over that system. Or if God has revoked his authority altogether from a people, and they have thus fallen into apostasy, having no authority, God can restore his authority elsewhere and call those fallen people unto repentence. Furthermore, God can raise prophets within His established hierachy that does hold his authority and keys, and these prophets will act within their sphere of authority. You will never find, as it is against the order of the Priesthood, those in a lesser station of authority commanding those at their head (D&C 28:6), at least not by individuals acting in righteousness that is.

      1. And we don’t see Snuffer commanding… well, anyone. Neither does he exercise authority.

        Did we see Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, or Lehi commanding anyone, or exercising authority? It appears not.

        Therefore, curiously, it appears Snuffer, if his claims are accurate, conforms to the pattern set by these men.

    2. I have followed these posts for quite some time. There have been times where the spirit was constrained in me as I read responses that were not in a brotherly kindness framework. But for the most part all have seen the error of being over critical and/or attacking the person and not the position.

      There seems to be no end to the bantering that can go back and forth here. No one knows the heart of DS and thus no one can judge him. The Lord is the one to judge DS’s heart and if it’s in the right place.

      I personally see great worth in bringing to pass much righteousness by each individual taking an assessment of where they stand before the Lord, and with that assessment working out there salvation by what can they do to come “unto Christ”. I believe that all could be of one heart and one mind as we seek ways to “come unto Christ”. That is one of the strengths of DS’s writings — he openly invites us to come unto Christ.

      DS is not some deviant gospel teacher leading many astray. The spirit seems to accord me the witness that DS could do much to help people understand his position with the Brethren.

      Unless one were to interview every Stake President, every Temple President, and every Patriarch in the church they would be in error to say that so-and-so has no “sealing keys”. Every President of this Church has held these sealing keys from Joseph Smith to the present, and it will continue until the Keys are returned to Michael, the Arch Angel who will present them unto the Lord. That to will be a sign of the fast approaching advent of the Lord on the earth thereby heralding the thousand years.

      Joseph Smith had those sealing keys and gave them to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Some of what we talk about is very sacred to the Lord and to me (us). Some of what we discuss is not for open discussion by all.

      If one whom has seen the Lord feels the need to share that vision with others then there is no fault there. There are numerous examples of one who has seen the Lord and shares that with the readers of sacred scripture (both ancient and modern). Remember those words were available to the “church” in ancient times — so if one shares the vision to us it was shared to them. I find no fault in DS for sharing a very meaningful experience and hope the Lord fills us with grace to understand these things.

      Remember DS is probably struggling with how best to perform what he believes is his errand from the Lord. The Lord would not have his appointed servants be ridiculed by church members. The Lord has called them and He has qualified them, each. They do hold these sacred keys and if a Temple President would feign discuss these matters the thing would be put to rest and would be very clear to us.

      We should know that what the Lord has conferred upon DS by His personal appearance is quite personal…and it has bearing on DS sanctification and salvation — no one else. The keys that the President of the Lord’s Church holds has bearing on every individual whom is exercised to membership into the “Church of the Firstborn”. Every act (ordinance) we enter into here on earth must be ratified by the Holy Ghost and Sealed unto by the Holy Spirit of Promise — again a very sacred experience that is not for this treatise.

      I wish DS could do more to help us see that he supports the brethren. And most of what we are saying that is “right and wrong” is simply misunderstanding DS true meanings, in my opinion.

  138. Log, I am impressed with your knowledge of the scriptures. Here is my attempt to answer your question as far as Lehi:

    1 Nephi 1
    4 For it came to pass in the commencement of the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah, (my father, Lehi, having dwelt at Jerusalem in all his days); and in that same year there came many prophets, prophesying unto the people that they must repent, or the great city Jerusalem must be destroyed.

    – Many prophets came forth, Lehi was one of them. The law of witnesses.
    – The message was repent or be destroyed.

    Compare that to Denver.

    – His message is the church is in a state or near state of apostasy.
    – The leaders don’t have the keys, the keys were lost when Joseph was martyred.
    – While he says he sustains the leaders, his actions say different, i.e. not following his Stake President’s counsel.

    We know the “church” in Lehi’s day was in a state of apostasy, as it was in the day of Jesus.

    Since we are living today, the question becomes is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in a state of apostasy? Is President Monson lacking keys? Are the apostles lacking the witness of Christ?

    If a person claims to have been visited by Christ (Denver), is that true or not just because he claimed it? If an apostle does not make the claim to have been visited by Christ, does that mean they have not?

    Since we are in the middle of it and can’t use hind sight as in Lehi’s day, how do we determine the correct answer?

    For me, I have read Denver’s recent posts and his first lecture (his fruit). I compare that with the talks (fruit) of the apostles in conference.

    For me it isn’t even close, I side with the Church and the Living Apostles and Prophets of Jesus Christ.

    Log, do something for me, because you are a skilled and knowledgeable debater. Review the talks of the First Presidency in the Priesthood Session tonight. Show me where the fruit is weak, spoiled or bad. Show me where they are keyless, custodial, in a state of apostasy.

  139. It is odd to claim a man is commanding them at his head… when he commands nobody at all. It also is odd to claim a man is usurping authority… when he exercises none at all.

  140. His message is the church is in a state or near state of apostasy.

    I have yet to see this claim documented from his own words; he has explicitly denied this claim, to my knowledge.


    – The leaders don’t have the keys, the keys were lost when Joseph was martyred.

    He has explicitly said he doesn’t take a position on that.

    While he says he sustains the leaders, his actions say different, i.e. not following his Stake President’s counsel.

    I am reminded of this example from the scriptures.

    Acts 5:24-29
    24 Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them whereunto this would grow.

    25 Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people.

    26 Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.

    27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,

    28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.

    29 ¶Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

    So, the question which needs to be answered before anything else is “is Snuffer obeying God?”

    As a principled question, who should be obeyed if one receives a revelation which conflicts with one’s presiding authority?

    Log, do something for me, because you are a skilled and knowledgeable debater. Review the talks of the First Presidency in the Priesthood Session tonight. Show me where the fruit is weak, spoiled or bad. Show me where they are keyless, custodial, in a state of apostasy.

    Unfortunately, I missed the priesthood session. I caught the other two sessions. I have to wait until they post the texts. But you are addressing claims Snuffer doesn’t make – re: keyless, custodial, in a state of apostasy, etc.

    I will voice a criticism of Snuffer’s teachings, which might have application to others, as well.

    I have not seen him teach what Nephi terms “the right way.”

  141. Every act (ordinance) we enter into here on earth must be ratified by the Holy Ghost and Sealed unto by the Holy Spirit of Promise — again a very sacred experience that is not for this treatise.

    Exactly – that is the essence of everything I have seen Snuffer say about the ordinances. The ordinances in and of themselves are nothing without ratification from heaven to the recipient.

    You said a great many other things which I also believe to be true.

    1. I agree log…I see DS as one who is struggling with how to get his message across without undue critique. An almost impossible task. DS could help things if he would be clear on his position.

      The great task for each of us is to “come unto Christ”. There is a means of bridging the gap of where DS see’s the ‘brethren’ at and where he see’s the saints need to be.

      All of the talk of the saints not finishing the Nauvoo Temple as the main reason for falling under the Lord’s condemnation is not quite accurate, although it has bearing. But read D&C 105: 2-6 and see what the spirit tells you. These “principles of the law of the celestial kingdom” are eternal. The endowment that the Lord alludes to is quite literal — the holy endowment, including the “fullness of the priesthood” in all of its ordinances (too sacred to discuss here).

      The “fullness of the Holy Priesthood” and the endowments were had by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and he in turn gave the same “sealing keys” to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1843, before his death. These “keys” were exercised by the brethren ever since and in each Temple there are records of such. To say that the brethren have not the keys of salvation is not true — not to detract from the idea above — that every act must be ratified by the Holy Spirit of Promise or it is of no force in the world to come.

      It is a wonderful thing to come to understand what the Lord means to be “called up”. It is worth every saints effort to do such.

      Let’s not belittle DS because he claims to have seen the Lord. That is between him and the Lord and if I am going to doubt him then I must include that I should doubt every person who makes the claim. And there goes the Book of Mormon if we so claim because there are many therein who claim to have seen the Lord and He administered to them.

      1. RC,

        I think the key point here is that the “fullness of the priesthood” (as I understand it) is the capacity to be like God and to enter again into His (meaning, initially, the Son’s) presence.

        Are we doing that in our temples today? Or are our ceremonies and ordinances strictly symbolic, pointing to a future time?

        Moses indeed endeavored to introduce the children of Israel into the Lord’s presence (and he did so, to some extent). But, for one reason or another, the “chosen seed” rejected the idea of coming unto God directly and deferred, instead, to Moses, preferring a prophet to represent them and, later, a king to “rule” over them.

        (Such people are not gods themselves. They do not have what it takes either to pierce the veil or to lay claim to the promises themselves by faith. The best they can do is become a follower of someone else who (they hope) follows God. Such abide a telestial glory.)

        DS suggests that Joseph Smith endeavored to introduce to the saints an endowment that would enable them, like himself, to enter, in fact, into God’s presence directly, not just symbolically. That endeavor was thwarted by the saints’ failure to fulfill their covenant, exemplified by their failure to build a temple to the Lord in the time allotted. Thus the promised blessings (and endowment) were forfeited. And (as a Church) we have been shut out (for the most part) from God’s presence and have been denied (for the most part) His direct revelation ever since.

        Am I missing something? Is there a plethora of those claiming to have come back into the Savior’s physical presence, either among the membership or leadership of the LDS Church? I know of very few. (George Pace, for one. And he was severely denounced in an address given at BYU by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, an LDS apostle, for suggesting that any of us should pursue a personal relationship with our Savior (if I recall correctly). A very strange thing for an apostle to assert, I’d say!

        And, yet, Elder McConkie is perhaps best known for his testimony of the risen Lord, given in General Conference less than two weeks before he died, in which he stated that upon meeting Christ at some future time he would know no better than he already knew that Jesus is the Christ, that He lives, etc. It was a powerful wiytness. But Elder McConkie didn’t say he had seen the Savior (as many inferred), only that seeing Him would not strengthen Elder McConkie’s faith. (For Elder McConkie already knew, by the power of the Holy Ghost.)

        George Pace, on the other hand, said he already had met the Savior in his (George’s) living room (if I recall correctly). His “road to Damascus” experience was not “too sacred” apparently to relate to the masses, since (like DS) he wrote a book about it! (I think Bro. Pace’s book was called “What It Means to Know Christ”. A very powerful and inspiring book I recall.)

        Bro. Pace was my stake president. Somehow he was able to “come unto Christ” and have a personal relationship with Him despite an apostle’s injunction against striving to do so. Bro. Pace was almost immediately released from his calling, retired from his teaching position and, as far as I know, never heard of again. (At least, I never did!) Sad. And very strange. Elder McConkie later claimed he never intended to imply anything regarding Bro. Pace or his book. (But that’s not what everyone who knew Bro. Pace understood.)

        Wouldn’t Bro. Pace’s (and Denver Snuffer’s) testimony be the kind one would expect to hear recited in the Lord’s “true” Church?

        What inspires hope (for me) is DS’s claim that this “ordinance” enabling one to come into God’s presence) can be received from the Lord Himself, when the disciple has satisfied the requirements established before the foundation of the world. All is not lost! Regardless of the current state of the Church.

        Just a thought.

  142. You wanna know what my primary point of confusion actually is? What does “the fulness of the priesthood” incorporate? What does it mean?

    D&C 124, the only place where the phrase appears, does not define it.

    So, I’m off researching some more.

    1. the fullness of the priesthood is found in the ordinances and endowments of the Temple. In the Temple the Lord reveals the keys to Eternal Life, In the temple we learn that if we are faithful the day will come wherein we are called up and sealed unto this Holy Anointing. So again in the temple we find the keys of this sealing is administered. And the Lord is telling us in the section of 124 that this is an ordinance that is found only in the Temple — and nowhere else. His treatise on the “baptisms for the dead” are allowed outside the temple only in our day of poverty.

      The fullness of the Priesthood is of course a two-part event. The Father and the Son appearing to a person is one part, and the other part is only to be administered in the Lords House. Suffice it to say thus: I can say no more. For me and my house I want to be worthy of temple attendance always. The Lord, and the Holy Father, can appear to us anywhere. This we know to be true. But the endowments of the “fullness of the priesthood” is only to be found in the temple

      And to say that the brethren have lost these keys is just not a true statement. The Nauvoo Temple was not the only place on earth where these keys were to be exercised. I can say no more.

      1. RC,

        If you say you have stood before the throne of God, literally, and not merely symbolically, then I would have reason to believe you knew whereof you speak – liars, after all, have their part in the lake of fire and brimstone, as it is written, and you don’t strike me as a pretender.

        As for me, I cannot agree with a leader who said that when we are in the Celestial room, we are literally, not merely symbolically, in the presence of God. After all, to say that Joseph was just as literally in the presence of God during the First Vision as we are when in the Celestial room is immediately to demonstrate the discrepancy between those experiences.

        Otherwise, D&C 124:47, appears very straightforwardly to say we have not got the fullness of the priesthood – whatever that is.

        1. your last response is all I need to see. You know what the scriptures mean in D&C 132:19 is what you say. But then you ask if the fullness of the priesthood is to be found in the church — I’m a little confused at your confusion. Reading on in verses 20. Whom do you think is appointed unto this power?

      2. Whom do you think is appointed unto this power?

        I do not know; the Lord has not told me. I don’t know that the power mentioned there is the fullness of the priesthood referred to in D&C 124.

        And what I know was not so much a matter of words as an experience of the reality, as it were through a glass, darkly.

      3. And by power, I meant in the officiator, on upwards.

        Unless you’re saying what I was shown was what it is to have the fullness of the priesthood.

        Now, that would be interesting.

    2. log
      Read D&C 112:30. This was in 1837 but the Lord is talking to the Prophet Joseph Smith. The other parties to this empowerment was to be a future event. The prophet told us when he conferred the keys of the kingdom to the Twelve.

      Read 132: 19. Pray for the Lord to reveal what this means for you. Keep praying until the Lord reveals it unto you. Ask Him to help you understand — because the words have eternal import.

      The mysteries of the kingdom are to be understood by all of us…those who are exercised to know the truthfulness of what goes on in Heaven. The Lord runs a house of order and everything is documented else otherwise it would be a mass of confusion.

      1. I know what D&C 132:19 means; I was shown it years ago. I live for it. When it is fulfilled, all will be explained.

  143. The funny part is, I think, properly understood, almost everyone can be right. The Church may possess all the keys it claims, and lack the fullness of the priesthood, whatever that is.

  144. There will be no end to this discussion, since there is no mutual understanding occurring. This is a debate, not a constructive discussion – and, log, as gently as I can say this, you have asked for Denver’s own words repeatedly, been given his own words repeatedly, then claimed not to have been given those words. It keeps the thread alive, but that’s all it does.

    I am done reading this thread, fwiw. It has become a total waste of time.

    1. Ray,

      I likewise wish to present a true principle.

      When we read others’, we read their words as though we, ourselves, had written them. Thus, when we judge the intent of the writers, we in reality only judge ourselves.

      Snuffer’s words have indeed been cited, but, like Inigo Montoya, I have to say “I do not think that means what you think it means.”

      Snuffer has not said what has been imputed to him – his critics must interpolate, assume, and otherwise rhetorically twist his words to make them conform to what they so clearly see yet which is not there; likewise, his words do not imply the motivations ascribed to him.

      Because I have tasted and know of the goodness of Jesus Christ, having been filled at times with the joy of the Lord, I recognize the lack of contention, pride, arrogance, stiff-neckedness, rebellion, and puffed-upness in his writings. They’re simply not there.

      If it were otherwise, I would not even for a second consider his claims. I do not listen to them who evince pride.

  145. RC,

    Let me ask a personal question to see if I am on the right track.

    Do you and your spouse dwell within one another as shining stars, and are you one heart, one soul?

    1. Sorry log —

      I didn’t see this line. Mine apologies. To answer your question rather honestly. The Lord has taken my teaching unto Himself. I prayed once to understand what He understood. I prayed to feel what He felt. I prayed to see life as He sees life. I shouldn’t have been so honest. The Lord has brought me and my wife through the very jaws of hell — He has been so merciful to me as I have struggled with the thought, please Lord let this cup pass from me! But His mercy is sure…His teachings are divine.

      My wife and I are one. We deal with the vicissitudes of life the same. We share in our goal to live with our Eternal Family in open arms with the Savior of mankind and our Heavenly Father. We have had our trials and the Lord, in His mercy, has given us visions and dreams to bring us along. He has sent His angels to watch over us.

      We are of one heart and one soul. It didn’t start out that way. I have learned that there is nothing that the Lord will not do for our Eternal well-being as long as it fits within the plan of happiness.

      To overcome doubts, like Thomas, is a mortal experience. The Lord helps us to overcome our mortal shackles that hold us back. The question is are we willing to give up ALL THINGS for the Lord. There have been times I have pleaded with the Lord to not take this or that or allow me to keep this or that. He is such a merciful and great God! Oh how I do love Him….how we do love Him!

      Thanks log.

      1. The interesting thing about sacrifice, when you are called upon to perform it, is the thing sacrificed no longer has hold upon our heart. Thus we are free to follow in the footsteps of the Lord.

        25 ¶And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them,

        26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

        27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

        28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?

        29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,

        30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

        31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?

        32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.

        33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

        34 ¶Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned?

        35 It is neither fit for the land, nor yet for the dunghill; but men cast it out. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

  146. In this, I am trying to clarify, for myself, what is being spoken about as “the fulness of the priesthood,” which the Lord says was taken from the Church in D&C 124:28. In this, I thank RC, who clarified matters greatly.

    The phrase “the fulness of the priesthood” is not defined in the scriptures. Snuffer claims the following, in this extensive quote.

    This is a topic I’ve never attempted to straighten out. It is marred by many errors in traditional understanding, and almost impossible to recover because of the vocabulary we use now. We have become accustomed to speaking about priesthood using terms we think we understand. Therefore, when the topic arises the first problem is that we speak about something not well developed, using terms we think we understand, but employing incorrect meanings. The result is that I’ve used the term but haven’t bothered defining it. The closest I’ve come to providing anything is the Tenth Parable in Ten Parables. I’ve also used the concluding chapters of Beloved Enos to give an overview, without changing the terms we are all accustomed to using.

    In the “big picture” there are three levels of priesthood discussed by Joseph Smith. He uses the terms “Aaronic” (which includes Levitical) for one, Melchizedek for another, and Patriarchal for the third. In the D&C there is a revelation stating the church has two priesthoods. (D&C 107: 1.) Since the church claims to possess these two because of Section 107, and since Joseph used the term “Patriarchal Priesthood” to identify a third, I have used this category to explain what is set out in Beloved Enos; then used it further to develop the topics in Passing the Heavenly Gift.

    Forget the nomenclature for a moment (because it is not as important as the underlying reality), and no matter what term you use, recognize there are three levels of priesthood. There are three members of the Godhead. There is a different member of the Godhead associated with three levels of salvation, three levels of Divine ministration, and correspondingly three levels of priesthood. There is a priesthood that belongs to the Telestial order, or the world where we presently live. There is a priesthood that belongs to the Terrestrial order, or this world in its Paradisaical state during the Millennium. There is a priesthood that belongs to the Celestial order, or the final redeemed state which men hope to inherit in the Father’s Kingdom. Read Section 76 and you will see these set out as conditions of glory. Then take the conditions and associate a priesthood with each. If you do that, you have a better grasp of the idea of “fullness of the priesthood.”

    There are many problems with how we discuss this topic. I have made no attempt to challenge our current vocabulary, or the definitions we use with it. I’ve just accepted it and tried to set out the things I know to be true using the limited and accepted definitions we currently employ.

    The Patriarchal Priesthood is not defined in scripture. We think the office of Patriarch in the church is what is meant by that. Or, alternatively, we teach that when you are sealed in the temple you acquire the Patriarchal Priesthood because you become a father within your family and that is kind of the meaning. Joseph made a remark which referred to finishing the Nauvoo Temple, and then going into the Temple and receiving the Patriarchal Priesthood. I’ve found it useful to refer to this most poorly understood form of priesthood to name and define it the third level of priesthood. I can make a persuasive argument to do so. I think it offers a rather elegant solution to our current vocabulary problems. But I won’t do that in this post.

    The most important point is that there is priesthood which exists, but is not contained within or conferred by the church. It comes from one source – the Father. To receive that, read the Tenth Parable and you will have a description of how it unfolds. The Son is necessarily involved. He is the gatekeeper, who alone decides if the person is going to qualify. Then the Son takes it as His work, or His ministry, to bring a person before the Father. However, the ministry of the Son can take many years, and is designed to cure what is wrong, fix all that is broken, remove all that is impure, in the candidate. Only when the Son can vouch for the individual is he brought before the Father. It is the Father who confers and ordains a man to the highest priesthood.

    I’ve left these topics alone because there is something much more important than having me write about them. The first step along the path is to make it through the veil. Not the veil in a Temple, or in a rite offered by men to one another. We must be brought through the veil back into the Lord’s presence. That is the step which stops most of our progress. By and large we don’t believe it possible. We make no attempt because we think it is not available, or we should not be trying to become more than our leaders, or we are not qualified, or some other false teaching which hedges up our progress. I’ve focused on that topic alone. If I can bring a person to have faith to approach the Lord, the Lord will tell them all things they need to do thereafter. He will work with them to bring them into possession of all they need for Eternal Lives. That is His ministry. Mine is but to point to Him.

    I can testify the Lord continues to have a ministry. I can also testify it includes bringing you to a point of understanding that enables you to repent of your generation’s sins and come before the Father. It is happening today, just as anciently.

    Joseph Smith’s ministry offered mankind an opportunity to have the ancient order restored. Not just a New Testament church. In the beginning there was one, unified priesthood. There were not three. There was one. It was called the Holy Order. Later it got several additive descriptors, including the Holy Order after the Son of God; or Holy Order after the Order of Enoch; or Holy Order after the Order of Melchizedek. We think we have that in the church today. We think that is what we give to Elders when we first ordain them. But Joseph Smith could not confer that on another person. It requires God. Through Joseph we were offered an opportunity to receive it, but we were more interested in having a church than the original Holy Order.

    It was always necessary to restore the Holy Order– the original fullness. That must be here before the Second Coming. As soon, however, as the matter is fully set out, men will immediately begin to imitate and pretend to things because of pride, ignorance or vanity. In fact, the more readily it is explained in detail, the more often there will be those who falsely claim to have power they were never given by God. So I have confined what I’ve written to the first leg of the journey, and testified to the possible return to the presence of the Son. That is a precaution, and is designed to keep the message focused on saving souls. For the rest, I leave it to the Lord’s ministry to inform the disciple of what then must occur.

    I believe at some point there will be a more public declaration of the fullness of the priesthood. But at the present, I think the greatest problem lies in connecting men back to angels, then to the Lord. When they have reached that point, the Lord will take them further.

    Sealing power is part of higher priesthood, but men suppose God’s word alone is enough. No power comes from heaven without faith. There is always an apprenticeship. There is always further sacrifice required of the student. No one comes to the point in an instant, but increases by degrees in their trust with our God. You will find that in every prophet’s life.

    Show me a man who has entered into the Father’s presence and I will testify that he has a fullness. But show me any man, no matter what position or keys he claims to possess, who has not entered into the Father’s presence, and I will testify he has not yet received a fullness. No matter what keys he has, he cannot possess the fullness. For that, the Father has a role He is required to fulfill. Hence the saying by Joseph that no man has seen the Father but He has born record of the Son. The question to ponder is what it means for the Father to bear record of the Son. Therein lies a great key.

    Snuffer is here saying, to the best of my understanding, that to receive the fulness of the priesthood, a man must be brought through the veil into the presence of God, even the Father, in his kingdom, there to be acknowledged of the Father as a Son of God before the heavenly host, hearing the Father by His own mouth say these words: “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.” (Psalms 2:7) This is what he appears, to me, to be referring to as the “great key.”

    Snuffer is also here saying, to the best of my understanding, that before this happens, the voice of God from on high declares that a man has the sealing power – the power to open and seal the heavens, to curse and to bless, and so forth. This is part of the man’s apprenticeship in becoming a Son of God. (Incidentally, Snuffer says President Monson may indeed have that power.)

    When a man has the sealing power – actual power – that that which they pray for comes to pass. Joseph showed what this implied when he prayed for the removal of one of the enemies of the Church – a politician, if I recall correctly – and the man shortly thereafter committed suicide. Joseph remarked on that incident, how he had to be extremely careful what he prayed for. (The Church has so thoroughly skewed the Google search engine results that I am unable to locate a reference to this incident.)

    All of this, however, is predicated upon the true union of the sexes, wherein a man and a woman, perfectly complementary, are sealed with power from on high that they are one, mutually indwelling as shining stars, forming a complete human being, never to be divided again. To be received into such a union is an invitation to join the Gods on high in exaltation and eternal lives. This is my understanding of the meaning of D&C 132:19. And that union is predicated upon the prior sanctification of the parties involved.

    Seen this way, the limits of the power of the Church are clear. If Snuffer’s claim as to what the fulness of the priesthood constitutes is accurate, the Lord was offering to literally bring men into the presence of God, the Father, in (or, perhaps, from) the temple at Nauvoo, making of them Sons of God, the Father, even as Jesus Christ is a Son of God, the Father (see Alma 36:17). That was the invitation the Church rejected, preferring instead the things of this world.

    And there is nothing which prevents an individual from attaining to that, no matter what the majority of their fellows do.

    These are my current understandings of what Snuffer means when he refers to the fullness of the priesthood.

    1. log —
      welcome to an enlightened understanding. I am in this with you and seek to understand the great blessings the Lord has for His children. I believe that DS is trying to teach some sacred teachings that take years to come to understand.

      The Lord, in His infinite mercy, brings us along in such a way as to rid us of the dross that occupies our heart and spirits as we, as spirit beings, try to have our mortal bodies submit to the higher power.

      Without being too obvious, and thanks to you for a beautiful way to express things in your comment, the fullness of the Priesthood is found in having “all that the Father hath”. And these words are shared both in the Temple of the Lord and obviously where the person is when it occurs. The Holy Ghost brings us unto Christ — The Lord brings us unto the Holy Father — The Holy Father brings us all that He hath. A very sacred and Holy calling that takes a lifetime to work toward.

      As a brother in the gospel I share in your desire to come unto Christ so as to come unto the Holy Father. I share in your desire to help others understand what it is that DS is trying to share without infringing on the brethren. I do believe that every member of the First Presidency and every member of the Quorum of the Twelve have these things firmly in mind and heart.

      I do believe that our Temple Presidents and our Stake Presidents have a firm understanding of these things. They are held closely by them wherein DS shares them openly. He feels he has been given an “errand from the Lord” to share these things but I see constraint in his writings as well…as it should be.

      1. I do believe that every member of the First Presidency and every member of the Quorum of the Twelve have these things firmly in mind and heart.

        I do believe that our Temple Presidents and our Stake Presidents have a firm understanding of these things.

        I do not believe a man who has not been baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost can possibly have a firm understanding of these things. That is what I perceive is at the root of the current state of things. And I’ll leave it at that.

      2. I have no such confidence in the Brethren, RC, though I do acknowledge and sustain them as the leaders of the Church.

        Why impart to someone knowledge they do not display? Or virtues they do not demonstrate? I have seen nothing manifest by the leaders of the Church, at any level, suggesting a guidance of the sort you ascribe to them. Frankly, they are “stuck” in the Levitical rites while clothed in the ordinances of the Melchizedek priesthood. As Bro. Snuffer said, it’s not so much what they call it, it’s what they do.

        If the power of godliness is not manifest, then the form is strictly Levitical. The Patriarchal priesthood, being brought unto the Father, is nowhere taught or demonstrated by the ordinances of the Church. This shows how truly “uninspired” — if you call getting you there halfway — the Church really is.

        Everything is there in the Church to bring us unto Christ. But how few go in thereat! We have indeed embraced the form, without the power!

        1. Good Will — et al (all of us)

          Read Alma 13: 4-13; and read D&C 128: 18-22, 22-25

          You will come to an understanding of what I mean. The keys are found within the church. The brethren have been called to preach Christ’s Gospel and to run the church as an organization. That my brothers and sisters is a full-time job. In addition they have their own salvation and the salvation of their families (all succeeding and past generations) to bring salvation to. Most of us tremble at the work of salvation for our kindred dead — and yet these brethren have been called to do this and more.

          Please let’s give them an understanding of the vast effort it takes to bring the Gospel of the Savior to the world. Think of the meetings, the budgets, the correlations, the prayers for understanding and insight, all the organizational growth that occurs every day 24/7, the great missionary work that is occurring 24/7 — oh the humanity of it all (borrowed from a news reporter covering the Hindenburg disaster).

          There is so much to doing what I have listed and I have listed maybe 20% of what they actually have to do. Is it any wonder that they, in bringing souls unto Christ, don’t take them any further.

          The Lord can do His own work. The Savior of mankind can bring us to a greater understanding. Our Lord and Savior can bring us unto the Holy Father — the brethren can only administer the ordinances of the Temple that are applicable.

          Please brethren can we give them a break. They work tirelessly to do what responsibilities the Lord has given them — and He will take us from there.

          I see a great understanding coming of this. I see DS as one, not the one spoken of in the scriptures of being mighty and great for that is yet to be future event, but I do see DS as one who can help people to come to an understanding of what they should understand if they would study the scriptures. The brethren have made that even more possible in our day. They do a magnificent work.

          The Lord is our God. The Savior of mankind knows each one of us and will bring us to an understanding of what His words mean. Stay the course brethren — seek out your salvation personally with the Lord and see if He can get rid of all of our dross and bring us unto the Holy Father and be joint-heirs with our Savior — oh how I wish, oh how I pray.

        1. Good Will –

          I’m not sure what you are referring to. I have imputed nothing that has not been put in print as I understand them. I can understand ones position on things only through reading and seeking to understand their meaning.

          I try hard not to add nor take away from another. My words stand alone and their meaning stands alone. It is a very difficult thing to really understand someone’s meaning in writing. If we were in person then we could have a better understanding of our words — but we definitely have a weakness because we are writing our words (and feelings) into print, which is near unto impossible.

          That is why I don’t feel that DS is quite understood by all. And to understand him would mean that you would have to have quite an extensive interview with him. I believe the Lord can have that interview with each of us independently of each other.

          I only wish to publish peace and understanding. I believe the more we understand one another, and help one another, we approximate more closely the Celestial Law (see D&C 105: 2-6). It is upon those principles that I truly seek to be found within.

      3. I was correcting the first sentence of my second paragraph above, beginning “Why impart to someone knowledge…” I meant “impute”. Sorry for the misunderstanding, RC.

    2. Oh, duh. The fulness of the priesthood, in a word – Godhood.

      That is what Joseph meant.

      I bel. in these Gods that God reveals as Gods—to be Sons of God & all can cry Abba Father —Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods even from bef. the foundatn. of the world & are all the only Gods I have a reverence for. (WoJS, p. 300, 16 June 1844).

      Those who receive the fulness of the priesthood are Gods. They were Gods before they came here.

      So, the actual focus here is on whether the outward, earthly ordinances of the priesthood, including the second anointing, are sufficient in and of themselves, without the direct interaction of heaven, to make a man a God.

      And the answer seems clear, to me: the baptism by water is of none effect without the corresponding baptism by fire.

      1. And, in this context, let’s look again at 3 Nephi 16:10

        10 And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.

        11 And then will I remember my covenant which I have made unto my people, O house of Israel, and I will bring my gospel unto them.

        12 And I will show unto thee, O house of Israel, that the Gentiles shall not have power over you; but I will remember my covenant unto you, O house of Israel, and ye shall come unto the knowledge of the fulness of my gospel.

        It is the fullness of the gospel of the Father which the Gentiles sinned against, rejected, and which was brought from among them.

        D&C 124:27-28
        27 And with iron, with copper, and with brass, and with zinc, and with all your precious things of the earth; and build a house to my name, for the Most High to dwell therein.

        28 For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood.

        Christ is not the Most High.

        It becomes clearer. Thus, this – 3 Nephi 21:29 And they shall go out from all nations; and they shall not go out in haste, nor go by flight, for I will go before them, saith the Father, and I [Christ] will be their rearward.

        Very nearly everyone can be right.

      2. Log: “And the answer seems clear, to me: the baptism by water is of none effect without the corresponding baptism by fire.”

        And that’s not even the half of it! Ought not one who is a god do more than merely live and die on this planet? And, yet, that’s what Joseph Smith taught: that many “gods” rule and reign on thrones as infants, taken by death in infancy, presumably with no such “manifestations” of the Spirit in the flesh as men might enjoy.

        So what of us who survive to majority (or eight years old)? What devolves to us to assert our divine prerogative? To lay claim to the promises? To exercise faith? To pierce the veil? To come unto Christ and live (to tell the tale!)?

        Divine actions ought to be required of those who aspire to lay claim to deification, in every respect. How far from that model I fall!

        I have MUCH to work on. It is all so very humbling.

        (I rather prefer DS’s emphasis: his focus on the “here and now”, not “putting off” to some future day what must be done in the flesh — and as the scriptures declare “while it is yet day” — in order for us to see and greet the Savior as “co-heirs”. (That hardly describes any meeting I might have with Him now!)

        And there’s the rub.

        DS actually inspires me to repent. In sackcloth and ashes. Now. To the depths. So I’m working on it. Not lulled into carnal security or false confidence that, eventually, I’ll get around to meeting Jesus…in the next life…when, miraculously, I’ll be ready then, with all the other saints who, likewise, haven’t met Him yet. (I don’t think the scriptures support such a doctrine. Indeed, they suggest that the same spirit which possesses us here will possess us there. And if we’ve put off “coming unto Christ” here, we’ll no doubt insist on “putting it off” there — until it’s everlastingly too late.)

        That, more than anything, tells me DS a true witness of Christ. He cries repentance.

      3. Log, your integration of 3 Nephi 16:10-12, D&C 124:27-28, and 3 Nephi 21:29 is spectacular! (Those who “left the party” early, saying nothing was to be gained here, missed a major insight!)

        The fact that all three of these verses reference the gospel of the Father (and not the Son) indicates that our interpretation of the “fullness of the priesthood” as coming unto the Father and being embraced as His Son (i.e., godhood) is, more than likely, correct!

        What’s so amazing as that a fraud would not have gotten this “right”. We had to dig this out with effort. It is unlikely Joseph Smith could have “put it in” deliberately (and kept it all “straight”). A surprising “pearl of great price”.

        Thank you, log!

    3. Daniel A. Rogers

      This is it. You are brought into the heavenly council to witness Christ and His Father. Then you hear a voice out of the heavens accept you as a son. This is the third of the three baptisms required as exemplified by Christ that day near the river Jordan.

      One minor correction in the post is that Christ is the Father to all those who are redeemed from this world. It is Christ’s voice you will hear proclaiming you as His son in the assembly of the Hosts of Heavens. Christ will acknowledge you as His Son before His Father.

      See this post for scripture references. http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2012/02/ethers-reference-to-christ-as-father.html

      The “Father” of your eternal life will be Christ. (D&C 35: 2.) He is your Father who is in heaven, because your continuation after the grave will come through His sacrifice. He will literally provide you with the resurrected body you will inherit. This makes Him the Father. (See Mosiah 5: 7.)

      Secondly, they are His teachings which will provide you with more than just resurrection. He will provide the further possibility of glory to you on the conditions He has made possible through obedience to Him. The one you follow, whose teachings you accept, whose ordinances you accept, is also your Father. (1 Cor. 4: 15.) The role of the Father is to raise His seed in righteousness. Christ’s teachings are given in His capacity of a Father to all who will follow Him. Through His teachings you can have a new life here and now. You can be “born again” as His seed. (1 Peter 1: 23.) To do that you must first accept His role as your Father/guide. Then you must further accept His role as Father/Redeemer. When you do that, He gives you a new life by His teachings and new life by His ordinances.

      Here, excluded from the presence of Heavenly Father Ahman, we have no way back except through Christ. (Mosiah 3: 12.) (For the name “Ahman” see D&C 78: 20 where Christ mentions His Father’s name.) He must become our Father to bring us back again into the Ahman’s presence. Christ visits here. Christ labored here, lived among us, ministers still among us, and though resurrected still walked alongside two of His disciples. He appeared in an upper room, cooked and ate fish on the lake’s shore, and appeared to many. He will come to dwell here again. The Father Ahman, however, only appears in a state of glory, has not stood here since the Fall of Adam, and awaits the completion of the work of Christ before He will again take up His abode here.

      Christ is not the same person as Father Ahman. Christ becomes the Father of all who are redeemed through Him. Therefore, by redeeming you Christ has become your Father in Heaven. You will have many fathers, including Christ, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and in our dispensation, Joseph Smith as well. And all these will also be children of Father Ahman.

      Further also compare, 3 Ne 28:2-3, (where the 9 come to Christ’s kingdom speedily) to 3 Ne 28:8-10, (where the 3 who tarried on the earth will later sit in the kingdom of Christ’s Father.) Christ has his kingdom here where He is our Father. After Christ’s work is done He gives His kingdom to His Father and we all become joint-heirs with Christ.

      Also, there are levels or stages of the receiving sealing power. When the Sealing Power is used, it is done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This corresponds to the 3 levels of sealing power. For example, it is possible to receive power to seal on earth prior to power to seal in Heaven.

      1. Daniel A. Rogers –

        A great treatise on the Father Ahman and the Christ as The Father that was shared by DS. I only want to add one account and I am looking for it very hastily. When I find it I will post it to you.

        The occasion was documented:

        It was Brother Joseph who told some of his contemporaries that he would show unto them some visions. During the ensuing visions the Savior of Mankind appeared to the group, not all witnessed Him though. And immediately there appeared a presence of Fire, that walked among the people present, though not all witnessed that extremely rare gift that both the Father and the Son gave: For Brother Joseph said, after the vision had closed, that they (those who witnessed) had just enjoyed the presence of the Son and they were blessed with the presence of Father Ahman.

        A most wonderful vision for those thus exercised.

        This was in the Kirtland Temple I believe. Again, I am pouring through my vast pages trying to find it again. I have read it a number of times and kept these things unto myself but feel for the present to help others see that our loving Savior Jesus Christ delights in the righteousness of His children and honors them by bringing them into the presence of the Holy Father.

        1. Daniel A. Rogers —

          Thank you for shortening my due diligence. It is great to have brethren wherein we seek to understand the things of Heaven a little more.

          We have a great work to do while here and helping each other, based on the Principles of the Celestial Kingdom, we can get there.

          No one is better or above another and I truly feel the brethren feel that they too fit this description. Some are more advanced in their progress and understanding, through their diligence, study, and prayer, than others — but not one of us is better than another.

          I appreciate your words and help.

    4. I think we’ve got the priesthood nomenclature askew.

      The Aaronic Priesthood (or priestly order) deals primarily with outward ordinances and is suited to govern the telestial world.

      The Melchizedek Priesthood (or kingly order) is the Holy Order after the Son of God. It is associated with the “higher laws” of the terrestrial world and is the means by which Christ, as King of Kings, governs His dominions. But it is not the “greatest” priesthood of all.

      The Patriarchal Priesthood (or fatherly order) is associated with the celestial world and is only enjoyed by the gods, both male and female.

      Angels minister unto this (the telestial) world and prepare us to receive the terrestrial order. The Son, as Lord of that realm, then prepares us to abide even higher laws than those given in the Sermon on the Mount, laws only men and women, eternally conjoined, may abide, the stuff of Deity.

      This priesthood — the Patriarchal kind — is conferred (I suppose, as Snuffer claims) by God Himself. The only ones I know to possess it have borne witness of their direct and personal association with God, bodily.

  147. Seriously, some of you have said you have read Denver’s Boise talk and compared it to general conference talks and say there is no comparison (siding that the general conference talks are superior). How do you even compare? Denver uses scripture to teach the doctrine. The brethren use very little scripture, if any at all. I took my three sons to Priesthood session, and without any prompting by me, while sitting and having ice cream afterwords, they said, “Did you notice that only one of the 1st presidency used a scripture, and it was only once? Elder Perry’s talk was so low in power about the doctrine I was embarrassed for him. Look at the general training sessions on LDS.org, they too are an embarrassment to the lack of doctrinal knowledge (or Spirit for that matter) the brethren have. Read Pres Monson’s Jan 2012 Ensign talk. He never used a scripture, he never mentioned Christ as a means of having an abundant life. Instead he quoted the philosophies of men (without even mingling it with scripture). Here’s the link so you can judge for yourself if it has power or uses the words of a special witness of Christ. http://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/01/living-the-abundant-life?lang=eng
    Compare that with the witness and teachings that Denver offers in his books (especially “Come let us adore Him”) There is absolutely no comparison.

    Joseph warned in his first conference talk after establishing the church that members would seek after their idols (he read Ezk 14 at conference). He was speaking to members about how they viewed him. Joseph repeated that warning to the relief society when it was established. The members have never taken heed of his warning. It is clear from the comments on this blog that many still make idols of the brethren. The brethren can say anything, even when it lacks obvious power, and the members will idolize it (as evidenced by some comments on this blog stream). I’ve been an active, supportive member for all the 50 years of my life. I know what it mean to act and feel as a Mormon and to sustain the brethren. But it has become obvious to me that power is fleeing from the Church. It has become a mega corporate entity relying on the adoration of its members to sustain it (although I still find plenty of faith and power in the everyday lives of many of its humble members). Contrary to other’s belief about this, those who think general conference talks have more power than Snuffer’s words are simply blinded. He may have some of his conclusions wrong in PTHG, but simply feeling sorry for ourselves, because, “heaven forbid we have to have the sealing power, the brethren can’t be mistaken and so forth” won’t bring us to the truth. Thank God, for sending a teacher among us that can help us see our folly.

    1. An excommunicated apostate teacher. I’m glad you took your sons to the Priesthood session. I can also see the doubt creeping in.

    2. John C, I think you should discuss with your sons that the leaders do use scriptures in their talks. They don’t do it as a Sunday School lesson.

      I have included the references the First Presidency used in their talks for the Priesthood session.

      Now, how are you going to rationalize this???

      President Uchtdorf
      Notes
      1. F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby (1925), 180.
      2. “The Voiceless,” in The Complete Poetical Works of Oliver Wendell Holmes (1908), 99.
      3. 2 Corinthians 7:10; emphasis added.
      4. See Acts 3:19.
      5. See Ezekiel 36:26; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Mosiah 3:19.
      6. See Mosiah 5:2.
      7. Matthew 5:26.
      8. Doctrine and Covenants 59:23.
      9. Colossians 3:23.

      President Eyring
      Notes
      1. Luke 10:33–35.
      2. Doctrine and Covenants 84:85.
      3. Moroni 7:46–48.

      President Monson
      Notes
      1. 1 Peter 2:9.
      2. John 10:14.
      3. Doctrine and Covenants 20:42, 47, 53–54.
      4. David O. McKay, in Priesthood Home Teaching Handbook, rev. ed. (1967), ii, iii.
      5. Mosiah 23:17–18.
      6. Quoted in Marion G. Romney, address given at a priesthood home teaching seminar, Aug. 9, 1963.
      7. Ezra Taft Benson, “To the Home Teachers of the Church,” Ensign, May 1987, 50.
      8. Abraham Lincoln, in David Decamp Thompson, Abraham Lincoln, the First American (1895), 226.
      9. Ezra Taft Benson, Ensign, May 1987, 50.
      10. Ephesians 2:19.
      11. See Matthew 7:28–29.
      12. Acts 10:38.

  148. Pingback: Snuffer’s Take on Polygamy | Mormon Heretic

  149. It is difficult to read Snufferism without becoming disaffected with the Church. This is a key.

    He speaks in an undermining way of the organization and its leaders as it exists today. He has become less subtle in his more recent blog postings:

    http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013_09_01_archive.html
    Equal in Authority and Accountability
    The First Presidency are the primary organizational leadership in the hierarchy of the church. (D&C 107: 22.) They are the presidency of the church. They set the agenda and are accountable for keeping the church running.

    The Twelve are equal in authority. (D&C 107: 23-24.) They differ from the First Presidency in their responsibility. They have no authority within organized stakes, but are missionaries, whose job is to spread the missionary work throughout the world. When there is no organized stake, they preside because of their role as a “traveling high council.” But their authority to administer in a stake ends once a stake is organized.

    The Seventy are equal in authority. (D&C 107: 26.) Like the Twelve, they are missionaries. They fill missionary assignments when the Twelve cannot be present.

    The stake High Council forms a quorum equal in authority. (D&C 107: 37.)

    Joseph Smith never called a member of the Twelve into the First Presidency. They were sent on missions. In Nauvoo, Joseph presided over the sitting High Council, as you can read in the minutes of the Nauvoo High Council.

    When Brigham Young wanted Sidney Rigdon excommunicated, he recognized as a member of the Twelve he had no authority to do so. Therefore, the trial was before the Nauvoo High Council.

    When Joseph died, and Hyrum predeceased him, there was no one designated to replace Joseph. D&C 43: 4 required Joseph to designate his successor. He did this. It was Hyrum. (D&C 124: 91-95.) Therefore, there was no successor.

    Interestingly, Section 107 was not referred to in the succession process in August 1844. Nor was there a revelation given to settle the matter. It was handled as a political event, with an election by common consent. Brigham Young campaigned for the Twelve, not for himself. Rigdon campaigned unsuccessfully to wait for one of Joseph’s sons to be old enough to assume the role. The election in Nauvoo was primarily between those two options. In the months following however, others would make claims and would peel off followers.

    Once the Twelve were elected as the replacement leadership group, they have thereafter remained in control. Today there is an oligarchy of the Twelve governing the church, and they control everything, with the senior member becoming the automatic successor President, and the First Presidency invariably organized from the Twelve (though there have been exceptions).

    Although the Twelve and the Presidency of the Seventy were responsible for my excommunication, they lacked the jurisdiction to implement their decision. Therefore, it was necessary to employ the stake, which had jurisdiction, to accomplish this.

    I’ve appealed to the First Presidency. But what I find interesting is that the process in my case has involved the stake high council, the Presidency of the Seventy, the Twelve, and will now also involve the First Presidency. All of those quorums which are “equal in authority” are to be affected by this decision. Only the Lord could bring about such an interesting alignment of responsibility for this decision to excommunicate someone for their belief in scripture, belief in prophecy and their historical viewing of Christ’s prophecies about us and our behavior.

    He has chosen his words carefully, but his message of undermining and indictment is clear. References to the “corporate” church or institution are meant to be critical.

    Another key to detecting and understanding Snufferism is its recontextualization, redefinition, and strict esoteric historical interpretations of the scriptures, particularly the D&C. He obviously redefines several key words in the temple recommend interview questions, because he still claims he could pass such an interview. So how does he define “sustain”? He might mean he pays tithes which support those who live on consecrated funds, for example.

    As far as his historical interpretation of D&C 124, that the saints were rejected as a church and a people, etc. – I believe The Lord would have followed up with a confirmation that they had indeed been rejected and that He would have taught them the conditions of their return. He also did not say how long they would be “rejected” nor did he define what He meant by it.

    What I, and several others on this thread know, including SteveF and others, is that one can come to know the Holy Ghost, the Son, and the Father within membership in the Lord’s Church. The only teaching from Denver that you need keep is what you could more thoroughly learn from the Book of Mormon, as Denver himself taught in his first book, SC. You don’t need any of his books or teachings. Serve And come unto Christ by learning of Him, following Him, His perfect example and teachings, serving Him according to his will, and seeking and obeying Him through His Spirit. This will bring you to Him. Much of this service will be within His duly authorized organization, His Church.

    Build Zion – oneness of heart and mind, with no poor (spiritually or temporally) among you – starting with your marriage, your children, your family, friends, your ward, your neighbors, your stake, community, etc.

    Do not forget or forsake where you learned that you could be called up and chosen and ordained. Do not forget or forsake the covenants you made with Him in His house. Do not mistreat or undermine His authorized, chosen, and anointed servants. Do not mistake the sacred for the unknown. Liken the scriptures, by the Spirit, unto yourselves, rather than wresting them to your own destruction. Be faithful, be true, be obedient, become Christlike – to know Him is to be like Him, through Him, and of Him.

    Do not follow Denver’s example of leaving the Church, for any reason, publishing contract or otherwise – if you do, you will find it is like jumping off the ark in Noah’s day. In fact, I encourage you to take Denver at his word and not follow him at all. He said he does not want nor seek a following. You don’t need him. Whatever spiritual insight you think he has to offer, you can obtain through your own spiritual efforts and relationship with The Lord – all you need is the gift of the Holy Ghost – the baptism of fire, which can only be obtained after administration of the ordinances through the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – then you must qualify for the Holy Ghost to come upon you and consume you. It will feel like heavenly fire, and you will not doubt what it is – you will KNOW for yourself – and you will never forget it. It is true that many of our ordinances await to be ratified by the Holy Spirit of Promise – but these ordinances and the keys to administer them are here on the earth and they are IN the The Lord’s Church, and nowhere else.

    2 Nephi 31 & 32 can teach you all you need to know about this, then it is about following the Holy Ghost. President Monson and the living Apostles are great examples of doing these things, of following The Lord. They are true disciples and true messengers, authorized, with power, and they are consecrated and united under Him – He is the Head of His Church. They point to Christ through their teaching and their dedicated, faithful examples. They testify that Jesus Christ is the Master, the Savior, the Redeemer, and the Son of God. Do not misjudge; “if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.”

    I testify these things are true. Although I know them for myself by revelation, I also know that God is no respecter of persons and He will reveal them to all who seek in faith.

    Denver’s message does not sustain the Church or the brethren. Without playing word games, he is an accuser of the brethren, which is why he has been cut off from among the people. His cloak of humility and his apparent redefinition of terms like “sustain” are very confusing. Others here have called it double-speak and I have to agree with them.

    Read his recent posts from August, September, and October, with spiritual eyes and ears and you will notice his tone is apostate. Way too many word games being played by Denver, in my opinion.

    1. Geoff,

      The spirit you read out of him is the spirit with which you read.

      1 And now it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words he turned again to the multitude, and did open his mouth unto them again, saying: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Judge not, that ye be not judged.

      2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

      3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

      4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother: Let me pull the mote out of thine eye—and behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

      5 Thou hypocrite, first cast the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

    2. Geoff, once again you’ve offered a breath of fresh air in the midst of confusion and darkness. Your words are true, your points are clear, and I don’t think there’s anything else you really need to add. Unless you feel otherwise, it seems there is no reason to address anything further since you’ll just be repeating yourself. I appreciate your thoughts and testimony, you’ve expressed your thoughts well.

      1. Geoff has been clear, indeed. The key to finding criticism in Snuffer’s words is to first put it there.

        He has chosen his words carefully, but his message of undermining and indictment is clear. References to the “corporate” church or institution are meant to be critical.

        Another key is to judge the thoughts of his mind.

        Another key to detecting and understanding Snufferism is its recontextualization, redefinition, and strict esoteric historical interpretations of the scriptures, particularly the D&C. He obviously redefines several key words in the temple recommend interview questions, because he still claims he could pass such an interview. So how does he define “sustain”? He might mean he pays tithes which support those who live on consecrated funds, for example.

        When “obviously” and “he might mean” pass as “true,” “clear,” etc, then I’m in the wrong forum.

        Truth is made of hardier, firmer stuff than speculation, imputation, and evil speaking.

    3. Geoff,

      I am one who professes to know that the Church is true and has been restored in its fullness. The fullness of the Priesthood is found in the ordinances of the Priesthood and they are found in the Temple, and in those instances where the Savior brings one unto the Holy Father it occurs as seemeth them good.

      I don’t take DS quite as bad as you. I don’t need to defend my statement with a treatise on his words say thus and thus because when I say something says thus and thus it is a window into my soul….not DS’s. How I take things directly reflects my opinion, mood, state of being, position or stance, and again is a reflection of me (or others who join our discussion).

      DS is an attorney. What I have to share about that profession is that they play with words quite differently that lay people (non attorneys). Their POV is quite literally very personal and it reflects on what they are trying to prove in the moment — and that may or may not be a look into their soul. There is but one who can know the intentions of the heart and that is the Lord. I don’t see DS’s words as being highly critical of the brethren but I do see him being an attorney and using words and POV that substantiates that position.

      I can, without concern about my salvation, leave DS to his own path and his “errand from the Lord”. He says that he has seen the Lord. Many servants are not so revealing in these personal things. But that is a detriment to our society more than it is a indictment against DS. When the prophets wrote that they had seen the Lord in antiquity those words were available to their contemporaries. So they felt no remorse it seems in revealing those sacred experiences with them. Our society is not so structured. Most who claim to have visits from the “unseen” are considered on the fringe of society. If I were to share my very sacred and personal experiences in our society I too would be viewed as on the fringe. That is not why I do/do not share. I have within the structure I choose….but so has DS. Why ridicule him for that?

      To say he has not seen the Lord then one must of course explain what his experience was, if not the Lord. And to sit in that kind of ridicule of another’s testament puts us very near what the Jews experienced when the Lord was with them. I truly do not need to go there because whether or not he speaks the truth of the matter is between him and the Lord. I can allow the Lord to do His own justice and judgment.

      I have a very solid relationship with the Holy Ghost, the Savior Jesus Christ, and our Heavenly Father. I don’t need to impugn another to bring myself closer in view of others. I don’t mean to say I am perfect in my associations and judgment — I, like all of us, am working every day to lay up treasures in heaven.

      I can believe that DS is on an errand from the Lord and wish him better success in how he represents his feelings about the brethren, the church as an organization (lawyer talk), the need to be more outspoken in our desire to Come Unto Christ, and many more things — but I don’t believe DS is an apostate any more than Martin Harris was an apostate. Hard and difficult at times to understand his theology but definitely not an apostate.

      Can’t we all just have some discussions with labeling one another?

    4. Geoff,

      What would you do if your bishop or stake president — men who, in their callings, you normally forthrightly and devoutly “sustain” in both spirit and deed — asked you to do something that was contrary to what the Lord Himself instructed you to do?

      Would you thereafter no longer be “worthy” to enter the Lord’s house?

      Do we “follow the Brethren”, right or wrong, even when the Lord says otherwise?

      Well did a true prophet declare: “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord“.

    5. Geoff: “Do not follow Denver’s example of leaving the Church, for any reason, publishing contract or otherwise – if you do, you will find it is like jumping off the ark in Noah’s day.”

      That is rich. I just finished reading The Second Comforter last night (and PTHG last week). A finer testimony by a truer Latter-day Saint is nowhere found in all the modern writings of the General Authorities (in my view). No leader of the Church has done more to drive me to my knees in repentance, to re-connect with my Savior, to seek once again the powers of heaven, than has DS. And yet you accuse him of excommunicating himself!

      DS was pushed off the ark (by people like you). He didn’t jump.

    6. Geoff: “In fact, I encourage you to take Denver at his word and not follow him at all. He said he does not want nor seek a following. You don’t need him. Whatever spiritual insight you think he has to offer, you can obtain through your own spiritual efforts and relationship with The Lord – all you need is the gift of the Holy Ghost – the baptism of fire, which can only be obtained after administration of the ordinances through the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – then you must qualify for the Holy Ghost to come upon you and consume you. It will feel like heavenly fire, and you will not doubt what it is – you will KNOW for yourself – and you will never forget it. It is true that many of our ordinances await to be ratified by the Holy Spirit of Promise – but these ordinances and the keys to administer them are here on the earth and they are IN the The Lord’s Church, and nowhere else.

      You are, technically, correct, Geoff. Everything you wrote above is true. Except the last part.

      The Church has no keys or authority to bring anyone unto the Father. But the Son. And there’s the rub. If DS is to be taken at his word, he has come unto the Father and the Son. He has met the Father and has been sealed as His Son. How many bishops, stake presidents or apostles can make that claim? Thomas Monson? No, he has never said as much. In fact, virtually all of the “prophets” (the sustained leaders of the Church) have stated just the opposite. Most have denied ever seeing an angel, much less the Son, even fewer the Father.

      Why do you pit yourself against DS? He is no threat to you. What does he challenge in your faith? He asks no one to leave the Church, but to remain firmly in it!

  150. A man can be factually mistaken. If he refuses to accept truth when it is made evident to him, then he goes from being mistaken to being wrong.

    And a man who falsely accuses another is not merely mistaken.

  151. As far as … the saints were rejected as a church and a people, etc. – I believe The Lord would have followed up with a confirmation that they had indeed been rejected and that He would have taught them the conditions of their return.

    Oddly…

    31 My people must be tried in all things, that they may be prepared to receive the glory that I have for them, even the glory of Zion; and he that will not bear chastisement is not worthy of my kingdom.

    ….

    37 Therefore, marvel not at these things, for ye are not yet pure; ye can not yet bear my glory; but ye shall behold it if ye are faithful in keeping all my words that I have given you, from the days of Adam to Abraham, from Abraham to Moses, from Moses to Jesus and his apostles, and from Jesus and his apostles to Joseph Smith, whom I did call upon by mine angels, my ministering servants, and by mine own voice out of the heavens, to bring forth my work;

    38 Which foundation he did lay, and was faithful; and I took him to myself.

    41 Now, therefore, hearken, O ye people of my church; and ye elders listen together; you have received my kingdom.

    42 Be diligent in keeping all my commandments, lest judgments come upon you, and your faith fail you, and your enemies triumph over you. So no more at present. Amen and Amen.

    “No more at present,” indeed. That was the last revelation spoken by the Lord to the Church.

    I suppose we shall see what we shall see.

      1. Neither OD1, OD2, nor Section 138 contain quotations from the Lord within; my observation that D&C 136 contained the last revelation spoken by the Lord to the Church therefore is obviously factual on its face. Why, therefore, did you ask me this question?

      2. I’m wondering if you think or believe The Lord has not communicated with his Prophets since that time.

      3. Just making sure I understood your statement correctly. Have you heard any comments on the other 2 lectures Denver has completed? He is doing another tonight.

        Also wondering where Tim is?

    1. Are we as a church under condemnation? if we believe the holy writ we are. D&C 105: 2-6 is very clear on this matter. And are we now governing our actions under “…principles of the law of the Celestial Kingdom”.
      I can attest that I do not live under these principles any more that others. I wish we did. The words we have for one another here in this blog would not be under the principles of the celestial kingdom.

      I wish we were under those conditions. Can we as a people get there from here? It is for us to accomplish.

  152. Thanks RC, for your comments and perspective. And Log, thank you too. I do not mean to judge DS, only his words coupled with his actions. Eternally, I judge him not. I am inclined to agree with some of your statements and to retract my labeling and admit that this is my perception. He was excommunicated for apostasy, which technically makes him an apostate. But that does sound harsh, even offensive. I am not seeking to make myself look better or superior – if I came across that way, I apologize and ask your pardon. I certainly don’t feel that way. If anything, I feel like DS is one of the very elect who has possibly been deceived somewhere along the way, although he makes it sound like that would not be possible (I.e perfect knowledge).

    I have a really hard time believing The Lord would inspire him to choose excommunication, via choosing his publishing contract and speaking tour over his temple covenants, membership, etc. It does not seem like a sacrifice, but rather a poor choice and a bad example to those “following” him. The whole idea of his being like an Ezekiel, Abinadi, etc., feels wrong. It implies that the institution is very corrupt and requires reformation or even restoration. I don’t believe it, and therefore I find many of his conclusions, insinuations, and implications both implausible and offensive.

    However, I don’t deny that I felt the Spirit when I read SC including his testimony at the end. It is a bit of a quandary, I admit. Which is one reason all of this has been so disappointing.

    Again I will say, though, we don’t need Denver to teach us these things. It isn’t necessary, which is another thing that doesn’t make sense to me. It is a quandary in many ways.

    Also, I really do hope his appeal is heard.

    1. Geoff,

      If you have been baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, that you have been born again, filled with the fire, light, and the unspeakable joy and glory of the Lord, and can recall what it was to walk in newness of life, to have all things made new unto you, being perfectly clean and innocent, and can remember what it was like to be unable to think evil, neither of yourself nor of others, try to recall that feeling as you read Snuffer and from there see if you see criticism and undermining.

      Because I see something entirely different from your perception. Whenever I thought I saw criticism, it always stemmed from within me, from word associations I brought to the table. If I had said those words, I would have meant something other than what he says he means. But that is the essence of the judgement the Savior commands us to forgo: reading ourselves into others and condemning what we find there.

      That is why Nephi pissed Laman and Lemuel off so badly – in their carnal and fallen state, having never been redeemed of the Lord, they interpreted Nephi according to what they would have meant and felt had they said what he did. As Lehi told them, they had it all wrong.

      When I was young, I believed love songs were all lies. I believed that they were taking that vague fondness I felt at times for my parents and grossly over-exaggerating it until it was something it clearly was not so as to make themselves feel superior or better than others. Then I fell in love, and I understood finally the emotional wellspring from whence those songs came.

      There’s a point somewhere in there, I think.

    2. Geoff,

      Thanks for that. You are a brother in the Gospel and we all strain going through this vale of tears. I salute you as a brother and fellow saint, fellow sojourner in coming unto the Lord Jesus Christ and thereby unto the Holy Father. I enjoy your testimony and the words you share…the caution is obvious and all of us should use constraint until we have the perfect knowledge of ones actions.

      Thank you.

  153. From Denver’s Boise lecture:
    “The question is, will this generation be just as careless, just as indifferent, as the one when the last, real prophet’s voice was heard among us?”

    When the last, real prophet?!! This is what Denver is preaching. Maybe many of you believe this. If you preach it or publish it, then you can be excommunicated, which is exactly what happened with Denver.

    If this is what you believe, how do you sustain the leaders with half a heart? Go to your church meetings (if you do)? Send your sons and daughters on missions?

    Do you really think his appeal will end any differently? Do you even care?

  154. There are multiple meanings to the word “prophet.”

    Joseph, I believe, would extend the definition of “prophet” to include those who had been baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, this being the testimony of the Father and the Son (Moses 6:66). He indicated the Holy Ghost is the spirit of revelation, by which Moses parted the Red Sea, and that no man could receive the Holy Ghost without receiving revelations (so much for being able to receive the Holy Ghost without noticing anything). For details, go read TPJS. I’ve loaned out my copy and can’t refer you to the pages.

    The Bible sets out a different standard of what constitutes a prophet, to which I have referred people multiple times – you can read about it at this link (it’s an orthodox source, too). You may read it without your faith being challenged; it’s by the good folks who used to constitute FARMS.

    That is the definition Snuffer is using when he says “the last, real prophet.”

    Thus it is possible to support and sustain President Monson as a prophet, seer, and revelator, provided we believe – though he hasn’t claimed – to have been baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost (incidentally, I do believe this, because he is meek and humble [Moroni 7:3-5]), and it is also possible to believe Joseph was the last, real prophet.

  155. For myself, I don’t care how his appeal goes – it’s none of my business, either way.

    You know, that used to be the Mormon creed, according to Brigham Young – “Mind your own business.” Joseph also commended “minding our own business.”

    Why should anyone other than hose involved in his excommunication care about the outcome?

    1. Denver is the one who made it public, both the council and the appeal.

      My interest is How does one go from receiving the second comforter to being excommunicated?

      1. It is possible that not all within the Church are in harmony with the Lord.

        It is further possible that not all within the Church who are in leadership positions are in harmony with the Lord.

        1 Nephi 21:1
        1 And again: Hearken, O ye house of Israel, all ye that are broken off and are driven out because of the wickedness of the pastors of my people; yea, all ye that are broken off, that are scattered abroad, who are of my people, O house of Israel. Listen, O isles, unto me, and hearken ye people from far; the Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.

        JST, Mark 9:40–48.
        Compare Mark 9:43–48
        40 Therefore, if thy hand offend thee, cut it off; or if thy brother offend thee and confess not and forsake not, he shall be cut off. It is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands, to go into hell.

        41 For it is better for thee to enter into life without thy brother, than for thee and thy brother to be cast into hell; into the fire that never shall be quenched, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

        42 And again, if thy foot offend thee, cut it off; for he that is thy standard, by whom thou walkest, if he become a transgressor, he shall be cut off.

        43 It is better for thee, to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell; into the fire that never shall be quenched.

        44 Therefore, let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another.

        45 Seek unto my Father, and it shall be done in that very moment what ye shall ask, if ye ask in faith, believing that ye shall receive.

        46 And if thine eye which seeth for thee, him that is appointed to watch over thee to show thee light, become a transgressor and offend thee, pluck him out.

        47 It is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God, with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

        48 For it is better that thyself should be saved, than to be cast into hell with thy brother, where their worm dieth not, and where the fire is not quenched.

        Joseph Smith – Matthew
        49 Who, then, is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?

        50 Blessed is that servant whom his lord, when he cometh, shall find so doing; and verily I say unto you, he shall make him ruler over all his goods.

        51 But if that evil servant shall say in his heart: My lord delayeth his coming,

        52 And shall begin to smite his fellow-servants, and to eat and drink with the drunken,

        53 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,

        54 And shall cut him asunder, and shall appoint him his portion with the hypocrites; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

        D&C 85:7-8
        7 And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God;

        8 While that man, who was called of God and appointed, that putteth forth his hand to steady the ark of God, shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning.

        Therefore, be not so sure that they who are on the Lord’s errand are necessarily going to be in harmony with the leadership.

      2. I forgot one.

        34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

        35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—

        36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

        37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

        38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

        39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

        40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

        41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

        42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

        43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

        44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

        45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.

        46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.

        A man who, having been ordained to the priesthood, and having a little authority as he supposes, can only persecute the saints from within the Church. The saints are, of course, the humble followers of Christ, whose garments are washed white in His blood, being sanctified, and holy.

        So, it’s not outside the realm of possibility.

  156. Oh brother…….this is a bunch of intellectual, legal double speak.

    The end result it is causes doubt. I don’t see how it will help anyone, and I think it will keep Denver out of the church.

    I can just imagine that answer given to whoever is on the appeal council. I would like to see their expression. “President Monson, you are but you are not a real prophet…”

    1. That position, however, is grounded in the teachings of both the Prophet Joseph Smith, and the Bible. With which do you have the problem? Or do you see them as being in conflict?

      I think artful language from the Brethren actually causes doubt, once one notices it, making it very easy to take the position Snuffer has.

  157. Pingback: Snuffer’s Take on Polygamy | Wheat and Tares

  158. RC,

    You said, “I wish DS could do more to help us see that he supports the brethren.”

    Granting for the sake of argument the truth of Snuffer’s claims, he wouldn’t be able to beyond what he has said about them on his blog and in his books. Part of the call to repentance he is making is aimed at them who believe that having received the outward ordinances and being perfectly loyal towards the Brethren in all things while observing the outward commandments (such as not watching R-rated movies, paying tithing, avoiding coffee-flavored ice cream, and so forth) will suffice to land their immortal souls in the kingdom of the Father. The only thing Snuffer can do is sustain and support the Brethren in their callings, rendering simple obedience to the counsel they give (if such counsel does not conflict with his assignment, again, for the sake of argument), and not oppose them; and there is nothing, really, to oppose in their counsel and teachings, they also being servants of God. To show undue deference towards them, or act like a groupie, would feed into what he’s crying against. To my eye, he is behaving perfectly consistently with his claims and teachings in that particular matter.

    You also said, “and most of what we are saying that is ‘right and wrong’ is simply misunderstanding DS true meanings, in my opinion.”

    I believe you are correct. If even I, with the best of intentions, could fail to see something so forthrightly stated… I think he may have been ex’d not for what he actually said, but for what others said he said. But that was part of the deal he signed up for, and it doesn’t appear he’s crying over it, nor should he, granting the truth of his claims.

  159. I find the most recent exchanges between log, RC, Geoff, and others extremely enlightening. Thank you!! I am gaining some profound insight through this discussion that is helping me reconcile some things in my own perception.

  160. You have communicated your current beliefs, here are some examples:

    John C: I’ve been an active, supportive member for all the 50 years of my life. I know what it mean to act and feel as a Mormon and to sustain the brethren. But it has become obvious to me that power is fleeing from the Church. It has become a mega corporate entity relying on the adoration of its members to sustain it…Thank God, for sending a teacher (Denver) among us that can help us see our folly.

    Good Will: He (Denver) has met the Father and has been sealed as His Son. How many bishops, stake presidents or apostles can make that claim? Thomas Monson? No, he has never said as much. In fact, virtually all of the “prophets” (the sustained leaders of the Church) have stated just the opposite. Most have denied ever seeing an angel, much less the Son, even fewer the Father. DS was pushed off the ark (by people like you). He didn’t jump.

    Log: It is possible that not all within the Church are in harmony with the Lord. It is further possible that not all within the Church who are in leadership positions are in harmony with the Lord.

    Denver: “when the last, real prophet’s (Joseph Smith) voice was heard among us?”

    So when you say you “sustain” the leaders, what do you mean? How do you define “sustain”. Do you have some legalize way of meaning “sustain”. I remember President Clinton when he was caught up in the definition of “is”.

    1. So when you say you “sustain” the leaders, what do you mean? How do you define “sustain”.

      I do whatever they tell me to. You will seek in vain to find where I encourage, or countenance, disobedience or rebellion.

      What more do you require before you will cease judging and impugning the faith of myself and others?

      There is one thing under the sun which I have learned and that is that the righteousness of man is sin because it exacteth over much; nevertheless, the righteousness of God is just, because it exacteth nothing at all, but sendeth the rain on the just and the unjust, seed time and harvest, for all of which man is ungrateful. – Joseph Smith

      I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine, it looks too much like Methodism and not Latter-day Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please, it feels so good not to be trammeled. – Joseph Smith

      Judging Others? Stop It! – President Uchtdorf

      1. I guess this comment is a reply to Good Will, but it relates to the overall discussion. So Good Will, I appreciate your comment above.

        We’re trying to figure out Denver, to be honest. There are some things about his message and his approach which are definitely confusing and even seem contradictory. I am not opposed to him as a person and I am not passing any sort of eternal judgment on him. I was a fan until he got excommunicated and didn’t seem to care. His attitude I felt, reading his blog, particularly August until now, was the Church is wrong and he is not (he made a comment I quoted above about the church breaking its covenant with him, not vice versa). But it does worry me that people will follow his example and leave the church. I believe that to be a huge mistake. This Church is where the work of the Lord is occurring, spreading the first principles and ordinances of Gospel to all the world, for example – as well as building and permitting access to Houses of the Lord for further light and knowledge.

        I don’t intend to argue with anyone who agrees with or follows Denver. But here is an example of what I mean – Good Will, you claim DS has stated openly that he has come unto the Father and the Son. I have not read all of his writings, only Second Comforter and almost all of his blog. Where has he actually stated that he has been introduced to the Father, just like Joseph Smith? His testimony at the end of SC does not state this. Almost all of his writings imply things via teaching about them declaratively with an authoritative tone, but don’t actually say it outright. For example, he won’t say he is a prophet but he will read some characteristics of a prophet and define the term in such a way, such as a prophet possesses the testimony of Jesus, and then he will say he possesses the testimony of Jesus – a sort of implication by the transitive property: if A=B and B=C then A=C. It’s not quite subtle, but not exactly direct. This is how I read him. So correct me if I’m wrong. But it seems like you’re assuming that when he implies something, he has experienced it. This would be giving him credit he does not give the living Apostles, whose words he repeatedly takes only literally and usually only the publicly stated ones. He gives them no credit for not sharing something sacred – i.e. if they haven’t said it, then it hasn’t happened. This is the thrust of his argument that none of them have had the same experiences he claims or implies he has.

        So, I and many others here are really trying to figure out what he’s saying and what he is doing now. He’s excommunicated, but he’s appealed to the First Presidency – which I hope goes well. All this we know only because he has published it on his blog. He is still writing and speaking, even though his local Stake Presidency and High Council asked him to stop – one reason he was cut off. Supposedly, by his own words, the Presidency of the Seventy and the Twelve consulted on the decision. Yet he claims to sustain his leaders and could pass a TR interview. He claims everything he has done and is doing is an errand from the Lord and that he is His servant – and that we will all receive a sign that he is such in the near future (read his entry, A Sign). Up to this point he has pointed people toward the Church for the ordinances and covenants. Now he is no longer a member. It is very interesting and confusing, as I said. I’m not so much trying to judge his words, message, and approach, as I am trying to figure out how it fits into the Lord’s plan. For me it seems more and more that he is becoming diametrically opposed to the Brethren and/or the Church. To me it seems like we are very quickly approaching a point where we cannot accept both Denver, as a teacher inspired by the Lord, and the living Apostles, also as such. They appear to be in conflict. And I think most of us recognize the principle that the Lord’s House is not divided – I certainly believe that members of the Church of the Firstborn would be united not at odds.

        His appeal to the First Presidency matters to me because I think it will settle that part of the debate. It is also very confusing to me how he explained that the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles had no jurisdiction over his membership/excommunication in his blog entry Equal in Authority and Accountability, quoted above, when the D&C clearly states that is they to whom one appeals if one is dissatisfied with the decision of the stake high council:

        He does not seem to reflect D&C 102:10-14 (here’s a link and transcription of the 1844 edition):

        http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/doctrine-and-covenants-1844?dm=image-and-text&zm=zoom-inner&tm=expanded&p=129&s=undefined&sm=none

        10?In cases of difficulty respecting doctrine, or principle, (if there is not a sufficiency writ ten to make the case clear to the minds of the council,) the president may inquire and obtain the mind of the Lord by revelation.
        11.?The high priests, when abroad, have power to call and organize a council after the manner of the foregoing, to settle difficulties when the parties, or either of them, shall re [p. 126] quest it: and the said council of high priests shall have power to appoint one of their own number, to preside over such council for the time being. It shall be the duty of said coun cil to transmit, immediately, a copy of their proceedings, with a full statement ofthe tes timony accompanying their decision, to the high council ofthe seat of the first presiden cy of the church. Should the parties, or ei ther of them, be dissatisfied with the decision of said council, they may appeal to the high council of the seat of the first presidency of the church, and have a re-hearing, which case shall there be conducted, according to the former pattern written, as though no such de cision had been made.
        12?This council of high priests abroad, is only to be called on the most difficult cases of church matters: and no common or ordinary case is to be sufficient to call such council.— The travelling or located high priests abroad, have power to say whether it is necessary to call such a council or not.
        13?There is a distinction between the high council of travelling high priests abroad, and the travelling high council composed of the twelve apostles, in their decisions: From the decision of the former there can be an appeal, but from the decision of the latter there can not. The latter can only be called in ques tion by the general authorities of the church in case of transgression.
        14?Resolved, that the president, or presi dents of the seat ofthe first presidency of the church, shall have power to determine wheth [p. 127] er any such case, as may be appealed, is justly entitled to a re-hearing, after examining the appeal and the evidendes and statements ac companying it.

        Is anyone else here having trouble making sense of some of these things? To me, a lot of things don’t fit together – what I’m referring to as the confusing and contradictory things. Help me understand by addressing these points specifically.

        I don’t think I’m right about everything and don’t, in my heart, feel that I’m pitting myself against anyone.

      2. Log, I’m not judging, however I am asking questions to try to understand. I tend to be more straightforward and not as nice as Geoff.

        I do accept your comment on sustaining.

        Why do some accept Denver’s claim that he has been visited by the Savior, but will not accept the Apostles calling, and have been visited, but don’t go around “publicly” saying it?

        Why are some seeing Denver as a “prophet from the wilderness”? Is this the way Christ would manage his restored church?

        Denver said he sustains his leaders, ended up gettting excommunicated. What is his definition of sustain?

        Where is Tim M.? (Are you Tim?)

      3. “I was a fan until he got excommunicated and didn’t seem to care. His attitude I felt, reading his blog, particularly August until now, was the Church is wrong and he is not[.]”

        I perceived that Denver was heart-broken over being excommunicated. Clearly he loves the LDS Church. But, apparently, when he put “everything” on the altar, that included his membership and the Lord required it of him. (As a side-note, each of us must have the humility to “sacrifice” everything in order to claim eternal life.) If Denver’s testimony is true, he hardly “lost” anything at all. His “loss” has been “swallowed up” in the joy of Christ. His behavior, to my view, indicates this is so. His product continues to inspire me. I am willing to go out on a limb here and say I find his “fruit” to be every bit as “fresh” and “delicious” as any I have enjoyed anywhere. Not since reading TPJS have I found its like.

        “But it does worry me that people will follow his example and leave the church.”

        Snuffer did not “leave” the Church. The Church leadership left him (on the curb).

        “This Church is where the work of the Lord is occurring, spreading the first principles and ordinances of Gospel to all the world, for example – as well as building and permitting access to Houses of the Lord for further light and knowledge.”

        And that work remains ongoing. Denver encourages me to be better Mormon, not a lesser one.

        “Where has [Denver] actually stated that he has been introduced to the Father, just like Joseph Smith?”

        That is an inference I drew. I don’t believe he has ever stated as much. But it is the inescapable conclusion of his testimony, argumentation and behavior.

        The Jews of Christ’s day asked Him directly: “How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.” (John 10:24.) Had He not already told them, in countless ways? I think Denver has done the same – for those who have ears to hear. (And I don’t think he has been very coy about it, either. No clever word games. His difficulties arise not from being unclear, but from being misunderstood and disbelieved.)

        “This is the thrust of his argument that none of them have had the same experiences he claims or implies he has.”

        Unless God has revealed it to him, Denver doesn’t know (nor do I) what the Brethren have experienced…unless they tell us. (And they haven’t told us much.) I know of no living General Authority who has claimed a physical audience with the Savior (as Denver has). Denver has written plainly that he has met and spoken with Jesus, even as Moroni did, face to face. He has taught that Christ’s mission, duty and desire is to introduce us to the Father. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he has gone that extra step, as well, since he speaks of ordinances he is not at liberty to reveal. He seems to know a lot more than he is telling us. I have no reason to doubt he is telling the truth. But, until I experience these things for myself, I will not know for certain. Meanwhile, I am compelled by his example and testimony to repent and come unto Christ.

        “To me it seems like we are very quickly approaching a point where we cannot accept both Denver, as a teacher inspired by the Lord, and the living Apostles, also as such.”

        I see no such crisis. Did not the apostles of Christ’s day fail to heal and cast out demons, from time to time? Where they not the Lord’s “true” messengers? Was their “priesthood” less than adequate for the job for which they were sent? Did they not have sufficient faith? Were not 2,500 “witnesses” in Bountiful privy to the Lord’s goodness, or only the twelve disciples? Were not 500 brethren at once beholden of His glory, or only the twelve apostles? Has Denver repudiated the Church? Not at all! He’s just “telling it like it is” (as he sees it) – and I’ve seen no evidence that refutes his testimony.

        Could your testimony withstand all of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve apostatizing? Upon what is your testimony then based? The words of men? Organizational power structure and “authority”? (There was a time when most of the Twelve and First Presidency did apostatize!) I thank God I’m not so far “into” the Church that I am “beholden” to it, that I might fear losing my status, reputation or livelihood if I ever spoke against falsehood (as I understand it), contrary to “established” doctrines espoused even by the “prophet” of God. (In times past, such doctrines might have included the “Adam-God” doctrine, blood atonement, universal denial of priesthood to blacks, “required” plural marriage, etc.) Today’s “heretic” is yesterday’s “saint”. (And vice versa!) So much for having “faith in the Brethren”. Men can fail. Men have failed. The doctrines have changed! So have the ordinances! “Following the Brethren” will lead you to the telestial kingdom (see D&C 76:98-101) for no man can save you. Only Christ.

        Denver urges us to come unto Christ…literally! What objection could anyone have to that? He has not exercised authority, sought a following, sold his services, started a new church, denied the faith, or done anything of the sort normal “apostates” do. He has simply stated “You, too, can come unto Christ” and proclaimed the truthfulness of the 9th Article of Faith: “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

        If this “rocks your boat”, I’m sorry. But the kingdom of God will be shaken. Only they who are founded on rock will not be moved.

  161. It is also very confusing to me how he explained that the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles had no jurisdiction over his membership/excommunication in his blog entry Equal in Authority and Accountability, quoted above, when the D&C clearly states that is they to whom one appeals if one is dissatisfied with the decision of the stake high council.

    The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has not got authority to excommunicate him in the first place. Only Snuffer’s bishop, or stake president, had that authority, which is why his stake president was directed to excommunicate him, rather than those doing the directing doing it directly themselves – they don’t have the authority to do so.

    If a leader above my stake president were to take issue with my online interactions, and want me kicked out of the Church, they, too, would have to go through either my stake president, or my bishop, because they lack the authority to take any direct action.

    That’s why, as Snuffer points out, “When Brigham Young wanted Sidney Rigdon excommunicated, he recognized as a member of the Twelve he had no authority to do so. Therefore, the trial was before the Nauvoo High Council.”

    An appeal is a different thing altogether, and authority in appeals is granted to the higher-ups to whom the appeal is made.

    So, if his appeal is denied, then every level of the hierarchy of the Church will have had a hand in his excommunication, thus they all will share responsibility for that action.

    And it would be wise to first determine what his message is, before deciding how it fits in the plan of the Lord. Or, better yet, perhaps that would be best gotten from the Lord Himself. You may rely upon the assertions of SteveF, who says he has gotten word that Snuffer is deceived. You may decide that because Snuffer’s been ex’d, you may safely therefore ignore whatsoever he says.

    When I heard Snuffer’d been ex’d, I wanted to breathe a sigh of relief and say “well, now I don’t have to worry about these things anymore, because hey, the Church has spoken.” Then… my relief faded as I pondered that truth doesn’t work that way. It never has.

    I have appealed to the Lord for an answer to my very specific questions on these things, and associated matters. In time, when certain conditions are fulfilled, I have been promised an explanation in full. Therefore, I continue to read and listen for understanding, and ponder, and pray. The more I study this out, the more it seems that it is all one big misunderstanding.

    The Church can have all the keys it claims, and yet the fulness of the priesthood not be present, to my current understanding. President Monson can be a prophet, seer, and revelator, yet Joseph Smith be the last real prophet we’ve had. All these things can be consistent, depending upon what the words mean.

    The Lord is the master wordsmith.

    The Lord told Abram to ask his wife, Sarai, to tell the Egyptians she was Abram’s sister. It was true, but was hardly the relevant bit they cared about, now, was it?

    And He doesn’t clear thing up in our time, either. Consider John 6.

    He did not call the multitudes back to explain to them what He meant. He spoke the words He was commanded, and let them depart or stay as they would. That is how God operates.

    And consider further that He left those sayings unresolved for the Apostles until the Last Supper, where He told them “This is my flesh,” and “This is my blood.”

    And let us remember that Christ, Himself, was cast out of the congregation and slain, as were the majority of the holy prophets.

    1. Ah yes, I forgot to include one of the classic examples, and explanations, of the Lord’s wordsmithery.

      5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.

      6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

      7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

      8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

      9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

      10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

      11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

      12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

      He phrases things the way He does so that his word might work upon the hearts of the children of men, for His name’s glory.

  162. Why do some accept Denver’s claim that he has been visited by the Savior, but will not accept the Apostles calling, and have been visited, but don’t go around “publicly” saying it?

    Because Snuffer makes the claim, and the apostles don’t. They haven’t said anything to accept.

    Why are some seeing Denver as a “prophet from the wilderness”? Is this the way Christ would manage his restored church?

    It is the way it has always been done in the past – and God changes not.

    Denver said he sustains his leaders, ended up gettting excommunicated. What is his definition of sustain?

    Obeying the authorities in the Church insofar as their dictates do not conflict with his assignment from the Lord – of course, granting the truth of his claims.

    Likewise, and just consider this as an example – suppose you were to be found worthy to perform a sacrifice like unto Abraham, that you should slay your firstborn because the Lord has asked it of you. What would your bishop have to say about that?

  163. The church since Joseph Smith has organization and lines of influence. Apostles are called by the Lord through his senior apostle, the President, and the people know it and have the opportunity to sustain.

    I suggest the Lord would not call a “prophet” outside that organization, to do so would inject confusion.

    Look at all the comments and see what different people believe on the Denver scenario. This is confusion.

    Since Christ organized his church during/after his ministry, and the restored church, prophets don’t come rumbling in with a different way. Bishops have keys (authority) for a ward congregation, that has boundaries. They don’t have authority outside their boundaries. Stake Presidents have authority for a stake, that has boundaries. They don’t have authority outside those boundaries. President Monson has authority for the church, not some person who claims they have an errand from the Lord.

    1. Snuffer claims authority over no man, and claims no authority over the Church. Neither did Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, or Lehi.

      And, if you believe “confusion” is the relevant standard, then there is no need to pay any more attention to any of this.

      Indeed, if that principle is true, any topic where there are multiple voices and little agreement can be safely declared for whichever side we believe in from the outset.

      Now, why someone outside of the Church can’t reject the Church on that basis escapes me… and they do, claiming the confusion and disunity on theological questions among us contrast unfavorably with the unity of the Catholics.

      But, I don’t think truth works that way.

      Joseph Smith—History 1:33
      33 He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.

      Confusion, indeed.

    2. The church since Joseph Smith has organization and lines of influence.

      But the scriptures state that “no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood” (D&C 121:41). So how does that organizational “influence” structure work again?

  164. Ok, how should we consider President Monson? President Benson said this about the Prophet:

    http://www.lds.org/liahona/1981/06/fourteen-fundamentals-in-following-the-prophet?lang=eng&query=14+fundamentals+following+prophet

    See fundamentals 2, 3, 4, 6, 11 and 14 and compare with some of the comments being made.

    Why is Denver trying to live in the 1800’s?

    First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
    Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.
    Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
    Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.
    Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
    Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.
    Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
    Eighth: The Prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
    Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.
    Tenth: The prophet may well advise on civic matters.
    Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
    Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
    Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—The highest quorum in the Church.
    Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

    1. You may, or may not, find this article on Elder Benson’s talk interesting. I sure did.

      Moreover, given the multiple definitions of prophets in use, I think it would be nice to know what kind any particular person is, wouldn’t you? Because I would definitely privilege the word of one who had stood in the divine council above one who has not, in all things whatsoever he said; and it wouldn’t matter to me if that man were dead, and the other living.

      That’s why I privilege Joseph Smith’s teachings over Brigham Young’s.

      President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel–said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church–that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls–applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints–said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall–that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves, envious towards the innocent, while they afflict the virtuous with their shafts of envy.

      I accept Joseph Smith’s teaching on this particular point, because the Lord has testified to me that Joseph was a true prophet. Your mileage may vary.

    2. And – this is a key point – you’ve yet to demonstrate a conflict between Snuffer’s teachings, and President Monson’s. So the whole point is moot.

      1. Well, then, there’s your answer. Confusion and lack of Church membership determine truth.

        No need to give it another moment’s thought.

      2. Of course, Joseph Smith might have disagreed.

        “We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true Mormons.”
        Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 316

        “One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.”
        Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 199

    3. 1. “The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything”

      I would argue that the Son is the only one who has ever lived on this earth who speaks for God in everything. If this means that every last thing the President of the Church ever says at any time anywhere about anything is as if the Lord himself was speaking, then that’s clearly wrong.

      2. “The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works”

      The Standard Works are our measuring stick.

      3. “The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.”

      I privilege Christ as the greatet [and hence more important] prophet over President Monson. I’m quite confident President Monson would agree with me. Joseph Smith also (D&C 135:3).

      4. “The prophet will never lead the Church astray.”

      If you accept Joseph Smith’s definition that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.” (HC 5:265) then this statement is a tautaology and, in that sense, true by definition. Otherwise, the Lord already told us what procedure to follow when the President of the High Priesthood transgresses (D&C 107:82-84). Verse 82 doesn’t read “And inasmuch as the President of the High Priesthood can never transgress…” For goodness sakes, if even an angel who God has placed in a position of authority in His very presence can fall and lead people astray (D&C 76:25-27) we really want to maintain that a mere mortal never could?

      5. “The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.”

      True. The only condition should be that his precepts are given to him by the Holy Ghost. Otherwise we’ll be cursed if we put our trust in him. (2 Nephi 28:31)

      6. “The prophet does not have to say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ to give us scripture.”

      True. The corrolary being that not everything the Prophet says is scripture even if he does say “Thus saith the Lord” (cf. Brigham Young and the Priesthood ban vs D&C OD-2).

      7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

      I hope he tells us what the Lord wants him to tell us. Nothing more or nothing less.

      8. The Prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.

      Naturally, as is the case with anyone who is worthy of the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost.

      9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.

      Yes, naturally. He can also have his own (considered) opinion which may or may not end up being correct.

      10. The prophet may well advise on civic matters.

      Certainly.

      11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

      Certainly. Though depending on the motivation of our hearts in why we follow the prophet could affect the kingdom of glory we inherit: Celestial to Telestial.

      12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

      This was certainly a problem earlier in this dispensation. By and large it doesn’t seem we’ve had this problem for at least the past 60+ years.

      13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—The highest quorum in the Church.

      The President of the High Priesthood and his counselors make up the First Presidency. The highest quorum comprised of mortal men in the Church. Since God is at the head of the Church there is another quorum higher than the First Presidency.

      14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

      It depends on how, where, and why you follow them. If you are some of Benson, and some of Hinckley and some of Monson but receive not the testimony of Christ you will have damned yourself to the Telestial kingdom by following them. If the Holy Ghost bears witness to their teachings and you act in accordance with them you will be blessed.

  165. Rick, I certainly hope that those who are choosing to remain completely anonymous, such as Log, are not being less kind, gracious, or open-minded than they otherwise would be. Log, you and I and many others could learn a thing or two from Tim’s graciousness and kindness to participants here.

    Log, on the jurisdiction comments, I see your and Denver’s points a bit better now. The way I was looking at it was: you appeal to the higher authority, they decide if your case has cause for a re-hearing, and if they decide yes, then it is a complete re-hearing as if it had never been heard. So, in Denver’s case, now that he has appealed to the First Presidency; I agree, that if they deny his case, then they are confirming his excommunication and thus bearing accountability for it; and if they re-hear it, they are bearing it in the form of a new hearing and decision, which cannot be appealed. But DS says they don’t have authority over stakes after they are organized. As I read the D&C, it seems very apparent that the First Presidency and the Twelve have the authority to direct and to govern the whole church. And that is one very logical reason you would and even can appeal to them, the higher authority, if you disagree with the stake high council’s decision.

    D&C 81
    1 Verily, verily, I say unto you my servant Frederick G. Williams: Listen to the voice of him who speaketh, to the word of the Lord your God, and hearken to the calling wherewith you are called, even to be a high priest in my church, and a counselor unto my servant Joseph Smith, Jun.;
    2 Unto whom I have given the keys of the kingdom, which belong always unto the Presidency of the High Priesthood:

    D&C 107
    9 The Presidency of the High Priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek, have a right to officiate in all the offices in the church.

    22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.
    23 The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.
    24 And they form a quorum, equal in authority and power to the three presidents previously mentioned.

    D&C 112
    20 Whosoever receiveth my word receiveth me, and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth those, the First Presidency, whom I have sent, whom I have made counselors for my name’s sake unto you.

    30 For unto you, the Twelve, and those, the First Presidency, who are appointed with you to be your counselors and your leaders, is the power of this priesthood given, for the last days and for the last time, in the which is the dispensation of the fulness of times,

    And then, in the infamous Section 124
    126 I give unto him for counselors my servant Sidney Rigdon and my servant William Law, that these may constitute a quorum and First Presidency, to receive the oracles for the whole church.
    127 I give unto you my servant Brigham Young to be a president over the Twelve traveling council;
    128 Which Twelve hold the keys to open up the authority of my kingdom upon the four corners of the earth, and after that to send my word to every creature.

    I’ll note that many of these scriptures become meaningless to us if there was some sort of a basic discontinuation after Joseph – although I don’t understand clearly, nor have I read anyone’s comment clearly stating exactly what authority or keys Denver clearly teaches have been lost from the Church. Is it all just implied? Maybe someone can help me see through the fog of word smithery. Are the current First Presidency and Twelve Apostles legitimate, according to DS’s teachings – and thus do these scriptures apply to them – or just the ones back in Nauvoo (i.e. at the time)? (This is what I’ve referred to in past comments as strict historical context interpretation – kind of like, we/they weren’t there, we/they weren’t the direct audience, so it doesn’t apply to us/them – so why even write any of this stuff down or keep reprinting it?). As for me, I believe and think it makes much more sense that the Lord spoke more relevantly than that, and that many of these scriptures, though spoken in the past, still have context and relevance through continuation and may thus be likened to us. So when the Lord refers to the First Presidency, I believe he meant the First Presidency then, with Joseph as President, and that there would be a succession in which there continued to be a First Presidency and Twelve, etc., and the revelations would apply to them in the future. I believe he planned and organized the Restoration to continue, for the stone cut out of the mountain without hands to continue to roll on. I realize some of this is not explicit nor is it public – perhaps there are revelations to these bodies that are not published which record the procedures for succession. Perhaps I am just unread and ignorant of where they are, too. Does Quinn or anyone else delve into these things in their books – was Quinn ex’d or did he withdraw?

    As for outside prophets being called and raised up to call the Church or its leaders to repentance. The scriptural examples cited thus far seem to only apply in the situation of apostasy and corruption of the institution and/or its leaders. Also, I don’t think anyone here has real evidence of how these other historical examples of prophets from “outside the heirarchy” actually received their authority or commissions (like Abinadi, Samuel the Lamanite, Jeremiah, Lehi, etc.) – unless there is some scripture or revelation I’m unaware of, we don’t have all the details. Besides Denver is not even overtly claiming to be a prophet or to be correcting corruption or apostasy, is he, so why is anyone making these comparisons? I think it is because his actions might be speaking louder than his words – speaking tours and books and cd’s, the content, etc. It’s like his saying he does not “want” nor “seek” a following, yet he has one, and he is doing what one would do if he wanted or sought one – very strange word/behavior combination, to me. Is it just a cloak of humility or is the man actually humble? Has anyone met him that can teAnd he has made specific references to his errand from the Lord, and being his servant, as well as the transitive property implications I mentioned earlier.

    I’m very interested in the outcome of his appeal – it will clarify much once and for all – as to where he stands in relation to the Brethren, at least – which will give a lot of context to him and his message. I will say this, though, Denver sounds very confident that his excommunication does not affect his standing before the Lord.

    I’m still not so sure about all this redefinition, re-contextualization, and word smithery – maybe only the Lord has the wisdom and the authority to do so. He is not the author of confusion, but of peace. Though his ways and thoughts are higher than ours, I honestly don’t believe He is trying to confuse us. Hidden, even deep, meaning and symbolism are not the same as mental gymnastics to twist whatever meaning you want from any word.

    Log, how do you KNOW Joseph Smith was a prophet, if you can share it? What conditions do you need to be met to find out if Denver is not apostate? Where I’m going is how do you evaluate personal revelation in the desire-belief-faith-knowledge spectrum?

    Perhaps we can shift the discussion to how can we implement the things we know are true to fully come unto Christ? After all, no one, including Denver, owns the truth – Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and no man cometh unto the Father but by him. I think we all agree here, that whatever Denver might mean by the Church’s role today, it is in some very significant way the gate by which we enter the path which leads to eternal life and a fulfillment of the promises we seek.

    1. Geoff —

      I have know DS for many years. He went on to his professional pursuits as an attorney and I lost touch with him when he left school. When I was re-introduced to DS by his books and the talks that he gives it brought back a flood of remembrance.

      DS is a trained, articulated, successful attorney. His mind thinks in such terms as an attorney would try to prove a point. Attorney’s, it seems, have this ability to argue a point that they are trying to get across to others with so much energy, not because all understand their personal beliefs, but can only see the point being argued.

      Can DS make a supposition about the need to come unto Christ and have everyone see his path as a means of explaining how to come unto Christ. Did he get there by following the words of the brethren or did he get there by following the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the scriptures. More than likely one would gain greater insight by addressing how to come unto Christ by reading the scriptures, reading what Joseph Smith actually wrote on the matter, and trusting the Lord to bring you to a clearer understanding. Of course what anyone says when under the influence of the Holy Ghost is scripture but that is the broad stroke of the brush. What we are studying here are the finer strokes of the brush being presented as under the influence of the Holy Ghost.

      Can one remain faithful to the Brethren of the Church and understand what role they play, what keys they most definitely hold, and still leave room for an individual to witness Jesus Christ in his life.

      Many years ago a man graduated from a Utah school and came out to the “real world”. When he came out we, as a ward (branch), were excited to have “one from Salt Lake” come to live with us. I was new in the church and what he said left an impression on me. He stated some years ago that there were about 100 individuals a year who the Lord appeared to. These “visions” were attested by the fact that the Prophet and his contemporaries would have a list of those so visited. These visions of the Lord Jesus Christ would continue for years to come until the final consumption of the earth. I voiced to the Lord that I so desired to come unto Him and please show me the way. The Lord gave me a vision that served as a great blessing to me. I can truly say that the Lord wishes we were all prophets and that we could all be worthy to commune with heaven, both brothers and sisters.

      Oh that we could live under the “principles of the laws of the Celestial Kingdom” D&C 105: 2-6
      If we lived under those principles and laws then we would not be questioning a brother about his personal visitation from the Lord. We would reserve judgment until we spoke face to face with the person and asked the appropriate questions. We would not depend upon the writings of this person because to understand a persons writings we need to be where they are in stance and position. Our written language leaves much to be desired. How could DS state that he wishes the brethren would/could do more to make things very clear. And at the same time state that he has tasted of the goodness, mercy of the Lord. It is a conundrum for sure. It seems to pit one against the other. We are suspicious of one who says he has been visited of the Lord.

      Surely there is a reason that the Lord’s servants have not make it obvious that they have so to been visited. I know they have. It is in each of their writings but it is so very concealed to the reader one must have the Holy Ghost to point out the words that speak thus. So why are they so circumspect with their witness and DS is so very open with it. I can only tell you what I know to be true because of what the Lord has revealed to me.

      Has the Lord appeared to DS? I have never asked for the confirmation of the spirit to tell me thus. I am trying to operate under the principles of the Celestial Kingdom and thus would not call a person a liar unless I had “proof” of it. I am totally OK to have DS make this claim because it has no bearing on my salvation. But I will tell you this:

      Many years ago the Lord, because of my constant badgering Him of my request, showed unto me my hearts desire. And ever since I have wondered why more are not shown these things to motivate them to “come unto Christ” and witness Him in all they do. Why can’t we as a church just come out and tell people what is hidden in the scriptures about how to come unto Christ. Have we become so elitist that we think of things in the diminutive manner — if I show this to others it will somehow reflect that my experience has been trampled upon and has a lesser value?

      So there it is. DS can claim to have these experiences and be truthful about it. He can also be vocal about these things not being made manifest. I don’t attribute to him that he thinks the brethren have not the keys or the power — but it is true that none have professed ‘publically’ that which Joseph Smith testified to almost daily.

      The keys are with the church. The Sealing Power (In Temple Ordinance form) is found within the Temple of our God and His Christ. The Second Witness is still active and vibrant only in those who believe in what Joseph Smith restored.

      And DS can still go on doing what he does and it will not have a negative impact on my salvation. I just wish we could all come to understand — and that may take some time and effort brothers and sisters.

  166. Geoff,

    I’m just as big a jerk here as I would be in person – ask anyone who knows me (even God – now that’s a story). Except in person, I’d be smiling and laughing a lot more. But putting smilies (:)) and winkies (;)) everywhere just looks dumb to me.

    But DS says they don’t have authority over stakes after they are organized.

    He actually says, if I am not mistaken, that they don’t have authority within the stakes after they are organized. The duly constituted authorities within the stakes do. That’s why, when a Seventy, or a Twelve, want someone kicked out, they have to get the local leadership to do it, and if the local leadership doesn’t, then it doesn’t get done. That situation has apparently led to some stake presidents getting released in the past.

    Are the current First Presidency and Twelve Apostles legitimate, according to DS’s teachings – and thus do these scriptures apply to them – or just the ones back in Nauvoo (i.e. at the time)? (This is what I’ve referred to in past comments as strict historical context interpretation – kind of like, we/they weren’t there, we/they weren’t the direct audience, so it doesn’t apply to us/them – so why even write any of this stuff down or keep reprinting it?).

    Yes, Snuffer acknowledges the legitimacy of the presiding authorities.

    To address your second question, each one of us must search out those answers in the light of Christ. I have a rule by which I read, but many would disagree with it – except Joseph Smith, I think.

    “What is the rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely as it reads.” – Joseph Smith

    “Search the Scriptures, search the Prophets and learn what portion of them belongs to you and the people of the nineteenth century. You, no doubt, will agree with us, and say, that you have no right to claim the promises of the inhabitants before the flood; that you cannot found your hopes of salvation upon the obedience of the children of Israel when journeying in the wilderness, nor can you expect that the blessings which the apostles pronounced upon the churches of Christ eighteen hundred years ago, were intended for you. Again, if others ‘blessings are not your blessings, others’ curses are not your curses; you stand then in these last days, as all have stood before you, agents unto yourselves, to be judged according to your works.” (Teachings, p. 12.)

    And when a scripture names Joseph, or any other man, that is who I read it as applying to, and none else, save the Lord tells me otherwise.

    was Quinn ex’d or did he withdraw?

    Quinn was ex’d, to my understanding.

    Log, how do you KNOW Joseph Smith was a prophet, if you can share it? What conditions do you need to be met to find out if Denver is not apostate? Where I’m going is how do you evaluate personal revelation in the desire-belief-faith-knowledge spectrum?

    I was an atheist once. I became a theist when the Spirit fell upon me and with light, love, and warmth, impressed upon my mind “There is a God, and He loves you.”

    Fast forward a year or two (or less, the timing is hazy). I was investigating the Church to find out just what, indeed, we do believe. I chewed through the local Institute library, devouring doctrinal treatises, until I happened upon the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, who quite spoiled me. I learned from him that Mormonism was an intellectually respectable religion. Then I found a copy of Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. I read it cover-to-cover. As I finished the King Follett Discourse, I was in awe of what he’d said, the breadth and the scope of it all. I had never heard any of those things in church, and I marvelled at them. And the Spirit fell upon me, and with warmth and light in my heart, the words were impressed upon my mind, “Joseph was a true prophet.”

    Therefore, I know Joseph to be a true prophet, for it was spoken to me by the voice of God, with the power of the Spirit confirming.

    The condition which must be met before I receive what was promised is entirely up to the Lord – it has nothing to do with sin, but there are more parties than just me involved, and many things appear to need to happen first. My questions go far beyond solely whether Snuffer is a true prophet or not, however.

    Perhaps we can shift the discussion to how can we implement the things we know are true to fully come unto Christ?

    I did that here.

  167. If anyone’s interested, here’s a rebuttal to some of PTHG – and I have to say, I’m smiling as I read it; it’s good stuff. The author is clearly well-versed in his subject matter, even if I can see a few holes. As of this post, I’m on page 21.

    These matters are so complicated and murky that I think waiting on the Lord is a small price to pay for certainty. LOL.

    1. Check his sources, though. On page 25, for example, he cites what he says was the original Section 5 in the Book of Commandments, but the version published in the Joseph Smith papers has what is now Section 6 as Section 5, and it doesn’t say what he represents that it says – nothing about the Church coming forth out of the wilderness, neither anything about Satan.

      I was curious to find out if there is another known version of the Book of Commandments, with a Section 5 which might conform to his representations, and it doesn’t appear that there was.

      I guess it’s not quite such good stuff as I had originally thought.

    2. Documentation for his claim on page 21 that Moses held patriarchal priesthood is lacking.

      “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).

      Nowhere that I am aware of is Moses depicted as having the patriarchal priesthood, so his interpretation of D&C 84:33 lacks foundation.

      In this, I am following his usage of “patriarchal priesthood” to indicate that portion of the priesthood Abraham held prior to obtaining the high priesthood.

      Incidentally, Snuffer indicates the following (and I’ve cited it before in this thread).

      There are many problems with how we discuss this topic. I have made no attempt to challenge our current vocabulary, or the definitions we use with it. I’ve just accepted it and tried to set out the things I know to be true using the limited and accepted definitions we currently employ.

      The Patriarchal Priesthood is not defined in scripture. We think the office of Patriarch in the church is what is meant by that. Or, alternatively, we teach that when you are sealed in the temple you acquire the Patriarchal Priesthood because you become a father within your family and that is kind of the meaning. Joseph made a remark which referred to finishing the Nauvoo Temple, and then going into the Temple and receiving the Patriarchal Priesthood. I’ve found it useful to refer to this most poorly understood form of priesthood to name and define it the third level of priesthood. I can make a persuasive argument to do so. I think it offers a rather elegant solution to our current vocabulary problems. But I won’t do that in this post.

      The most important point is that there is priesthood which exists, but is not contained within or conferred by the church. It comes from one source – the Father.

      Basically, Snuffer slapped the label “patriarchal priesthood” on what he speaks of as “the fullness of the priesthood” for convenience. That defuses some of the criticisms the present reviewer makes.

      They’re talking about two different things, using the same words.

      The reviewer hasn’t done all his homework, it would appear. He refers in his review to other material such as Snuffer’s “Elijah Talk,” so clearly, he could have researched more thoroughly had he been so inclined.

      1. The proper term for what Snuffer refers to as “the fulness of the priesthood,” from what I can gather, is the Melchizedek priesthood. And with that understanding in mind, I see clearly why he would prefer to use “Patriarchal priesthood” in discussing this idea. Current vocabulary problems, indeed.

    3. But, credit where credit is due – I found his section on the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood to be pretty informative. Unfortunately, now I have to go check his source citations on that, too, because of the weakness demonstrated in these other things.

      1. The reviewer intends to challenge the Church, whereas Snuffer apparently tried very hard to avoid challenging the Church.

  168. To understand what the priesthood is all about and what types of priesthood there are please read Alma 13. Alma gives a masterful treatise on these matters.

    Why do we need Apostles, Prophets, Seventies, Patriarchs, and High Priests et al? They are needed to come unto Christ. And is that not what the brethren do is brings souls unto Christ. They administer and they minister the saving ordinances of salvation.

    They hold the keys of the Highest order of Priesthood. it has been conferred ever since the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith. To understand the Highest order and ordinance one need look no further then D&C 132: 19 and read it very literally.

    I wish DS was not so much an “attorney” in his language and his POV. I believe he has caused much confusion but I see through that and see the real point of what he is saying — and of course that is through my lens. If the First Presidency affirms the courts findings or if they don’t affirm but give audience it doesn’t change the meaning of the scriptures.

    Some of the Order of the Highest Priesthood is very sacred and should be discussed with much guidance from the Holy Ghost so as to not violate one’s covenants. But if these ordinances were not there then the whole earth would be wasted at the coming of our Savior.

    D&C 128 is very clear on all these priesthoods being delineated. Oh that we would follow the Prophets lead and exclaim hosanna’s to the Lord for His Infinite Mercy that He extends to each of us and quite being so non-celestial (again see D&C 105: 2-6).

      1. log –

        Read again the D&C 132: 19

        19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

        20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them.

        21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.

        again:

        by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them

        Obviously there is more to the sealing but the key is having been sealed unto them by the holy spirit of promise. That is the key.

        But who is appointed to this power? This is an ordinance that the Lord has not publicly detailed what the ordinance is. When you went to the temple for the first time your were told “if you remain faithful the day will come where you are called up and anointed….”. This has a direct correlation to the verse 19.

        These keys are found with the Brethren. This power resides dormant in the twelve but of full force to the Prophet. If not the work of Elijah would be set at naught and the world would be wasted at the coming of our Lord in His second advent.

        All saving ordinances, that are worth our endeavor, are performed in the Temple of our Lord and God. One can have visions of the Son and the Holy Father in whatever place they choose (the Lord God) but these saving ordinances are performed in the Temple. His house is a house of order.

        The fullness of the Priesthood has multiple meanings but what I am saying here is that if you have been sealed to the Church of the Firstborn, and are Gods — you have attained the highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

        I’m saying nothing of having the Lord bring one unto the Holy Father.

  169. Additionally, the Prophet Joseph Smith taught us: “If a man gets a fullness of the priesthood of God, he has to get it in the same way that Jesus Christ obtained it, and that was by keeping all the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord”. HOTC, Vol. 5:527; 6 August 1843, see Wilford Woodruff Journal.

    “For any person to have the fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood, he must be a king and a priest.” (see above) TPJS, pp. 320-21, 13 August 1843.

    Also,

    “What was the power of Melchizedek? “Twas not the Priesthood of Aaron which administers in outward ordinances, and the offering of sacrifices. Those holding the fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood are kings and priests of the Most High God, holding the keys of power and blessings. In fact, that priesthood is a perfect law of theocracy, and stands as God to give laws to the people, administering endless lives to the sons and daughters of Adam…
    Elijah shall reveal the covenants to seal the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers.
    The anointing and sealing is to be called, elected and made sure.”
    Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 322-23, 27 August 1843.

    Also,

    “There are 3 grand principles or orders of Priesthood portrayed in this chapter (Heb. 7).

    1st. Levitical which was never able to administer a Blessing but only to bind heavy burdens which neither they nor their father [were] able to bear.
    2. Abrahams Patriarchal power [endowment thru temple marriage] which is the greatest yet experienced in this church (with the higher priesthood was introduced a month later).
    3d That of Melchisedec who had still greater power even power of an endless life of which was our Lord Jesus Christ which also Abraham obtained by the offering of his son Isaac which was not the power of a Prophet nor apostle nor Patriarch only but of King & Priest to God to open the windows of Heaven and pour out the peace & law of endless Life to man & no man can attain to the Joint heirship with Jesus Christ without being administered to by one having the same power & Authority of Melchisedec.”
    Quotes from the Prophet Joseph Smith.

    There really should be no confusion. We are all seeking to come unto Christ and work out our salvation for us and our dead.

  170. Elder Theodore M. Burton stated on 8 December 1966.

    “The President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds the keys of salvation for all men now living because he is the only one by whose authorization the sealing power of the priesthood can be used to seal men up to salvation and exaltation in the kingdom of God”.

    Again as I have stated before there is a difference between the ordinance spoken of here and having the Lord appear unto one who has become worthy of such a high and holy calling. The Lord is the one who brings a person to the Holy Father. Again, if the Lord can appear in whatever place He chooses then surely the Holy Father can as well. And we have seen both documented in the scriptures and in modern times.

    This is the Lord’s true and living church upon the face of the whole earth. Never doubt that. Don’t doubt that this is God’s church and it brings souls unto Christ.

    I can say no more.

  171. Thank you, RC, for sharing your insight, testimony, and love here. Many things you have said have penetrated my heart and been confirmed to me by the Holy Ghost. My sincere thanks for being an online voice of charity and seeking a unity of the faith.

    May I ask a sincere question? Denver claims to have visited with the Son and received an errand from Him. He has not, that I’m aware of, made any clear claims of his having been introduced to the Father, although he does allude to it, and in my opinion imply it, via his declarative/authoritative descriptions of the process. Many here have assumed the same thing on the same basis. How do you think he could have these experiences and be at odds with the Brethren? In other words, if Denver were a member of the Church of the Firstborn, he would be acquainted with the Brethren, would he not, having actually received his second anointing in the House of the Lord by one who is authorized to perform it? Yet I’ve heard he teaches that the Church replaced the Second Comforter experience with this ordinance, along with his teachings that the ordinances are not the real thing. One of the things I’m having trouble reconciling is: how can he be telling the truth if he is at odds with the Lord’s anointed and chosen servants, those to whom He has entrusted the keys of salvation? How can both his message and the Brethren be originating from the same Source? I’ve phrased this before as, how could members of the Church of the Firstborn be in such disharmony? Why would Denver’s errand, if true, put him in disharmony?

    I would very much appreciate your perspective on this seeming contradiction. This is where much of the confusion surrounding Denver stems from. Maybe it is just my perception.

  172. RC, I just read your post above which already addresses this. Thank you. Sometimes we reply to one comment and it gets buried in the history. Just like real history!

    1. Geoff —

      I delight with an understanding and congenial atmosphere. I really shy from discord and contention. You are right they have no place in a discussion about the saving principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

      Sidney Rigdon had some visions and endowments from the Lord. He witnessed much with the Prophet Joseph Smith. There is and element that the Lord gives us to truly see if one is of God or is leaning to his own understanding. I can still see DS as one who has been in the audience of the Lord, though I do not see DS having the “Holy Anointing” in the Temple of our God and His Christ. That requires a signature from the Prophet or directed by such. But I have not seen DS make the claim that he has participated in such.

      The element that the Lord gives us is a very simple one — it is called time. Even those so blessed to experience these sacred ordinances must still “endure to the end”. In time all things are made manifest. In time DS’s true devotions will be manifest and then we can have a public dialogue. For now we (I) must look through a “glass darkly” to view some things and press forward with faith. I would like to say that you are very true in saying those who are members of the “Church of the Firstborn” is not sewn in discord or in contention. The Lord is not a God of confusion…and yet the Prophet Joseph Smith said, and the scriptures also, that the Lord would that all of His children were prophets. Oh now that would be a grand council.

      I wish we could all get together, say in the Temple, and meet as our own ‘school of the prophets’. Not to take away from the church as an organization but to have these discussions because the written word is so hard to understand and thereby is a weakness to all of us here in this blog. That being said DS would not be welcome as of now — but I truly sense he wishes he still had that — else why the appeal!

      Thank you for sharing. I have been much energized by the blog here and it has been of benefit to me. Maybe we can thank DS for creating this atmosphere of inquiry and discussion. But all of us share in that taking place.

  173. “Check his sources, though. On page 25, for example, he cites what he says was the original Section 5 in the Book of Commandments, but the version published in the Joseph Smith papers has what is now Section 6 as Section 5, and it doesn’t say what he represents that it says – nothing about the Church coming forth out of the wilderness, neither anything about Satan.”

    Actually, I think you misunderstood him. He is referencing the current section 5 in the D&C which does speak of the church coming forth out of the wilderness.

    The original section 5 in the D&C was actually section 4 in the Book of Commandments and it does speak of delivering the church to Satan.

    Here is a site that shows a great side by side comparison of the original and the changes that have since taken place.

    http://archive.is/kJoF9

  174. Would someone care to address these points?

    1. To my knowledge, DS has not stated openly that he has come unto the Father (introduced by the Son) – i.e. an experience many of us are connecting with receiving a fullness. Where has he actually stated that he has been introduced to the Father, just like Joseph Smith? His testimony at the end of SC does not state this. His actual words are (with my comments):

    Christ lives and comforts his followers today, just as He promised and did anciently (this is a general statement). He is the Second Comforter (likewise). I know He lives, for I have seen Him. He has ministered to me. (These two statements do not specify whether his experience was actually tangible – see/hear/touch – i.e. it could have been a dream, etc.)

    So, if taken literally, Denver has not really stated that he has had the experience of “Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may KNOW that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world.” (3 Nephi 11:14, emphasis added) Unless he states it somewhere I haven’t read. Please quote and reference.

    2. Almost all of Denver’s writings imply things via teaching about them declaratively with an authoritative tone, but don’t actually say outright that he has experienced them. For example, he won’t say he is a prophet but he will read some characteristics of a prophet and define the term in such a way, such as a prophet possesses the testimony of Jesus, and then he will say he possesses the testimony of Jesus, a sort of implication by the transitive property: if A=B and B=C then A=C. It’s not quite subtle, but not exactly direct. This is how I read him, literally – am I missing something? So correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems like many here are assuming that when he implies something or even just teaches about it, he has experienced it. This would be giving him credit he does not give the living Apostles, whose words he repeatedly takes very literally and usually only if publicly stated. Why is Denver not being taken as literally? As far as I can tell, he gives the Brethren no credit for not sharing their sacred experiences – i.e. if they haven’t said it in language that meets certain yet-to-be-clearly-defined criteria, then they must not have had any such experiences. This is the thrust of his argument that none of them have had the same experiences he claims, or as I’m proposing here, only implies he has (or his followers are assuming and imputing he has?).

    3. A couple of paragraphs after his testimony above, he says this:

    It must be made clear I hold no keys, have no salvation to offer anyone, and must point you to others who have been chosen by Christ to hold keys and the power of salvation. The ordinances of the Gospel, and in particular the authority to minister in the Temples, are contained in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and nowhere else. The President of the High Priesthood, who is the Prophet of the Church, alone has the right to exercise the keys in a fullness. If you would be saved, you must accept the Gospel and its ordinances. This means you must accept Christ’s authorized ministers. They will lead you in the path of salvation and exaltation. I am a lay member of that Church and nothing more. What I have done is to follow that path to the extent I have been able. I clearly have not been perfect in this effort. But the Lord, who judges the heart, has accepted my efforts. As a result I am able to testify it is true. If this book has distracted you from this path, then I have failed in my intent and in this effort. If, however, you realize just how vital the connection is between you and Christ through His Restored Church, then you know where you must look for saving truths and saving ordinances. In these can be found the power of godliness that can empower anyone to see the face of God and live.

    Has his message changed or is he still basically pointing people toward Christ’s Restored Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Christ’s authorized ministers? There are quite a few statements in this quote that bear discussion.

    I hope we can stay focused here, to explore some of these points.

    1. To be clear…

      On point #1, we all know that Denver is very careful with his words – he has even made that comment himself several times – on his blog and in his books. He does not clearly define what he means by “see” or “ministered.” There are many who could honestly claim this without having had the 3 Nephi 11:14 version of the experience.

      On point #2, many here have said something to the effect that (they think or interpret, obviously) Denver has stood in the divine council, what I’m also referring to as being introduced to the Father, receiving a fullness, joining the Church of the Firstborn, etc. I see no basis for accrediting Denver with this. All of us can talk about things we can imagine, or long for, but have not experienced. Has Denver ever clearly stated that he has experienced this? References please.

      On point #3, almost every sentence is worth discussing.

      On an overarching note, I’m beginning to see just how indistinct one’s communication can become if every single word is subjectively and personally defined: “keys”, “see”, “ministered”, “Prophet”, “authorized”, etc.

      I think I’m a bit more like Nephi in that I delight in plainness, not confusing word-smithery – unless it is the Lord doing the word-smithing via direct revelation through the Holy Ghost or a true prophet. For example, this is one of the scriptures I believe still has relevance today, meaning I still think MUCH of the D&C applies to us right now in 2013:

      D&C 42
      11 Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church.

      Articles of Faith
      5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
      6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

      It seems to me that these are some of the principles and criteria the Lord has given us through Joseph Smith, the first Prophet of this Dispensation, to help us recognize true messengers. They seem very clear. Taken together I don’t see how Denver fits the criteria to even preach the Gospel – does not his speaking tour violate this? As an excommunicated person, his priesthood authority has been suspended, by those who hold the priesthood keys, so he is not authorized to preach the gospel. In fact they asked him to stop publishing, which his refusal to do so sounded like a major factor in their decision. I’m not too familiar with appeals to the First Presidency – is his excommunication actually on hold until they answer his appeal, or does the decision stand until the appeal is decided upon? I hope that was clear.

  175. I know some of this is repetition, but I don’t think many of these things have been adequately addressed – at least not clearly. So please be clear and plain – define your words if necessary to make your interpretation and meaning clear. If something I’ve said isn’t plain, please ask for clarification. We’re working with words here – it’s all we’ve got. 🙂

    1. Anyone care to comment on points #1, 2, & 3 above? They have not been adequately addressed in our conversation to date.

      1. I don’t know if this directly addresses your point #1, but page 21 from his Idaho Falls Transcript states, “Joseph saw the Father and the Son, he testified about them, and he described them. I’ve seen the Father and I’ve seen the Son, and they both have spoken with me. The only reason I mentioned that is to give you confidence that it can happen. It should happen to you. You should be talking to them. They can tell you what you need to know.”

      2. Eric, good find. Denver is definitely claiming to have seen and heard the Father and the Son. In reading his transcripts, it is also very clear that he is claiming that this speaking tour is a divinely appointed assignment which he has been commanded to fulfill. To me he also seems to be comparing and paralleling himself to the Prophet Joseph Smith, like he is taking up the torch where JS dropped it when he died.

        Several things seem and feel wrong to me, but time will tell the truth of them:
        1. Denver’s evolution from an insider witness pointing toward the Church and its presiding authorities with keys of salvation to an excommunicate and public, self-proclaimed spokesman with a much more exciting message.
        2. No other witnesses or members of the Church of the Firstborn corroborating him or his mission (implying he is the only one with this level of faith? Or that he is the only member?). The Restoration had a cloud of firsthand witnesses.
        3. Clear violation of D&C 42:11 and AoF 5-6. The implications are that The Lord has very little, if any, influence in His Church; that we have all gone astray; that the Church really is in a condemned and apostate condition, disowned really; that the living Apostles are pretty much just pretending. Why would not The Lord raise up a prophet within His own ranks to deliver this message? The answer is He would only need to do such if the institution was corrupt. That is the underlying message I read from him: that the current Church, its ordinances, its covenants, its witnesses, and its gospel, are all woefully insufficient, shadows of the real thing, which Denver alone has found and possesses (but which we all can).

        I will not be surprised if Denver’s message continues to evolve, with himself very much at the center (actions speak louder than words); that he will not fade into obscurity after this year-long speaking tour; that his message will become more polarizing. He is definitely following a pattern. Many will think, and have said, that it is the pattern of the prophet raised up outside the corrupt/apostate church. He is testifying as if he were such.

        I testify that The Lord God is not the author of confusion, nor division or splintering within His kingdom. I trust Him and I know His living Apostles are His anointed and chosen servants. Anything or anyone that opposes them, opposes Him, even if their words sound grand. So I think time will tell. If Denver’s excommunication is upheld by the First Presidency, for example, and he does not repent, we may know with a surety that he is not of God. From such turn away. Time will tell, but this seems like the pattern of apostasy to me.

      3. Has anyone attended his talks thus far in person and would you care to comment on how you felt listening to him? Did the Holy Ghost or an angel or The Lord himself bear witness to you of the truth?

  176. D&C 123 has some important information in it, including:

    7 It is an imperative duty that we owe to God, to angels, with whom we shall be brought to stand, and also to ourselves, to our wives and children, who have been made to bow down with grief, sorrow, and care, under the most damning hand of murder, tyranny, and oppression, supported and urged on and upheld by the influence of that spirit which hath so strongly riveted the creeds of the fathers, who have inherited lies, upon the hearts of the children, and filled the world with confusion, and has been growing stronger and stronger, and is now the very mainspring of all corruption, and the whole earth groans under the weight of its iniquity.

    8 It is an iron yoke, it is a strong band; they are the very handcuffs, and chains, and shackles, and fetters of hell.

    9 Therefore it is an imperative duty that we owe, not only to our own wives and children, but to the widows and fatherless, whose husbands and fathers have been murdered under its iron hand;

    10 Which dark and blackening deeds are enough to make hell itself shudder, and to stand aghast and pale, and the hands of the very devil to tremble and palsy.

    11 And also it is an imperative duty that we owe to all the rising generation, and to all the pure in heart—

    12 For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—

    13 Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven—

    14 These should then be attended to with great earnestness.
    15 Let no man count them as small things; for there is much which lieth in futurity, pertaining to the saints, which depends upon these things.

    We are expected, it is our duty, to waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all hidden things of darkness, and we should attend to it with great earnestness. Our future and our children’s future depends on it.

    In reviewing the Denver saga, there is a split between what is darkness and not. Some believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its leaders is/are in darkness. Others believe that Denver is in darkness.

    A stake president is chosen by the Lord, through a general authority, and given the keys and mantle to administer to his stake. This includes showing where darkness might exist. In the case of Denver, he spoke with him over a period of time and asked Denver to make some changes, which Denver did not. So Denver was excommunicated.

    Many comments express doubt about the church, leaders, and Denver’s stake president. One even said the First Presidency doesn’t use scriptures, which is false.

    If Denver’s intention is to create doubt and confusion with people, he has succeeded.

    If his intention is not to create such, shouldn’t he make it very public that his intention is not to create doubt and confusion?

    1. Daniel A. Rogers

      If I were a resident of Jerusalem at 33 AD and I applied your test, I would have rejected Christ. It therefore cannot be valid.

      1. Not so. Interesting you would use a comparison to Christ. Here are a few differences:
        – From the beginning of time and before, prophets have prophesied about Christ.
        – At the birth of Christ, great signs were manifested, many people were active in the event. A great star shone in the heavens.
        – John the Baptist was a contemporary, cousin, and a witness to the divinity of Christ. He told his disciples to follow Christ.
        – Christ was not only humble, but came with great power. Healing the sick, recovering eyesight, healing leprosy, walking on water, raising the dead.
        – Christ restored the true gospel and organized his church on apostles and prophets.
        – Christ fulfilled prophecy.
        – Christ testified that He was the Son of God.
        – Many people knew of Christ.

        A few differences I would think.

        – Denver does not claim to be a prophet, those that follow him do.
        – Denver does not want to deliver his message, but says the lord wants him to.
        – Few people know of Denver.

        You may have rejected Christ if you lived in 33 AD. The test is very valid.

  177. It is alleged that Denver Snuffer violates D&C 42:11.

    D&C 42:11 reads as follows: Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church.

    D&C 42:4-17 is expressly dealing with missionary work, wherein the Elders of the Church of Christ were sent forth as official representatives of the Church, to preach the gospel, to baptize, and to build up the Church, or establish branches thereof, in whatsoever areas they were received.

    In context, verse 11 can, and should, be read to mean “nobody is an official representative of the Church except through official channels,” or, more simply, “nobody gets to call themselves on a proselyting mission for the Church.”

    Snuffer explicitly and repeatedly disclaims being an official representative of the Church. He never claims to be on a mission for the Church, and he never claims to be “building up” the Church in the sense D&C 42:11 uses it, in context. Snuffer is not establishing branches, nor establishing presiding authority over any area.

    Problems arise when D&C 42:11 is taken in a rigid, absolute, and context-free manner to mean that nobody can preach the gospel, at all, except he has been ordained by someone who has been ordained by the heads of the Church. This rigid, absolute, and context-free interpretation would preclude visiting and home teaching, as well as family home evenings, because in none of these cases, generally, has the teacher been ordained to so preach by one who has been ordained by the heads of the Church.

    Moreover, this rigid, absolute, and context-free interpretation conflicts directly with D&C 42:12-13, which read as follows: And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel. And they shall observe the covenants and church articles to do them, and these shall be their teachings, as they shall be directed by the Spirit.

    Snuffer was duly ordained to each position within each priesthood, and therefore was and is under specific obligation to teach in the fashion prescribed in D&C 42:12-13 (+14), just as is any other member of the Church, regardless of priesthood or lack thereof: [The Lord] hath commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance. (2 Nephi 26:27)

    D&C 42:11 therefore cannot be understood in that rigid, absolute, and context-free sense which would delegitimize Snuffer’s teaching a priori as it directly and obviously contradicts other scripture; the Lord is not a God of confusion, and does not contradict Himself.

    It is further alleged that Denver Snuffer violates Articles of Faith 5.

    Articles of Faith 5 reads as follows: We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

    This fails to delegitimize Snuffer’s teaching for the same reason the argument centering on D&C 42:11 fails. AoF 5 is merely a restatement of D&C 42:11, and should be understood in the same way – nobody gets to represent the Church except through official channels. Snuffer was, again, duly ordained to the priesthoods, and was not, nor is he, administering in any ordinances without the authorization of the Church.

    It is further alleged that Denver Snuffer violates Articles of Faith 6.

    Articles of Faith 6 reads as follows: We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

    It is unclear how AoF 6 can possibly be considered relevant to Snuffer’s case. Consider the following propositions.

    If Snuffer’s claims are true, we believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church. Clearly this is true.

    If Snuffer’s claims are not true, we still believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church. Clearly this is true, too.

    The truth of Snuffer’s claims fails to impact the truth or validity of AoF 6; we believe it regardless of the truth of Snuffer’s claims. Does AoF 6 impact the truth of Snuffer’s claims? Let’s consider two more propositions.

    We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, therefore Snuffer’s claims are false. Since Snuffer’s claims don’t contradict the organization of the Primitive Church, neither the Modern, clearly this proposition is a non-sequitur.

    We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, therefore Snuffer’s claims are true. This proposition is a non-sequitur for the same reason as the preceding one.

    The only way AoF 6 could possibly be relevant to Snuffer’s claims is if one makes the argument that there can be no prophets other than the Brethren. However, thankfully, nobody seems to have made that specific argument. It would be to say that no lay member of the Church has access to the persons of Jesus Christ and God, a proposition which make Joseph Smith a liar, for he said this:

    After a person has faith in Christ, repents of his sins, and is baptized for the remission of his sins and receives the Holy Ghost (by the laying on of hands), which is the first Comforter, then let him continue to humble himself before God, hungering and thirsting after righteousness, and living by every word of God, and the Lord will soon say unto him, Son, thou shalt be exalted. When the Lord has thoroughly proved him, and finds that the man is determined to serve Him at all hazards, then the man will find his calling and his election made sure, then it will be his privilege to receive the other Comforter, which the Lord hath promised the Saints, as is recorded in the testimony of St. John, in the 14th chapter, from the 12th to the 27th verses….

    Now what is this other Comforter? It is no more nor less than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; …when any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even He will manifest the Father unto him, and they will take up their abode with him, and the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him, and the Lord will teach him face to face, and he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God; and this is the state and place the ancient Saints arrived at when they had such glorious visions-Isaiah, Ezekiel, John upon the Isle of Patmos, St. Paul in the three heavens, and all the Saints who held communion with the general assembly and Church of the First Born [TPJS, pp. 150-51].

    Of course, experiencing those things is what makes a man a true prophet – and lacking that experience, no man can be a true prophet.

    It is further alleged that if Denver’s excommunication is upheld by the First Presidency, and he does not repent (ie, make whatever concessions are necessary to be rebaptized), we may know with a surety that he is not of God.

    Truth is not established in any such way.

    Moroni 10:5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

    While one is certainly able to cede one’s inalienable moral agency to a committee, one would be ill-advised to do so.

    Moroni 7:14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.

    15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.

    16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

    17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

    18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.

    19 Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.

    I don’t think men can lay hold upon every good thing by proxy.

    Moreover, Joseph Smith taught this.

    President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel–said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church–that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls–applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints–said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall–that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves, envious towards the innocent, while they afflict the virtuous with their shafts of envy.

    1. Log, I appreciate you and your perspective. But to me you’re interpretation seems to lift things completely out of context, out of the context of their being an actual organization, an orderly kingdom, that is authorized by the Lord, that He considers His own and which He stands at its head, through which He operates, whose officers are ordained, hold keys, and represent Him. Order and ordination, established by the Lord, is what is missing from your proposal. The context of the entire D&C, and much of the Book of Mormon, is an established kingdom, with authority presidency, e.g. presiding High Priest, etc.

      For example, your referencing Denver’s previous priesthood ordinations, without the context of his being cut off (excommunicated) by those in authority, makes no sense at all. He can’t operate under duties for priesthood ordinations or offices which have been officially revoked – unless you are proposing that the same organization which administered the ordinations cannot revoke them. You are creating a dichotomy between the Lord and His Church.

      Denver is publicly preaching – his topic is the Gospel, not anything else – please don’t split hairs. In the Church/Kingdom we even set apart primary and sunday school teachers – everyone is sustained and authorized/set-apart for their callings – once again, my point is order. Denver is out of order and there’s really no other way to spin it. You would basically have to buy into the assumption that the Lord does not have representatives, who are authorized to exercise judgment according to His Spirit, when he clearly sets forth these procedures in the scriptures, both D&C and Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith presided over several excommunications just like Denver’s, for apostasy. Contrary to the one quote everyone likes to reference where he says let every man believe as he wants, etc. Teaching contrary to the order is forbidden, by the Lord and His servants. Why? To preserve order and avoid dissent. Denver has taken it upon himself to teach both in word and in print, contrary to the direction of those in authority, who represent and are authorized by the Lord. This resulted in his excommunication. He claims direct authorization/assignment by the Lord to do this. The pattern Denver is following is not unlike that of others excommunicated by Joseph Smith for apostasy.

      This just doesn’t sound like the Lord’s way to me, unless the organization is disowned/apostate. So let’s please be clear, you can’t have it both ways: the Church can’t be true and living still, accepted and authorized by the Lord, its officers appointed and authorized to represent Him, and Denver be a prophet called from out of boundaries to teach what it won’t teach or establish Zion, etc.; and vice-versa, if Denver is a true prophet (which he has not directly claimed thus far), the Church cannot be true/living/authorized, i.e. what it claims to be. The whole process of excommunication is a cutting off, with the intent that the person will repent and come back in order. Either Denver is apostate, or the Church is apostate. So far the reconciliation I’ve heard on this blog to try and have it both ways is full of double entendre and confusion, and does not account for too many scriptures which establish order, ordination, authorization, etc.

      Mosiah 26
      28 Therefore I say unto you, that he that will not hear my voice, the same shall ye not receive into my church, for him I will not receive at the last day.
      29 Therefore I say unto you, Go; and whosoever transgresseth against me, him shall ye judge according to the sins which he has committed; and if he confess his sins before thee and me, and repenteth in the sincerity of his heart, him shall ye forgive, and I will forgive him also.
      30 Yea, and as often as my people repent will I forgive them their trespasses against me.
      31 And ye shall also forgive one another your trespasses; for verily I say unto you, he that forgiveth not his neighbor’s trespasses when he says that he repents, the same hath brought himself under condemnation.
      32 Now I say unto you, Go; and whosoever will not repent of his sins the same shall not be numbered among my people; and this shall be observed from this time forward.
      33 And it came to pass when Alma had heard these words he wrote them down that he might have them, and that he might judge the people of that church according to the commandments of God.
      34 And it came to pass that Alma went and judged those that had been taken in iniquity, according to the word of the Lord.
      35 And whosoever repented of their sins and did confess them, them he did number among the people of the church;
      36 And those that would not confess their sins and repent of their iniquity, the same were not numbered among the people of the church, and their names were blotted out.

      The transgression, in Denver’s case, is apostasy – turning against the Lord’s order. He did not sustain the Lord’s servants in the way the Lord defines “sustain” (that is my opinion, of course). Regardless of the doctrine that Denver is teaching, he is not authorized to teach it and he is out of order. This is not how the Lord works when his kingdom is established. I hope we can agree that both cannot be true. If the Lord’s kingdom is established, then He does not work out of bounds. If there is apostasy, then He occasionally does, according to His will and timing. You have to choose a side here though. This lukewarm middle-road will not hold.

      It is also interesting that Denver’s message used to point people toward the Church and its authorities, but now it seems to be changing.

      JST-Matthew
      22 For in those days there shall also arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch, that, if possible, they shall deceive the very elect, who are the elect according to the covenant.

      Has anyone else in his following achieved and confirmed his claims – seeing/hearing the Father and the Son? To my knowledge no other members of the Church of the Firstborn have come forward to corroborate his claims or his mission. Based on Denver’s past word-smithery, I am still wondering if his definition of “seeing”, “hearing”, and “speaking” are the same as mine.

      1. Daniel A. Rogers

        Has anyone else in his following achieved and confirmed his claims – seeing/hearing the Father and the Son? To my knowledge no other members of the Church of the Firstborn have come forward to corroborate his claims or his mission. Based on Denver’s past word-smithery, I am still wondering if his definition of “seeing”, “hearing”, and “speaking” are the same as mine.

        I share this with you in the spirit of friendship as two fellow seekers of Christ.

        I first heard of Denver Snuffer in late February 2012. I read The Second Comforter in March, 2012. On April 14, 2012, I was carried away into the Heavenly Temple. I shook the hand of the angel that was my guide. I saw and heard the Father and the Son. I experienced all this as a man speaks to another.

        In the months that followed a heavenly messenger came to my bedside and taught me from the scriptures, primarily the Book of Mormon and Isaiah. This happened on 3 different nights over a period of 2 months each time repeating the prior message and adding more. The best one line summary of the hours long conversation is “Gentiles in the Book of Mormon should be understood as referring to the LDS”. Please understand that this is a very inadequate summary.

        In the period that has followed my mind has been completely blown away by the knowledge communicated from heaven. I had to lay down long held beliefs as philosophies of men. I have now learned that an attractive quality to Angels is an openness to learning. I have also learned that if Angels have not come to you, then it is because of some unbelief that you are holding onto. Unbelief is more than not believing, it also includes beliefs in errors or incorrect beliefs. You may not even be aware of what it is. You may think it is truth.

        Moroni 7:37 Behold I say unto you, Nay; for it is by faith that miracles are wrought; and it is by faith that angels appear and minister unto men; wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain. 38 For no man can be saved, according to the words of Christ, save they shall have faith in his name; wherefore, if these things have ceased, then has faith ceased also; and awful is the state of man, for they are as though there had been no redemption made.

        I share this with you in the spirit of friendship as two fellow seekers of Christ. I am a normal lay-member with no presiding authority to teach or command within the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Within the stewardship of the organization I respect the authority of those presiding authorities and I keep these experiences to myself. To my friends and my family, I share unrestrained. Spirituality and the gospel are greater than the organization.

        Please do not stop casting out unbelief until the Angels come and Christ manifests. They are absolutely necessary for your eternal salvation. Christ has a work to do that no earthly man or program can provide. There is no servant at the gate. There is no substitute for conversing with the Lord through the veil.

      2. Although I decided to unsubscribe a while back, I’ve made the effort to briefly check in from time to time.

        Daniel, I didn’t realize you were also commenting on this thread. I have a few follow up questions about your experience if you wouldn’t mind sharing:
        1) You talked about an Abrahamic sacrifice, did this experience on April 14 last year make your calling and election sure?
        2) You mention you saw and heard the Father and the Son, was this a fulfillment for you of the promise of receiving the second comforter as described in St. John Ch. 14?
        3) By this experience, did you receive the Fullness of the Priesthood?
        4) Can you describe the appearance of the first angel you met and shook hands with? And the appearance of the heavenly messenger who taught you 3 times thereafter?
        5) Can you expound upon what the heavenly messenger taught you in those 3 meetings? Maybe you can expand your sentence “Gentiles in the Book of Mormon should be understood as referring to the LDS” into a fuller paragraph, describing in more detail what that means, and list any other highlights you feel to share.

        If you could take some time to answer each of these questions, it would be really helpful. Thanks.

      3. Daniel, I appreciate you taking the time to privately email me about the questions I posed to you.

        After many hours of studying, pondering, and praying over your words and all the scriptures you referenced, the answer that I received is that you have been deceived and then filled with a lying spirit. I know now for myself that those like Denver, you, Log, and others that share your same basic message have received much of your doctrine, and your thoughts are being influenced from time to time, by a false spirit (likewise I know the Geoff, RC, and others have been speaking under the influence of the true Spirit of God in this conversation). I pray that you will come to recognize it if it is your desire to. It seems many have been under the influence of this spirit, and this long before Denver ever came onto the scene, and now many that believe these things are finding one another and reinforcing these falsehoods one with another through online conversations and meetings. I know this is dangerous, and I warn others from falling into this trap, for on the surface but also in many layers this doctrine can be very convincing and deceiving, and while it contains many truths, it is ultimately not the truth.

        I have also been praying to know if Denver was merely deceived, or if he was also lying. You helped me finally gain an answer to that prayer, and now I feel comfortable letting this go. I now know that both you and Denver have been filled with a lying spirit. I believe it to be the fruits of the false spirit which you have mistaken to be the Spirit of the Lord, and thus in a genuine effort to spread what you believe to be true, you have promoted a false witness in order to convince others of that doctrine. That you and Denver and others are well studied is evident, and much of your advice that you pass on from your studies is actually quite good really, which is what created a conundrum for me at first (and seems to have baffled others here as well in trying to reconcile the apparent contradictions that have been pointed out). But in addition, in a great many things you do also err and if the errors are not rooted out of this collective doctrine it will ultimately bear bad fruit. It is my witness now, having received my answer, that Denver, you, and several others have justified lying or stretching truths to promote these falsehoods which I believe you genuinely believe to be true.

        I mean no ill will, but it is clear at this point that we are receiving answers from different sources. A key for anyone who wishes to decipher which spirit is true as they study it out and pray for themselves, is to ask which Spirit is in alignment with the Keys of the Kingdom, and those anointed servants who possess them at our head. I know that I am in alignment with the Brethren, the keys they possess, and Christ who is at their head. I invite all who might read this message to do the same, and through study and prayer also come in alignment and unity of the faith with the Lord’s divinely appointed servants at our head who I testify are guided by the Lord in their stewardship.

        I leave you with the following prophetic warning from Spencer W. Kimball, “Apostasy often begins with criticism of current leaders. Apostasy usually begins with question and doubt and criticism. It is a retrograding and devolutionary process. The seeds of doubt are planted by unscrupulous or misguided people, and seldom directed against the doctrine at first, but more often against the leaders. They who garnish the sepulchres of the dead prophets begin now by stoning the living ones. They return to the pronouncements of the dead leaders and interpret them to be incompatible with present programs. They convince themselves that there are discrepancies between the practices of the deceased and the leaders of the present. They allege love for the gospel and the Church but charge that leaders are a little “off the beam”! Soon they claim that the leaders are making changes and not following the original programs. Next they say that while the gospel and the Church are divine, the leaders are fallen. Up to this time it may be a passive thing, but now it becomes an active resistance, and frequently the blooming apostate begins to air his views and to crusade. He is likely now to join groups who are slipping away. He may become a student of the Journal of Discourses and is flattered by the evil one that he knows more about the scriptures and doctrines than the Church leaders who, he says, are now persecuting him. He generally wants all the blessings of the Church: membership, its priesthood, its temple privileges, and expects them from the leaders of the Church, though at the same time claiming that those same leaders have departed from the path. He now begins to expect persecution and adopts a martyr complex, and when finally excommunication comes he associates himself with other apostates to develop and strengthen cults. At this stage he is likely to claim revelation for himself, revelations from the Lord directing him in his interpretations and his actions. These manifestations are superior to anything from living leaders, he claims. He is now becoming quite independent. History repeats itself. As the critics of the Redeemer still worshiped Abraham and the critics of Joseph Smith could see only the Savior and his apostles, and as the apostates of Brigham’s day could see only the martyred Joseph, now there are those who quote only the dead leaders of the pioneer era.”
        The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 462.

        I will be leaving this to rest now, and I want to restate that I feel and mean no ill will toward anyone here, I only wish to invite others to what I have come to know to be true for myself. I leave my prayers with all of you.

        Your brother,

        Steve

    2. Your grave mistake steveF is this:

      “A key for anyone who wishes to decipher which spirit is true as they study it out and pray for themselves, is to ask which Spirit is in alignment with the Keys of the Kingdom, and those anointed servants who possess them at our head.”

      Why not just ask who is in alignment with Jesus Christ? Instead of who is in alignment with the head of the church. They are the ones in question, so why would I ask who is aligned with them? I’m trying to figure out who is in line with The Lord! Try again. And I agree with this statement of yours completely. “It is clear at this point we are receiving answers from different sources.”

      1. If I have made a mistake, it is not on this, for I know that the current First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are in alignment with Christ, that they are not nor is the Church in apostasy, and that Christ has not rejected them and thus has and is continually working through them to accomplish the purposes of His Kingdom.

        In this I feel very much like Brigham Young testifying to those who had apostatized in Kirtland, and reiterate his claim for our day: I know that Thomas S. Monson is the divinely appointed and chosen prophet, Priest, and King governing the Lord’s Kingdom on earth today, and people may rail and slander him and the brethren with him as much as they please, but such people can not destroy the appointment of these prophets of God, they can only destroy their own authority, cut the thread that binds them to the prophet, the keys of the Kingdom, and to God, and sink themselves to hell.

      2. Daniel, I appreciate you taking the time to privately email me about the questions I posed to you.

        After many hours of studying, pondering, and praying over your words and all the scriptures you referenced, the answer that I received is that you have been deceived and then filled with a lying spirit. I know now for myself that those like Denver, you, Log, and others that share your same basic message have received much of your doctrine, and your thoughts are being influenced from time to time, by a false spirit (likewise I know the Geoff, RC, and others have been speaking under the influence of the true Spirit of God in this conversation). I pray that you will come to recognize it if it is your desire to. It seems many have been under the influence of this spirit, and this long before Denver ever came onto the scene, and now many that believe these things are finding one another and reinforcing these falsehoods one with another through online conversations and meetings. I know this is dangerous, and I warn others from falling into this trap, for on the surface but also in many layers this doctrine can be very convincing and deceiving, and while it contains many truths, it is ultimately not the truth.

        I have also been praying to know if Denver was merely deceived, or if he was also lying. You helped me finally gain an answer to that prayer, and now I feel comfortable letting this go. I now know that both you and Denver have been filled with a lying spirit. I believe it to be the fruits of the false spirit which you have mistaken to be the Spirit of the Lord, and thus in a genuine effort to spread what you believe to be true, you have promoted a false witness in order to convince others of that doctrine. That you and Denver and others are well studied is evident, and much of your advice that you pass on from your studies is actually quite good really, which is what created a conundrum for me at first (and seems to have baffled others here as well in trying to reconcile the apparent contradictions that have been pointed out). But in addition, in a great many things you do also err and if the errors are not rooted out of this collective doctrine it will ultimately bear bad fruit. It is my witness now, having received my answer, that Denver, you, and several others have justified lying or stretching truths to promote these falsehoods which I believe you genuinely believe to be true.

        SteveF, can you please elaborate by what manifestation, revelation, or process you feel you KNOW that both Daniel and Denver have been filled with a lying spirit? Are you saying they are not merely deceived, but also lying (as in like Korihor)? I’m purposely excluding Log, Good Will, and others because they have not testified of having firsthand experiences.

      3. I’m excited by Daniel’s testimony because so much of what he said has been my experience. I, too, attended BYU my freshman year before my mission. I, too, was baptized of the Holy Ghost that same year, receiving several marvelous manifestations, up to and including hearing the Lord’s voice with my own ears and seeing Him in vision. I wept for weeks afterward, crushed by the apprehension of His love and glory manifest to me.

        I saw and heard Him speak. I saw a filthy, diseased, and ragged boy put his arms around the Savior’s neck and kiss Him. I saw His mannerisms, His loving kindness, His gentleness and meekness. I saw golden undulating beams of light emanate from His body and fill the immensity of space (passing through Earth itself!) and I saw, indeed, that He is the Light of the world. The True Light. I felt His love pierce my soul to the core and fill me with inexpressible joy! I knew, indeed, unquestionably, without doubt, that He must be the Son of God!

        I spoke with Avraham Gileadi (my BoM religion professor at the time) about my experience. I told him of my confusion regarding the young filthy, loathsome boy I saw kiss the Savior. “Who is that boy?” I wondered. “Isn’t it obvious?” he said to me. “The boy is you.”

        I couldn’t believe it! I wasn’t filthy, diseased, smelly or loathesome! I was righteous! A member of the Lord’s true Church! I was doing everything I could to keep God’s commandments! How could I be that boy?

        Brothers, I was that boy. I am that boy. I know now, after 30+ years of experience, that Daniel’s testimony is true: we may compare ourselves to each other in height (6 feet vs. 5 feet and so forth), but compared to Him and His righteousness, we are but ants.

        I have had the visions of eternity opened to my view and I have heard the Lord Himself bear record. Geoff is right. I have not been introduced into the Lord’s physical presence yet, but I await that day. I am actively striving for it again, thanks to Denver, Log…and now Daniel. I believe Daniel and Denver are telling the truth because they are telling my story. I know that the portion of their story that parallels mine is true, for I have lived it.

        I have hope again that I may come unto Christ in the flesh and be perfected in Him. I am learning to abandon the “philosophies of men, mingled with scripture”. I wish you all well in your journeys and pray that we might not quench the Spirit or allow the evil one to steal away the “good” seed from our hearts before it has fully sprouted, taken root, and real borne fruit

      4. Geoff, the revelation came from studying it out in my mind to the best of my abilities with an open mind, and then asking God. Then in each case a stupor of thought when seeking a confirmation that the claims were true and from God, a stupor of thought when asking if the claimed manifestations were real but of the devil, and finally a greater clarity of mind and understanding with an attending burning in the bosom when asking if the claims were lies. In Daniel’s case this clarity of mind also helped me understand where there were errors in his teachings, and helped me understand better his paradigm (which I could not fully understand based on his writings alone), and how such thoughts and beliefs were fruits inconsistent with receiving a messenger from the Lord. I will not expound on those specifics, as I believe it was catered to my personal understanding. But I know each person who abides by their sacrament and baptismal covenants may obtain such a witness for themselves.

        To clarify, when I referred to “Denver, [Daniel], and several others have justified lying or stretching truths to promote these falsehoods which I believe [they] genuinely believe to be true”, the several others did/does not refer to anyone else that has participated here (Log, me, you, RC, Good Will, etc.), I was referring to others I have come across elsewhere online.

        And to answer your question specifically, yes I am saying that Daniel and Denver are lying about their experiences in addition to being deceived by false doctrine. I don’t think, at least in Daniel’s case, I would go so far as comparing it to Korihor since I think they are genuine beliefs. Although I do think the false doctrine being promoted in several places here and by Denver does appeal to the carnal mind in many ways, particularly as it appeals to the ego and a sort of elitism, which upon criticizing the church and others (and thus deceiving oneself into thinking less and less of them) may be what emboldens its adherents like Denver to the point of being willing to lie or stretch the truth about personal experiences to promote that doctrine – possibly both because they may believe the lie cannot be detected because they find the audience they are calling to repentance to be blind, and because they justify it because they believe it will help these people (who are out of the way, while they themselves are righteous) to understand the “true” doctrine.

      5. Good Will, thank you for your testimony. I am at peace now and feel the same way about truly coming unto Christ and being perfected in Him, as soon as possible, as soon as I can qualify.

        Steve, please be careful to “condemn not the things of God” because of the faults or mistakes of men and “take heed, my beloved [brother], that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.” If I may make a humble suggestion, maybe prayerfully reread Moroni 7 very carefully and with as open a heart and mind as you can muster.

        What we are discussing here is not false doctrine and does not oppose the Lord, His Church, or His duly authorized servants. We are discussing the doctrine of election, the pure and precious and holy fruit of the tree of life. “And now, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end.” 2 Nephi 31:19-21 (even the whole of chapters 2 Nephi 31-32).

        I, too, have felt confused and even hurt by Denver’s excommunication – I’ve said that before. But I feel only charity and compassion for him and his family now. I pray for him and his family. I withhold all judgement and leave it to the righteous Judge.

        I also do not agree with you about Daniel’s testimony. I believe him. The power of the Holy Ghost has changed my heart and my mind on many of these things over the past few days.

        The Lord has helped me see that the fundamental message of the Second Comforter is true. I need not worry myself about Denver’s church membership or anything else right now, except working out my own salvation fully before the Lord, to become fully redeemed, and to have my garments washed white in His blood, through faith and the repentance of all my sins, and faithfulness unto the end of the test/trial of this life.

        Take the people/men out of it, and by this I mean all of them, Denver, Daniel, me, anyone else here, any leader, including Joseph Smith and the living Apostles – they are not our intercessors/mediators. They are teachers, even representatives. But we must embrace the Holy Ghost to bring us to the Son, and we must embrace the Son to bring us to the Father. This is the only way. The other teachers bring us to the gate, but we must then walk the path and obtain the truth for ourselves directly from the Source, and we must tread that path until we reach the tree of life and partake for ourselves. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, but we must from there come up unto the Church of the Firstborn.

      6. Geoff, thank you for the thoughtful warning. You continue to speak by the spirit of the Lord. I assure you I do not take these things lightly, and it has been my desire to be very careful to avoid just what you warn against. I would not have spent many hours in study and prayer considering Daniel’s claims and reconsidering many of my own views in the process if I didn’t take these things seriously.

        To be clear, I am in no way condemning the doctrines of coming unto the the Lord, and seeking to come unto Him and the Father, even face to face as a man speaketh to another man. I believe these doctrines, I know they are true, this part of what I learned in my childhood I have not thrown out with some of the false traditions that attended it.

        But see what is happening here, just step back and see the big picture for a moment, and you will recognize that something isn’t quite adding up. The very people who are so forcefully proclaiming many of the true things about this doctrine of seeking the Lord are those who are then turning around and criticizing and undermining the Lord’s established Church and His anointed leaders. Why?

        I read Moroni 7, just as you asked me to, and I found the simple answer there, “For behold, a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water; neither can a good fountain bring forth bitter water”. You said it yourself, a house divided against itself cannot stand. The Lord will not pit members of the Church of the Firstborn against one another. Rather the Lord’s doctrine is that we be one, that we rather come in the unity of the faith, not every man according to their own wisdom and understanding. Therefore, if you have a testimony of the Church, and of the Brethren being led by Christ, which I believe you do, you can know with surety that those who teach that which undermines their authority, or condemns or criticizes the church are speaking that which comes from a bitter fountain. As has been pointed out so many times already, has not Joseph Smith already given us an eternal law that teaches this very thing, i.e. “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.” And did not Spencer W. Kimball in the quote I provided, show exactly how this can and does take place?

        Your desire to come unto Christ, and many other’s who have expressed the same here is indeed good, and comes from God. Yet I have witnessed that Satan can use this desire to create an unbalanced preoccupation with the doctrine which preoccupation may lead to fruits of elitism and criticism that condemns the very people the Lord came into the world not to condemn, but to give everlasting life. Zion is built by lifting, loving, and helping our families and our neighbors, not by casting them aside in an individual quest for great manifestations from God and finding other elite individuals who have also seen “the real truth”. Indeed these things can be sought in a balanced and righteous way, but it will come with lifting those who immediately surround you, it will come with overlooking the faults of others and carrying them on our backs, it will come with serving our families and neighbors with all our heart, might, mind, and strength for if ye have done it unto the least of these, ye have done it unto Christ, and in short it will come with building up the Church and coming in the unity of the faith with our leaders and our neighbors, not tearing the Church down.

        I know angels continue to minister to many individuals today, I know miracles are happening under the power and authority of the Priesthood, and I know these fruits of believers have truly not ceased in our day. So when men undertake to or mistakenly use these scriptures or doctrines of our prophets to entice men to turn against the Bride of Christ, then I know it is not of God. The sealing power is here divinely restored to men on earth, we must be bound here and in alignment with the divinely appointed Church of Christ here on earth if we desire and have any hope of finding ourselves bound and in alignment with the Church of Christ in heaven. This is in large measure how we are to seek the face of Christ.

      7. Steve, thank you for your thoughts and perspective.

        I, of course, like all here, have no authority over anyone; I only presently hold the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood for my little Ward flock – but it’s been 5 wonderful years of learning and my days are numbered. 🙂

        I think part of the problem may be that many of us are looking at the same elephant from different angles and perhaps only the parts we know or are comfortable with.

        For example, some here have made statements that sound to me, as I know they have to you, quite critical of the living Apostles. I do not possess that spirit. I do not feel that spirit in Daniel at all either. But what happens is we start to muster on two sides, like we’re on a battlefield – we’re either pro-Denver or anti-Denver, or pro-Apostles or anti-Apostles. It is very natural to attack and to defend, to polarize, and to dichotomize on these topics.

        The Spirit which possesses me says this, and it rings true with all the experiences of my life: Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, The Book of Mormon is the word of God, and the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true. I whole-heartedly sustain all those whom the Lord has called to lead and serve and officiate in it, from President Monson down to the members of my own Ward, over which I currently and inadequately and imperfectly preside. The Church is the Lord’s authorized institution and vehicle for promulgating His Gospel, particularly the first principles and ordinances/covenants, to all His children on this planet – this is the net in which he is gathering as many fish as possible, candidates for eternal life. I firmly believe that the higher ordinances and covenants we receive in the priesthood and in the Temple are necessary for us also, to prepare us for further light and knowledge – I learned so much in the Temple last night, even though I’ve been thousands of times. I believe that the right way is to serve the Lord, with all one’s heart, might/soul, mind, and strength, as a member of this fold (although I’m sure He inspires us to serve outside the fold on many occasions).

        I personally believe and suspect that the presiding/living Apostles, Pres. Monson & his Apostolic brethren, many of them, at least, have made their callings and elections sure, received the Second Comforter, etc. I don’t know this for sure, but I believe it. I don’t know why they don’t say it directly – it could be because of their position and the state of the Church or our society. But I hear many of the key words that the prophets use to describe it and sense knowledge when they speak. Those on this blog who have inferred otherwise, and that does not include Daniel, I’m pretty sure don’t know either, they are just possibly suspecting the opposite – I don’t think they know this. What I agree with them on is that none of us, including the Apostles, are perfect. We are all fallible human beings.

        I also believe that the Temple clearly teaches that what we receive there is preliminary and symbolic and depends on our realizing those blessings, in reality, by becoming true and faithful, and then called up and chosen. I don’t believe the Lord would be teaching us these things, in so many places, in so many ways, through so many witnesses if He did not intend for us to truly come unto Him in this life. We are living beneath our privileges; there is more faith to be acquired; more miracles and spiritual experiences to be had; more blessings to be obtained. My patriarchal blessing talks about a lot of these things in reference to this life. After we truly receive the Holy Ghost (and I love that phrase – it is really up to us, our choices, each day), He is trying to prepare us to return to Him, as soon as possible, as soon as we are able, as many of us as will come unto Him fully, into the Church of the Firstborn – in this life, if we will.

        Alma 58:41
        And now, my beloved brother, Moroni, may the Lord our God, who has redeemed us and made us free, keep you continually in his presence;…

        Mormon 9:13
        And because of the redemption of man, which came by Jesus Christ, they are brought back into the presence of the Lord;…

        Ether 3:13
        And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you.

        In Moroni 7, Mormon is addressing those who have entered into the rest of the Lord – I believe he is addressing members of the Church of the Firstborn. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the gathering into the net, and the Church of the Firstborn is the choosing the fish that are ready from the net. I don’t believe it is elitist and I see no need for criticism.

        I will say I see, have seen my whole life, and have been disappointed by much of the falseness of members of the Church, individually, sometimes in great numbers, and I would even say culturally. I think you find less of this outside densely populated LDS communities. But I’ve seen a lot of un-Christian behavior in LDS people and culture that is not part of the Gospel or Doctrine of Christ. There are lots of self-righteous people, and even some leaders, who are puffed up with pride, trampling each other for the first place in line, or the upper seats, some very petty stuff. Alma 5, no one would disagree, was directed toward the members of the Church, in Alma’s time – and it is a good sermon for us today.

        Anyway, I guess I see a lot less conflict between the message and teachings we’re discussing here and what I see in the real world around us.

        Daniel has not said anything I have not agreed with. I believe him and his testimony.

        I don’t understand everything, to be sure, but I feel inclined to withhold all judgement against Denver – I don’t even know him personally. Let the Lord judge every man. I agree with the message of the Second Comforter and have received the witness of the Holy Ghost that it is true doctrine. I have not yet read Passing the Heavenly Gift but plan to. I will let heaven tell me what is true of false. But I will not be quick to judge until I know for myself, without doubt. In the meantime I am trying to live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God to me and to forsake all of my own sins (including self-righteous judgement, of which I have been habitually guilty).

  178. Ok, so this is a little light hearted, you may or may not appreciate it.

    So Denver brings up some of his personal tendencies in his blog or lectures. For example, he has mentioned that he doesn’t go to Stake Conference, and he doesn’t like to go to Sunday School because they ask him questions that would take some time for him to respond to.

    In his Idaho Falls transcript, he says, “I loath to waste time, and I’m captured each Sunday in a three-hour block. So I spent a lot of time reading scriptures during church each Sunday. I made it through sacrament meetings with the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants for a period of weeks in order to get through that. ”

    So in my mind I envision him wandering through the church building with a brown robe (or suit) on. Head down, immersed in the scriptures. Similar to the young people with their texting.

    Ok, so is he a monk?????

  179. Geoff,

    I’m sorry. You have misunderstood my point.

    You have wrested the scriptures in order to generate a false, a priori justification for rejecting anyone but the Brethren who claim to be prophets, without burdening yourself with evaluating the truth of their claims. In so wresting, you contradict the Prophet Joseph Smith, and you contradict the Lord whose name you have covenanted to take upon yourself.

    That is my sole point.

    Let me quote the Lord some more.

    23 ¶And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority?

    24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.

    25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?

    26 But if we shall say, Of men; we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet.

    27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We cannot tell. And he said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.

    28 ¶But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.

    29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.

    30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.

    31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

    32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

    33 ¶Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

    34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.

    35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.

    36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

    37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.

    38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.

    39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

    40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

    41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

    42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

    43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

    44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

    47 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

    48 And they said among themselves, Shall this man think that he alone can spoil this great kingdom? And they were angry with him.

    49 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they learned that the multitude took him for a prophet.

    50 And now his disciples came to him, and Jesus said unto them, Marvel ye at the words of the parable which I spake unto them?

    51 Verily, I say unto you, I am the stone, and those wicked ones reject me.

    52 I am the head of the corner. These Jews shall fall upon me, and shall be broken.

    53 And the kingdom of God shall be taken from them, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof; (meaning the Gentiles.)

    54 Wherefore, on whomsoever this stone shall fall, it shall grind him to powder.

    55 And when the Lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, he will destroy those miserable, wicked men, and will let again his vineyard unto other husbandmen, even in the last days, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

    56 And then understood they the parable which he spake unto them, that the Gentiles should be destroyed also, when the Lord should descend out of heaven to reign in his vineyard, which is the earth and the inhabitants thereof.

    Apparently, the Gentiles will be pulling the same crap the Jews were – rejecting and persecuting the servants He sends to bear fruit back into His presence, and Joseph sought to do. How prophetically prescient, when one considers the brunt of Snuffer’s message is simply repeating what Joseph said.

    Your arguments about lack of results may be applied with force against Joseph Smith; for visions of the celestial kingdom and being brought into the presence of the Father, (to say nothing of the Son, neither angels), promised in D&C 76, are nonexistent anymore (except, oddly, for Snuffer, who points us back to Joseph’s teachings).

    Your arguments about being excommunicated may be applied with force against Zenos (Alma 33:10), and Zenock (Alma 33:17), and Isaiah, who, tradition says, was sawn asunder. Even Jesus Himself was excommunicated – cast out of the congregation – and slain, as were men who affirmed that Jesus had healed them.

    Partiality in judgement and respect of men, or, in other words, double standards and unrighteous judgement, are affronts to truth and virtue.

    Consider well what it means to garnish the sepulchres of the prophets.

  180. Log, thanks for responding. Please don’t interpret any snideness on my part. I am not trying to wrest the scriptures. I am trying to understand what seems to be a very contradictory proposition, from my present perspective. I want the truth. And I want to be the Lord’s. I desire and am trying to humble myself like a child before Him. I am not trying to oppose anything He is doing. This is quite a paradigm shift and it does not make sense to me yet. I am still exploring it and trying to figure out how it fits into the grand scheme of things, just like you I think. I still don’t see how outside authorization would be required or used – basically a new dispensation, the way I understand it – unless their was very real apostasy, i.e. the church/kingdom/institution is no longer His, no longer authorized, etc. I don’t understand how both can be true, i.e. church/kingdom/institution is still authorized, but the Lord is sending authorized outside servants to correct. Can you please clarify this if possible? (Without accusing me, please – you don’t know my heart, my experiences, or my blessings & promises.)

    You have to admit, there are many scriptures in which the Lord addresses and authorizes His institution and its officers with divine investiture of authority, to represent him, as opposed to calling just anyone to rise up and be a prophet, particularly in the context of the Restoration, last Dispensation, etc. I don’t see any provision in the D&C for another general apostasy and restoration. Even though the Saints were moved out of their place, pushed out West, etc. – it seems to me that He was very much still there, that they were His people. I cannot fathom His fully or permanently rejecting so many who were faithfully willing to give, and gave, their all for Him. He is quick to forgive the repentant. Are you proposing partial apostasy? Please clarify how you think this all fits together.

    Daniel, thank you for your testimony. I appreciate your sharing. It is inspiring really. Can you comment further on how Denver’s teachings, approach, and what you have personally learned via the revelatory process he describes, fit into the context of the organized Church today? Is the Lord still pleased with the Church as an organization, collectively but not individually, per se? Are the living Apostles His chosen servants or merely custodians of the preparatory Gospel? Can you also give more specifics on how you achieved your theophany? How you prepared? What did you do and how long did it take? Please share what you can share, as specifically as possible. I know God is no respecter of persons. You are the first person who has corroborated Denver’s experience that I’ve met online. What is your perspective on Denver’s message and mission? Anything you can share further would be helpful. Thank you.

    1. Daniel A. Rogers

      Daniel, thank you for your testimony. I appreciate your sharing. It is inspiring really. Can you comment further on how Denver’s teachings, approach, and what you have personally learned via the revelatory process he describes, fit into the context of the organized Church today? Is the Lord still pleased with the Church as an organization, collectively but not individually, per se? Are the living Apostles His chosen servants or merely custodians of the preparatory Gospel? Can you also give more specifics on how you achieved your theophany? How you prepared? What did you do and how long did it take? Please share what you can share, as specifically as possible. I know God is no respecter of persons. You are the first person who has corroborated Denver’s experience that I’ve met online. What is your perspective on Denver’s message and mission? Anything you can share further would be helpful. Thank you.

      Daniel, your comments on PTHG would also be greatly appreciated. I am not seeking debate, and especially not contention. I seek light, truth, and understanding. I also believe that personal revelation is ultimately the only way to settle some of these controversies, for the same reason Joseph did in the grove. Anything you can contribute to assist some of us in pursuing the path that has borne the fruit you describe would be eternally appreciated.

      I have met many people personally and online that have found a connection with Heaven through the writings of Denver. I am not unique.
      You are right that personal revelation is really the only way to settle this. I am not a great example. I have no secret to share that has been hidden. All I can do is testify that it is possible.
      I went to BYU as a freshman for a year before my mission. During that freshman year 18 years ago, I took up reading the Book of Mormon for a half hour every day. I saw an invitation to know the Lord in D&C 93:1. That was my scripture on my missionary plaque. It was my goal. I didn’t have a name for what I went through until many years later, but it was during that year I was Baptized by Fire and the Holy Ghost.
      Fast forward nearly 18 years. I was praying for true messengers and was led to the Second Comforter. I basically read The Second Comforter as a manual. I saw in it many experiences that I had already gone through. Once I saw where I was on the path, it was a simple matter of pondering, identifying, and working on the areas I had not.
      April 14, 2012, was a Saturday. My wife was taking the kids to a yard sale. I helped get everyone out the door. It was one of the rare times I was had time alone. I prayed to ask the Lord a question about some of the things I had pondered and learned. I was surprised to find the answer given in the manner it was. I have spent many months pondering on those things.
      The path is simple. The Book of Mormon calls it the Doctrine of Christ. It is faith, repentance, baptism, and then to actually receive the Holy Ghost (See Nephi’s last discourse in 2 Ne around 30-32). Do everything the Holy Ghost says until Christ manifests Himself to you. You cannot get there by following any program or man. It really is a matter of working on what 1 thing the Holy Ghost tells you to do each day.
      I highly recommend the Lectures on Faith. It is scripture and was accepted as such by all quorums and the general membership of the Church. It was edited, written, and approved by a man that had communed with Jehovah.
      If angels are not coming, then according to the Book of Mormon it is because of unbelief (See Moroni 7). Ask the Lord to show you what unbelief you have. If you ask with a sincere heart He will answer you. A sincere heart means that you are willing to accept the answer no matter what it is without preconceptions. Work on casting aside that unbelief. This is the hard part. We have accepted many traditions that I have since learned are unbelief. The Book of Mormon will be your key. It was written to you, its reader.
      Regarding your other questions, I recognize Denver as a Jeremiah, calling a chosen people to repentance. Ignore him if he distracts you. He as a person is not important. If you want, focus on Joseph and what he taught. Read Lectures on Faith as scripture. I believe you would find much in Denver’s message of value if you would approach it with a sincere heart and open mind. But as a person, he is not important.
      Regarding the standing of any apostle or any other person including Denver, whether they are or are not called of God does not matter. What matters is your own connection to heaven. If every apostle magnifies his calling and converses with the Lord, it will not matter to you if you do not do the same. God is no respecter of persons; you cannot be in the same place as Nephi, Abraham, etc. without having had the same experiences. There is never any safety in following men. Even followers of true prophets find themselves in the Telestial kingdom (see D&C 76:98-101).
      You allude to the “true and living” quote from D&C 1. The Lord spoke those words regarding the church in 1831. By 1832, He said the Church is “Condemned” (D&C 84:54-57). President Benson stated that the church was still condemned. We focus on the true and living and ignore the condemnation. Don’t do that. If we are condemned we should focus on that and trying to come out of that condemnation.
      I accept the words of D&C as His. I believe He meant what He said there. If He said there was something that could only be restored in a dedicated temple, I believe Him. Again the Book of Mormon gives a key to judge whether your beliefs are true or not. Angels come as the result of faith, where there is unbelief (including incorrect beliefs) they cannot come. Do not hold to something just because your fathers have taught it.
      Angels are not visiting teachers inspired to bake cookies. They are not men who are inspired to write talks. They are messengers sent from the presence of God. Adam was not satisfied with the religion preached to him by the mortal preachers in the lone and dreary world. He continued offering sacrifice and waiting patiently on the true messengers sent from His presence. The endowment is a symbolic story of your life. Ponder on it carefully. What you do there in symbol must be done by you in real life.
      Christ is the Redeemer. It really is His work. He is good at it. Ask Him what He needs from you and then do it. You must work with Him. It will be a personal work between you and Him. It will require personal sacrifices and a personal connection. You cannot rely on anyone else to guide you. There will be something unique to you that Christ will require. Only you can give it to Him. God went through a lot of trouble to make you unique. Do not ignore that uniqueness. Follow Christ. You must take the Holy Ghost as your guide. It is the Iron Rod. It will bring you the Word of God to you. Christ is the only way.
      I feel like I have written a lot more than is necessary. The main point is to cast aside unbelief and take the Holy Ghost as your guide. The Holy Ghost will deliver the words of Christ to you.

      1. Thank you very much for your testimony, Daniel. That was very meaningful to me. I also felt very inspired and guided to Second Comforter. All of this stuff surrounding PTHG and Denver’s excommunication has been confusing to me. I have been trying to reconcile it, which is why I keep coming back here.

        Ask (in faith, believing) and ye shall receive; seek and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you. I do believe. In my youth I was baptized with fire and the Holy Ghost and had more direct contact with the heavens. As I’ve gotten older, 40 now, I feel like I’ve lost that direct contact, though I strive to serve (finishing up 5yrs as bishop, about to be released – cured of all hierarchical aspirations) and be obedient to the Lord’s commandments every day. I’m struggling to re-connect, I feel. I want to return to His presence.

        If you don’t mind answering a bit more about the qualifying part. Did you feel like it required that you reached a certain level of righteousness or purity, i.e. sanctify yourselves, etc.? Did you feel like you had obtained charity before it happened?

        D&C 93:1
        Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who
        forsaketh his sins
        and cometh unto me,
        and calleth on my name,
        and obeyeth my voice,
        and keepeth my commandments,
        shall see my face and know that I am;

        I know it will be personal, but can you elaborate on what some of the things were the Holy Ghost communicated to you or told you to do? How did you recognize it was the Holy Ghost? What did you have to sacrifice? How often and how long did you pray, ponder, meditate, study the scriptures each day? How often did you attend the Temple? Did you cut all worldly media out of your life? How did you tune in sufficiently? Do you feel like you still had weaknesses or sins when these experiences happened? How involved did your wife have to be? I’ve read several comments on here that indicate an absolute oneness is required. Some of the mechanics and details of your journey would help even if they don’t apply completely (obviously not transferrable). All of these questions are completely sincere and seeking further light and knowledge, for my benefit and hopefully others here who are truly interested. I will both pray to shed my unbelief and to be truly guided by the Holy Ghost. I will also re-study Lectures on Faith. Any advice you might have on attaining the proper mindset would be eternally appreciated. Thank you again.

        1. Daniel A. Rogers

          Regarding charity, I definitely had to learn the lessons of Mosiah 4 about giving to beggars. We are all beggars, addicted to sin, constantly begging god for forgiveness which when we achieve we turn around and sin again. The only excuse not to give is because we do not have ourselves. Otherwise, we shall not suffer a beggar to perish. Not for any worthiness or unworthiness of the beggar. But because to God we are unworthy beggars ourselves. If we want mercy from Him, then we need to be merciful to others. Would you want God to withhold blessings and forgiveness because you are sin-addicted-lower-than-the-dust? Treat your fellow man how you want God to treat you. That was definitely a lesson I had to learn.

          Regarding righteousness/sanctification, there were times where I gave up all worldly music and media. That was part of my BFHG at 18. There were times where I lived up to every law and commandment both cultural (though I didn’t know it at the time) and scriptural. At the end of the day though, after all we can do, we are saved by grace. Why did Nephi labor so diligently to teach of Christ? Why did they believe in Christ and talk about Him so much? Because all we can do amounts to basically nothing. No amount of compliance with any law will be sufficient to save us.

          Assume how tall you are was a measure of your righteousness. You could compare yourself to others and say “Look, I’m six feet tall and everyone else is five feet… I am so righteous.” That is in essence what we do; we compare ourselves to others. But Christ is the Empire State Building… or Mt Everest. From His perspective the difference between the best of us and the worst of us is so insignificant that we all equally fall short. You can’t even tell from the top of the Empire State Building just who is taller than the other. This is the standard of righteousness that heaven uses. We all fall so far short of it that it is purely by Christ’s grace that we are saved.

          You will not save yourself by saving up for that bicycle. The amount you offer is nothing compared to the standard of Righteousness. The only thing you can offer is a broken heart and contrite spirit… meaning you are willing to set aside anything and everything to know Him.

          I experienced an Abrahamic sacrifice. The Lord asked me to give Him what was most dear to me. Like Abraham, that sacrifice was based on the promise I had received from the Lord at my BFHG. It was hard. It left me confused.

          I spent nearly 18 years trying to understand what I had experienced. I was left in a position, like you say, where the heavens felt as brass. For every spiritual experience I had previously had, the opposition was given equal weight. That prayer I mentioned for true messengers was a plea for understanding.

          I was in a condition where I felt a perfect balance of evidence for god and perfect balance of evidence against. I told the Lord that I had made a covenant at 18 to remain in the church even if an Angel came and told me it was astray… that despite my current confusion I desired to believe and that I would act consistent to that desire.

          That prayer proved to be pivotal. A day or so later I listened to Denver’s podcast on Mormonstories. On February 29, 2012, I bought The Second Comforter. As I read it visions opened up in my mind showing me how what I had lived through the previous years matched what Denver was describing. I read the book in a few days.

          I determined to ask the Lord my standing on the first occasion I could do so in private. That day happened to be the one I mentioned earlier.

          I am not an example because I am more righteous or more faithful or anything like that. I am a geek and I am still a geek. I am utterly unworthy of any heavenly attention as to myself. I only share my experience so that others may know that no matter how low you are, Christ will save you.

          I suggest you re-read The Second Comforter… or go to the Temple… or re-read the Book of Mormon. Whatever you feel directed to do, do it ponderously trying to identify where you are on the path. Then find a time to go and ask the Lord of you state with Him. That was what my prayer was. I asked Him who I was to Him.

          If you get an answer that you are not yet called and elected, ask the Lord if you could be? I have found that oftentimes we are prepared for blessings and that the only thing that prevents us from receiving is that we haven’t asked for it yet.

          If you find that you are not yet prepared, then ask the Lord to prepare you. Ask Him what He would have you do. Give Him permission to do whatever is necessary. This type of request sets off joy in heaven. They respect our agency. By asking for their intercession it will set things in motion on their end to prepare you. 15 years is not a long time to them. It may take that long. It may take a lot less.

          Christ’s work is to save you. He is good at what He does. Let Him work with you. Be patient and teachable as a little child. Children do not have all the gunk and false traditions we have. Try to read the Book of Mormon without any preconceptions about what it means. I know it is very hard to do. I still have weaknesses. We all do. We are given them to humble us.

          Regarding some of your other questions (I just went back to re-read your post). I have read all of the standard works dozens of times… probably getting up to nearly a hundred or so. I have attended the temple enough to have it memorized. I do not think that those things are necessary. What is necessary is faith in Christ. In some ways, my belief in traditions hindered things because I had ideas that I accepted as truth, which turns out were not scriptural.

          Forming a sealing with your wife is an essential step in the doctrines Christ will teach you after His manifestation. But it is not necessary to speaking with the Lord. Think of the temple. You converse with the Lord through the veil. You return and then are taken into His presence. Then in the Celestial room is where sealings take place. That happens after you as an individual have been pulled into His presence.

          The temple is a symbol of your life… specifically your life lived in mortality. It is a coded message from God to a people who had rejected Zion. It is a key of knowledge. The heavenly culture is one of symbols that convey multiple eternal truths. Out culture is not symbolic. The temple is like a window into heaven. Ponder it carefully. There are layers and layers there. But the main point, the first step, is to recognize that it is your story. You are to consider yourself as Adam and Eve. You find yourself cast out into a lone and dreary world, cut off from God. It is the pattern of what you are to do.

          I hope this helps. I am not a perfect man. Not by a long shot. But with Christ I am everything. He saves. He saves us today as He has saved others. Give your life to Him.

          I’ve gotta run and pick up my son from cub scouts. And then I’m going to watch the Red Sox with my family while eating some chicken soup. I am nothing special.

          If you want to talk more please feel free to email me at danielarogers007@gmail.com. At a certain point though you will have to find out what God wants. If He answered me, I know He will answer anyone.

          God bless you!

  181. Daniel, your comments on PTHG would also be greatly appreciated. I am not seeking debate, and especially not contention. I seek light, truth, and understanding. I also believe that personal revelation is ultimately the only way to settle some of these controversies, for the same reason Joseph did in the grove. Anything you can contribute to assist some of us in pursuing the path that has borne the fruit you describe would be eternally appreciated.

  182. I don’t understand how both can be true, i.e. church/kingdom/institution is still authorized, but the Lord is sending authorized outside servants to correct. Can you please clarify this if possible?

    I put up that parable for a reason.

    Here is the key. The householder is the Lord. The husbandmen are the duly authorized leadership of the Church. The servants are prophets whom the Lord directly sends. The fruit are the souls of them whom are to be brought into the presence of God – any who will hear the servants.

    The servants aren’t coming to correct the husbandmen. They come solely to bear fruit, hopefully harvested by the husbandmen, into the presence of the householder.

    This is a test of the husbandmen, to see if they will govern by the Lord’s standards of righteousness, and apportion meat in its season to them who are worthy of it. Just because they were duly hired of the Lord doesn’t mean they get to escape the test.

    This is a test of the servant’s faithfulness to the Lord, for he surely knows the reception the husbandmen have ever given those whom the Lord has sent in the past.

    This is a test of the souls in the vineyard, to see if they will recognize the works and words of their Lord, and come into His presence.

    This is the test. This is the way the Lord has ever dealt with His people. You can see it throughout the scriptures.

    Are you proposing partial apostasy? Please clarify how you think this all fits together.

    I don’t use the word apostasy. It is meaningless in most contexts. Very little is all good or all bad in this world.

    There were two paths open to the Church at one point. They could have obeyed Joseph and received the fullness of the priesthood at Nauvoo. If they had, Zion would have been established, the Lord would dwell among us bodily, and all would know Him from the least to the greatest.

    Clearly and uncontroversially, they didn’t choose that path: we do not live in Zion, and the Lord does not dwell bodily among us. Rather than obeying Joseph’s teachings and entering into the presence of the Lord, they chose instead to be Joseph’s cheerleaders, groupies, and followers, while seeking for riches and carnal security. It is much easier to follow men, and adhere with unfailing loyalty to those whom one can see with one’s eyes, and hear with one’s ears, which require no righteousness, neither faith, to perceive; neither does it require understanding to parrot their teachings. And, let’s face it, mammon usually wins in a showdown with God for the hearts of the people.

    Thus we seem to be in a state similar to ancient Israel, with a duly authorized hierarchical power structure through which we are given religion and philosophies of men, mingled with scripture, and true messengers being sent from time to time to teach as many as will hearken how to enter into the presence of the Lord, which our temples explicitly point us towards.

    For me, this is actually exciting, once I got over the shock – to see the Lord dealing with His people as He ever has throughout the scriptures, to see the promises of the Restoration sounded in the ears of the people again.

  183. Okay, I think that makes sense to me, the parable I mean. But you are comparing the wicked husbandmen (and the Pharisees/Sadducees/Sanhedrin) to the living Apostles and “external” witnesses, Denver in particular, to the true servants of the Lord. Excommunicating Denver, if sanctioned by the First Presidency, would qualify as beating, killing, and stoning, in a sense. Is this correct, from your viewpoint?

    We can make any word meaningless, really, but apostasy has a clear meaning to me – it is falling away from the Lord – and I suppose their could be degrees, but I’m talking about a tipping point where the individual or group is no longer accepted, no longer authorized by Him. So, if the LDS Apostles are not who they claim to be – the Lord’s chosen and anointed Apostles, holding all the keys of the priesthood on earth (i.e. if succession from Joseph to Brigham & Twelve did not occur) – then the Church is in collective apostasy (the way I would term it). Have you not also intimated that, in such a situation, none of the priesthood ordinances performed (with the keys lost to mankind) would be of any validity (i.e. very similar to early Christian Church and Catholicism?) – that we would just be going through the ordinances & forms while denying the power? Please clarify. I think I’m finally getting somewhere in understanding you better. If not, please correct me.

  184. The keys are important, I hope you’ll agree. The Lord and Joseph talk about them repeatedly. The Church teaches that the Great Apostasy (collective) was accomplished by the Apostolic keys, the keys of the kingdom, I always thought they were the sealing keys, were taken from the earth, thus making the institution no longer authorized and accepted by the Lord, due to or in consequence of the wickedness of the members, I suppose. Sorry just having other ideas come to mind as I keep thinking about how to try and make sense of this.

  185. Geoff,

    The husbandmen in the parable are also servants of the Lord (at least, initially, even if their behavior departs from His interests over time), as are you, and I, and those who are sent to bear fruit unto the Lord. We are all undergoing the same test, though we are at different points in our understandings and experience. When the Lord shall bring again Zion we shall all see eye-to-eye.

    The fact that the Church did not, and does not, build Zion is prima facie evidence of apostasy as you define it. There is no getting around that.

    The Lord’s tipping point is impurity to any degree – for He cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance – for then He withdraws the Holy Ghost, and amen to the priesthood, and authority of that man or men.

    On the other hand, whoever has the gift of the Holy Ghost, and is filled with light and charity, has everything. That person is accepted of God.

    Now I suppose I should share more.

    In the days that I repented of my sins, called upon the name of the Lord, and was filled with fire, light, love, and unspeakable joy, I heard a voice from heaven declare: “All things taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, pertaining to the salvation of men, are true.”

    I have had a long time to puzzle over what that means, and only recently have I thought to ask for clarification, which has yet to come. At a minimum, that has to mean the scriptures, which have been upheld by common consent as binding upon the Church as a whole, and which nobody is above: those are definitely teachings of the Church; I don’t know that anything else qualifies as teachings of the Church. I don’t know if exaltation is included as part of salvation, and I don’t know if the teachings pertaining to women are excluded. But it recently occurred to me that those aren’t really relevant issues. I think it means something even simpler than that.

    The gospel is true. Joseph was a true prophet. That which the scriptures say is necessary for our salvation is, in fact, necessary, and the Church possesses sole authorization to preach the gospel administer the outward ordinances: the keys of the kingdom rest with the leadership.

    But what we teach for our history is largely false – one might go so far as to label it the philosophies of men, mingled with historical facts – stories concocted to smooth over gaps and failures and to explain away or hide what otherwise would have alarming implications for our modern self-image, which controls what we do.

    We lack power. Heaven honors our baptisms (Aaronic) by granting the promised remission of sins, manifested as a warmth or a burning in the bosom, but does not honor our confirmations by baptizing with fire and the Holy Ghost (Melchizedek). If you were baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost long after you were baptized and confirmed, you know the confirmation was not honored. If you do not know what it is to be filled with fire, light, love, and the indescribably glorious joy of the Lord, being spiritually born again, believing perhaps this is all metaphorical nonsense, even perhaps considering it born-again Baptist snake-oil, then likewise you were confirmed by someone without power, and were taught by someone without knowledge. If you have ever wanted to heal your sick child by the power of the Melchizedek priesthood which you were told you bear, and were unable to do so, then you know you lack power. If you have ever sought to be healed when sick by calling upon the elders to administer to you, and were only given promises of a future recovery, then you know again they had not power. If you were sealed to your wife, but do not dwell in one another as shining stars, that you are of one heart, one soul, united in all things, perfectly completed and fulfilled, having been invited to join the Gods above in exaltation, then you may know the ordinance was without power.

    I guess some things haven’t changed since the beginning: “Joseph, at this time, rebuked the Elders for administering the form without the power. Said he, ‘Let the Elders either obtain the power of God to heal the sick, or let them cease to administer the form without the power.'”

    So it is clear that something is deeply wrong. We do indeed have the forms of Godliness, but the power is missing, and impertinently appending “by the power of the Melchizedek priesthood which I hold” to one’s blessings doesn’t seem to do the trick.

    Now, if the First Presidency declines to expunge the excommunication of Snuffer, and if Snuffer is one of the servants who is sent to bring fruit back to the Lord of the vineyard, then indeed he will have been cast out. Today, we’re very (thankfully) wussified in that we no longer kill the prophets, true or false. We simply assassinate their reputations and characters. Likewise, we no longer actively persecute the poor, but rather simply pass them by and notice them not.

    But there is an aspect to Snuffer’s excommunication which strikes me as being deeply, and obviously, unjust. In short, they took what would have been called “blasphemy” or “heresy” in the olden days, which is not punishable within Mormonism (as a sop to the well known teaching of Joseph Smith that it is not right to try a man for erring in doctrine), and transmogrified it into a charge of “apostasy.” Apostasy, as it is construed in the Church today for disciplinary purposes, means to fail to do whatsoever one’s immediate priesthood leader commands. It is clear from reading the letter from his stake president announcing the disciplinary council exactly what happened.

    I believe Snuffer is a servant of God, a prophet. I claim no revelation on the matter, but when I inquired as to his, and others’, status before God, I was told I would receive a full explanation when I should, in my turn, be brought into the presence of the Lord. I likewise believe Daniel. I rejoice that witnesses to these things are arising, and that prophets are beginning to again be found among the people.

    But I am very aware of the fact that there are, and always have been, false prophets too. Luckily the Book of Mormon catalogues their teachings, once one figures out the book was written to us. See 2 Nephi 28, Helaman 13, Alma 1, and Alma 30, for some potential ways to identify them by their teachings. One might profitably consider Helaman 8, on the other hand, to see what the reactions to a true prophet are.

  186. Dear Geoff,

    I’ve been following your “progress” throughout this blog and (I’m sorry) I had to laugh as I watched your “about face” today. I am excited for you. All of us who have “heard” this message love the gospel; we love and admire those who serve in the Church and we uphold and sustain them as best we can, honoring our covenants. As Denver has said, he wouldn’t (want to) trade places with anyone leading this Church. They have a tough job. They are doing their best, no doubt. They deserve our prayers and our support. And he (and I) would probably be a lot worse doing what they do.

    I have learned many things from Denver Snuffer. I have learned many things from Log. The spirit of “prophecy” is not restrained or confined principally to the Twelve or to the leadership of this Church in general. (Heaven help us if it is!) Well said Moses “Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!” (Numbers 11:29).

    The Spirit whispers to me the great unheralded truth that ordinances are performed and priesthood conferred – what is known as “receiving the fullness of the priesthood” – by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as he embraces His own (who “hear” His voice) as “sons” and “daughters” and introduces them to the exalted Fathers – “unto My Father, and your Father; to My God and your God” (John 20:17). He employeth no servant there. This priesthood supersedes what is now administered by the Church; which administers, in effect, merely “outward ordinances” (even in the temple), Aaronic Priesthood-type variants of (what we call) the Melchizedek Priesthood, the higher ordinances of which are only activated by God Himself, inasmuch as officers in said priesthood now minister, as often as not, without true faith or regard to personal righteousness (a valid temple recommend, not withstanding) and the powers of the priesthood, evidenced by spiritual gifts (or lack thereof) are, for the most part, unseen and unknown among the saints – excepts in certain cases of extraordinary faith and personal devotion – as all are able to “come unto Christ”, exercise faith in Him, and receive a fullness of His blessings, if they are willing.

    It is not by coincidence that the “spiritual leader” of every ward in the Church is held by the bishop – an officer of the Aaronic Priesthood, who is the president of the Priest’s Quorum, the Aaronic Priesthood being that appendage of priesthood not dependent upon personal righteousness for the efficaciousness of the outward ordinances administered thereby, as demonstrated throughout history. Among the Gentiles today, this office is normally held by an ordained high priest – lineal descendents of Aaron, having rightful claim to the office, being in short supply!)

    Even if one possesses the “fullness of the priesthood”, they still suffer the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,” very few escaping the vicissitudes of life. If anything, things get more difficult for them! Behold, Denver Snuffer! (Isaiah being “sawn asunder” also comes to mind.) Nevertheless, they enter into the Lord’s “rest”, their sorrows and trials being “swallowed up” in the joys of Christ.

    Anyone reading this who has come into the presence of the Lord and who has wept under the crushing weight of His loving kindness knows exactly what I’m talking about. One could (would!) walk through fire because of Him! As some have shown, sometimes this has been done quite literally. (See Daniel 3:25.)

    Those who have received this “fullness of the priesthood” and this “calling and election made sure” (I have not) become as Paul, who wrote “all things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient” (1 Corinthians 10:23). They “transcend” this world, so far as the “law” is concerned, it now being written upon their hearts. They see with “new” eyes and hear with “new” ears. They are truly “born again”.

    1. Log, Good Will, I appreciate your hanging in here on this dialog with me in particular. I feel like I am reaching a more enlightened understanding of the truth of many of these things. Daniel, RC, you two, and others have answered many of my questions, challenged many of my erroneous assumptions, and inspired me to appeal to the Lord for His light and truth, to strip myself of pride and unbelief, and to ask, seek, and knock. My faith has already enlivened and grown, I can feel it.

      I was baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost when I was 11. I have lost something since then. But, in a sense, it was like the fall – downward but forward, descending below many things, and then having to climb back up. I even remember a very powerful dream I had once, back in my teens, in which I was pressing forward and I was about to enter a blessed place and then I was blown back by a strong wind, the Lord had a fence catch me and stop me from blowing completely away. When I woke up I felt like I was going to have to go through many trials before I would be ready to meet the Lord (my heart’s true desire).

      I must thank Daniel & RC, particularly, because their firsthand witnesses made all the difference for me, softened a hard and I want to say impenetrable part of my heart that was critical and judgmental. Now I see that Denver is not alone. I don’t understand everything he is doing, but I feel inclined to withhold all judgment and speak only love, joy, and peace in Christ. I only need to worry about myself and my loved ones (and hopefully expand that circle of love with real charity). I want the Holy Ghost as fully as I possibly can, to have angels prepare me as I need it, to lead me to Christ, to truly come unto Christ, who is the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but by Him.

      I’ll still be hanging out here. I hope others will share and build. I do see now how this process can be done with charity within the fold. It must be part of His plan to bring as many people as will come into the fold of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, where they receive preparation and the Gospel and Doctrine of Christ: Faith, Repentance, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost (though they may not be ready to receive it then – mine came 3.5 years after I was first baptized/confirmed), and then it is endurance in truth, faith, and real repentance to the end of their test, and if they strive with their all and abide by all the conditions of D&C 93:1, then they will be guided by the Holy Ghost, Angels, the Son, and finally back to our Heavenly Parents. They want to gather as many as will come, as soon as they will ready themselves, into the Church of the Firstborn. The LDS Church is the first net. I can see that this work continues beyond the grave, too. My father, who died when I was 11, was not ready in this life, but 8 years after he died, he was a just man made perfect. There is hope for all of us! I believe the Lord must be very patient with us, and only He is qualified to judge.

      Your brother in Christ.

  187. The distinction is, and always has been, between those who have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and those who follow men.

    56 And at that day, when I shall come in my glory, shall the parable be fulfilled which I spake concerning the ten virgins.

    57 For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived—verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day.

    2 Nephi 28:31
    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.

    Jeremiah 17:5
    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.

    1. Log, how do you interpret D&C 1:38 according to your post?

      38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

      In the Church, “my servants” has been known as the President and apostles, you could take down to the other General Authorities.

      So we do trust in our leaders as they are being led by the spirit, which we also consider scripture.

      Now we have someone outside leadership, claiming to have visited the Savior, multiple times, and being instructed to deliver a message.

      So why are you trusting him? He is flesh. Why is he a prophet to you? Do you consider President Monson to be a prophet? If you do, then you have a problem. Because information for the church will come through President Monson, not Denver. If you think it is Denver, then you don’t really believe President Monson is a prophet.

      Abinidi called the people of Noah to repentance and to teach of Jesus Christ. He didn’t say King Mosiah and Alma the Elder were not real prophets. If he was like Denver, he would only consider Nephi to be a real prophet.

      1. Only that which Pres. Monson, et. al., speaks by the power of the Spirit is the word of God. Nothing more.

        There is no conflict or contradiction here.

      2. I’m going to have to say “ditto” to GW’s post.

        And more – any man the Lord assigns to do anything is His servant. Period. If a man speaks what the Lord commands, then that word is the word of the Lord; if a man, no matter his calling, speaks other than that which the Lord commands, then that word is in vain, and he is not the Lord’s servant in that.

        Therefore, one may not trust any man, at any time, save the Spirit beareth witness.

        I give Snuffer a full and fair hearing because he is consistent with the scriptures and the teachings of Joseph Smith. He also demonstrates none of the tactics of the adversary (the use of many of which tactics I could illustrate from this thread), exhibits no carnal weakness, justifies no sin, preaches none of the false doctrine warned of in the Book of Mormon – and he doesn’t use personal revelation as a club. He has no formal authority, and makes no demands. His teachings are but one thing only – seek to enter into the presence of the Lord, literally.

        He matches what I would expect a prophet raised up from outside of the hierarchy to appear as. If he’s false, he’s the best possible imitation prophet I could imagine (or, rather, never could have imagined). Bloody perfect.

        I do not know whether President Monson is a prophet in the biblical sense, as Joseph was. If he has stood in the divine council, he has not said so, therefore I have no reason to suppose him, nor any other who has not said so, to be a prophet, by that standard.

        There is a lesser definition of prophet one might apply, and it’s this – taken from the review at Mormon Interpreter, quoting President Lee.

        I bear witness to you that those who hold the apostolic calling may, and do, know of the reality of the mission of the Lord. To know is to be born and quickened in the inner man.

        By that definition, I am myself a prophet; for I have been born again, and know of the reality of God and Christ and their mission (and am willing to tell people exactly how I know this). I believe President Monson has likewise been born again (Moroni 7).

        Snuffer hasn’t said anything about whether the Brethren are prophets in that sense or not – what he has said, and what I believe, too, is that we have had no prophets in the biblical sense since Joseph. Nobody’s claiming, neither claimed, to be such, therefore there is no reason to believe it.

        Except Snuffer, and now, Daniel, and potentially others who don’t frequent these contentious blog thingys. And I believe them. Because liars have their part in the lake of fire and brimstone, as it is written. To make that claim, falsely, is to partake of spiritual death.

        But, in the end, the only safe course is to ignore all religious teachers, and wait for true messengers sent from the Father’s presence, who will bear the appropriate signs and tokens, while all the while calling upon the name of the Lord daily, even morning, noon, and night, with patience in well-doing and obeying the precepts of the Savior by both scripture and revelation, awaiting the fulfillment of His promises.

  188. Also, if anyone cares, (finally) an orthodox LDS reviewed PTHG.

    A couple of things.

    The author, Brother Smith, opines, “it is absurd to claim that any opinion is as valid as any other opinion.”

    Yet, the author would agree he is bound to respect this statement by the First Presidency: “No man’s opinion is worth a straw.

    Therefore, it would appear the author is hoist by his own petard from the outset.

    This is certainly true. Yet, Snuffer seems determined to always deny the importance of the Church’s role as the sole authorized source of the necessary ordinances.[1] “God wants you to know Him,” Snuffer tells us, “You can know Him. You do not need another person to speak to Him for you. You should speak to Him directly” (55). This is all true—but Snuffer ignores another theme that is equally prominent in Joseph Smith’s revelations and thought: an authorized representative is also necessary to perform vital and non-negotiable ordinances. This is something that cannot be done by oneself—the priesthood officer must play a role. But Snuffer says, “Since the language of the baptismal covenant was given by revelation, it has been approved by the Lord. Using the language for the ceremony authorizes the covenant to be performed” (421). “If the Holy Ghost will visit you even without an authoritative ordinance,” Snuffer declares, “then the responsibility to live so as to invite the Spirit is all you need to have that same companionship the ordinance could confer” (460, compare 33). This view contradicts Joseph Smith:

    There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized, which was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the Gospel, but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized. Had he not taken this sign or ordinance upon him, the Holy Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him.[2]

    Let me explain how Brother Smith misinterprets Brother Snuffer’s meaning. Snuffer’s audience is duly baptized and confirmed members of the Church. They have already undergone all the ordinances. That is presumed in his discourse.

    What Snuffer is saying, as I understand it, is that if one’s confirmation was not authoritative because the “legal administrator” (in Brother Smith’s parlance) had not power to baptize by fire and the Holy Ghost, then you may yet lay claim upon the Gift of the Holy Ghost by calling upon the name of the Lord, and so forth, as expressly instructed in the Book of Mormon.

    (As an aside, it seems Brother Smith does not perceive the implication which arises from the fact that apparently, all Cornelius needed, per Joseph, was baptism, to qualify to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. This seems to mirror Joseph’s own experience, in that he, too, received the Holy Ghost after his baptism.)

    Does Snuffer truly seem to always deny the importance of the Church’s role as the sole authorized source of the necessary ordinances? Here, Brother Smith contradicts himself, apparently unknowingly – he quotes Snuffer as saying “the language of the baptismal covenant was given by revelation, it has been approved by the Lord. Using the language for the ceremony authorizes the covenant to be performed.” Implicit in this statement is that baptism by the Church is indeed authorized, and Snuffer nowhere says any other organization or group of people is so authorized. Snuffer has consistently pointed back at the Church for the necessary ordinances. He says ordinances and ordinations are necessary, but not sufficient; to be made of effect, they must be ratified directly of heaven. Possessing an invitation to a party is not to be confused with attending the party; the baptism by water is of none effect without the corresponding baptism by fire.

    And the review goes downhill from there, from what I can see.

    Your mileage may vary.

  189. I think I shall apply the lesson I learned at the temple yesterday.

    All religious teachers preach the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture – and the only safe course is to ignore them all and look for true messengers from the presence of the Father to instruct one on what one must do.

  190. How could I have missed 491 comments on such an important comment? I am so sorry to have not participated. I ‘ve got some reading to do so I an catch up this weekend. Thank you to all you obviously did some thinking and sharing. I need t do the same.

  191. Daniel A. Rogers

    Everything I have shared on this page and in private to those that have conversed with me happened to me literally as I have described. I have not exaggerated anything. I am a beggar before God. I do not call myself righteous nor am I implying that anyone else is wicked.

    I have no stewardship to reveal anything to any member of the church. I am not a presiding authority and therefore nothing I share would be of any force to anyone. I believe I had stated that clearly, but I do so again just to be clear.

    At times the Lord has allowed me to share experiences to those who have asked, but only in the capacity as friends and fellow seekers, and not by way of commandment or revelation. The only tool I have is testimony and persuasion. The only reason I shared what I did is because a witness was asked for. I do not consider myself an expert, special, more righteous, or anything other than an ordinary LDS guy.

    I have made no statement regarding the standing of any apostle, church leader, general authority, or any other person (including Denver). I have only offered testimony as to certain fruits I experienced. In my opinion, whether they or anyone else is called of God does not matter much.

    What does matter is my own connection to heaven. God is no respecter of persons; I cannot be in the same place as Nephi, Abraham, and Joseph without having had the same experiences. There is never any safety in following men. Even followers of true prophets find themselves in the Telestial kingdom (see D&C 76:98-101). If every apostle magnifies his calling and converses with the Lord, it will not matter to me if I do not do the same.

    My only goal is writing here is to increase faith in Christ. I believe the preeminent doctrine worth talking about is the Doctrine of Christ. Faith, Repentance, Baptism, taking the Holy Ghost as your guide until Christ manifests Himself to you. Christ is real and employs no servant at the gate.

    If my words have caused anyone to have less faith in Christ, then I beg for your forgiveness and ask you to ignore me. Of all my mistakes, which are many, it yet remains that I experienced what I did. To echo Joseph’s words. I know it and I know God knows it.

    I do not fault nor accuse anyone for disbelieving me. Christ is the only one worthy of belief. Believe in Him. Seek after Him. He has promised that He will come to you. Please do not be satisfied with anything less than His literal presence.

    John 14:23 – Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

    D&C 130:3 – John 14:23—The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.

    1. Daniel A. Rogers

      To add one thing, this thread has been eye opening to me. It has revealed to me that I have yet more pride to work through. My initial reaction to some of the posts from here was hurt and betrayal, followed by a desire to defend, accuse, and attack. I am glad that the internet imposes a time-lag so that I could work through my natural reaction and respond in a manner that leaves my conscious clear. I really would like to be able do that in real time. I am confident that I would failed miserably with out that buffer.

    2. Daniel, I really meant it when I said I mean no ill will. It is only the truth I am after.

      In the end, I seek understanding of truth from God. But as an aside, from an intellectual standpoint and in an effort to make sure I understood the evidence you provided, maybe you can confirm whether or not my understanding of the events as you described them is accurate.

      I understood the following to be a chronological description of the events you described:
      “On April 14, 2012, I was carried away into the Heavenly Temple. I shook the hand of the angel that was my guide. I saw and heard the Father and the Son. I experienced all this as a man speaks to another.
      In the months that followed a heavenly messenger came to my bedside and taught me from the scriptures, primarily the Book of Mormon and Isaiah. This happened on 3 different nights over a period of 2 months each time repeating the prior message and adding more. The best one line summary of the hours long conversation is “Gentiles in the Book of Mormon should be understood as referring to the LDS”. Please understand that this is a very inadequate summary.”

      Is that accurate?

    3. Daniel, are you going to respond to my questions here for the sake of clarification?

      You say that I am mistaken, so maybe you can help me make sure I got your story right and if there has been a mistake, you can help in preventing others from understanding your story in the wrong light as well. For that reason, I would prefer that you respond here and not in another private email.

      1. Hi Steve, do you mean you want Daniel to respond to your questions here (that he answered you in private)? Are you referring to this post?

        SteveF, on October 17, 2013 at 11:49 am said:
        Although I decided to unsubscribe a while back, I’ve made the effort to briefly check in from time to time.
        Daniel, I didn’t realize you were also commenting on this thread. I have a few follow up questions about your experience if you wouldn’t mind sharing:
        1) You talked about an Abrahamic sacrifice, did this experience on April 14 last year make your calling and election sure?
        2) You mention you saw and heard the Father and the Son, was this a fulfillment for you of the promise of receiving the second comforter as described in St. John Ch. 14?
        3) By this experience, did you receive the Fullness of the Priesthood?
        4) Can you describe the appearance of the first angel you met and shook hands with? And the appearance of the heavenly messenger who taught you 3 times thereafter?
        5) Can you expound upon what the heavenly messenger taught you in those 3 meetings? Maybe you can expand your sentence “Gentiles in the Book of Mormon should be understood as referring to the LDS” into a fuller paragraph, describing in more detail what that means, and list any other highlights you feel to share.
        If you could take some time to answer each of these questions, it would be really helpful. Thanks.

        What in Daniel’s answers did you feel you detected as false?

        What exactly did you ask The Lord? Did you ask if Daniel’s testimony was true?

        I think it is important to explore because you have accused him of both being deceived and lying. Is it because of the gravity or implications of his testimony (as you perceive them)? How does a person’s testifying that the fruits of the doctrine of Christ are true, real, and available to all ring false, deceitful, or inspired by a devilish/false/lying spirit to you? Did you lump him in with Denver because he said he received this by following the path Denver described (which I believe is grounded solidly in the word of The Lord)? His testimony does not lead anyone away from the Church or from Christ but to Him. That’s how I feel.

      2. Ether 12
        3 For he did cry from the morning, even until the going down of the sun, exhorting the people to believe in God unto repentance lest they should be destroyed, saying unto them that by faith all things are fulfilled —
        4 Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God.
        5 And it came to pass that Ether did prophesy great and marvelous things unto the people, which they did not believe, because they saw them not.
        6 And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.
        7 For it was by faith that Christ showed himself unto our fathers, after he had risen from the dead; and he showed not himself unto them until after they had faith in him; wherefore, it must needs be that some had faith in him, for he showed himself not unto the world.
        8 But because of the faith of men he has shown himself unto the world, and glorified the name of the Father, and prepared a way that thereby others might be partakers of the heavenly gift, that they might hope for those things which they have not seen.
        9 Wherefore, ye may also have hope, and be partakers of the gift, if ye will but have faith.

      3. Geoff, you missed the best part! Really, you have to get ALL of Ether 12.

        But especially this.

        27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

        28 Behold, I will show unto the Gentiles their weakness, and I will show unto them that faith, hope and charity bringeth unto me—the fountain of all righteousness.

      4. Geoff, no not those questions from earlier. I meant the question from my October 18, 2013 at 8:24 pm comment, and a couple other clarifying questions that are dependent on Daniel’s answer to the first question if he is willing to clarify.

        I would like to discuss these few questions with Daniel first before going on to answer your questions if that will work for you. Also, if you remember I gave you a list of 3 things I prayed about specifically, although that was not a comprehensive list.

      5. Log, I agree, the whole of Ether 12 and those verses in particular – although I think the meaning of “faith, hope, and charity bringeth unto me – the fountain of all righteousness” is often missed. Too long a quote for the whole chapter though – we’re already over 150K words in this thread. 🙂

        Steve, so you meant: is the chronological order accurate?

        I understood the following to be a chronological description of the events you described:
        “On April 14, 2012, I was carried away into the Heavenly Temple. I shook the hand of the angel that was my guide. I saw and heard the Father and the Son. I experienced all this as a man speaks to another.
        In the months that followed a heavenly messenger came to my bedside and taught me from the scriptures, primarily the Book of Mormon and Isaiah. This happened on 3 different nights over a period of 2 months each time repeating the prior message and adding more. The best one line summary of the hours long conversation is “Gentiles in the Book of Mormon should be understood as referring to the LDS”. Please understand that this is a very inadequate summary.”
        Is that accurate?

        I am going back now to reread the questions you asked. It is hard to remember the details of everything we’ve covered here, so I apologize.

        Okay, so I apologize for the large requote here, but here is your statement, Steve (btw, the way to blockquote is to put the word block quote between to start a quote and then /blockquote between to end – log inspired me to look that one up :):

        SteveF, on October 18, 2013 at 11:55 am said:
        Geoff, the revelation came from studying it out in my mind to the best of my abilities with an open mind, and then asking God. Then in each case a stupor of thought when seeking a confirmation that the claims were true and from God, a stupor of thought when asking if the claimed manifestations were real but of the devil, and finally a greater clarity of mind and understanding with an attending burning in the bosom when asking if the claims were lies. In Daniel’s case this clarity of mind also helped me understand where there were errors in his teachings, and helped me understand better his paradigm (which I could not fully understand based on his writings alone), and how such thoughts and beliefs were fruits inconsistent with receiving a messenger from the Lord. I will not expound on those specifics, as I believe it was catered to my personal understanding. But I know each person who abides by their sacrament and baptismal covenants may obtain such a witness for themselves.
        To clarify, when I referred to “Denver, [Daniel], and several others have justified lying or stretching truths to promote these falsehoods which I believe [they] genuinely believe to be true”, the several others did/does not refer to anyone else that has participated here (Log, me, you, RC, Good Will, etc.), I was referring to others I have come across elsewhere online.
        And to answer your question specifically, yes I am saying that Daniel and Denver are lying about their experiences in addition to being deceived by false doctrine. I don’t think, at least in Daniel’s case, I would go so far as comparing it to Korihor since I think they are genuine beliefs. Although I do think the false doctrine being promoted in several places here and by Denver does appeal to the carnal mind in many ways, particularly as it appeals to the ego and a sort of elitism, which upon criticizing the church and others (and thus deceiving oneself into thinking less and less of them) may be what emboldens its adherents like Denver to the point of being willing to lie or stretch the truth about personal experiences to promote that doctrine – possibly both because they may believe the lie cannot be detected because they find the audience they are calling to repentance to be blind, and because they justify it because they believe it will help these people (who are out of the way, while they themselves are righteous) to understand the “true” doctrine.

        Did you pray about both Denver’s and Daniel’s testimonies individually or together? You said, “in Daniel’s case”, so I assume you did. Let me see if I can get this straight, as opposed to being deceived by false visitors, you think Daniel telling faith-promoting lies? So the sincere beliefs are in the doctrines of Christ and election, etc., but the experiences are all just lies/made-up? Like Paul Dunn, basically, lying for a good cause or something like that? Correct me if I’m wrong please.

        I just don’t feel comfortable with revelation that accuses another person of being a lier and their testimony of being false. Are you sure about this?

        Daniel reaffirmed his testimony:

        Everything I have shared on this page and in private to those that have conversed with me happened to me literally as I have described. I have not exaggerated anything.

        Of all my mistakes, which are many, it yet remains that I experienced what I did. To echo Joseph’s words. I know it and I know God knows it.

      6. Yes Geoff, that’s the question I’m asking. I’ll be happy to discuss your questions once Daniel is willing to answer a few of mine. I think it is fair that since it is our testimonies that are in direct conflict with one another, that both of us are held under equal scrutiny of clarifying questions. Although something tells me he might not be coming back, which is a shame I think. I wish we could all just sit down in person and have this discussion, and I believe you’d be able to discern with greater ease that I am indeed speaking the truth.

      7. Btw Geoff, if you’d like to study this out in your mind a little more, Daniel has provided many public references to the experience he has related here, over at LDS Freedom Forum. (I original found Daniel there because Ty mentioned the LDS Freedom forum here, and I thought it could be helpful to people there if I posted a link back to our conversation here. I came across 2 private groups, one for Denver and one for Greater Things and applied to access both thinking they could be good places to post the link. This is when I had my first private emails with Daniel as he is an admin for the private group that discusses Denver’s teachings called “Heavenly Gift”, and it was after we emailed one another that I discovered Daniel had already been posting in this conversation. So I never did post a link back to this conversation. But I digress.)

        If you’d like to learn more about some of the doctrines the angel/s supposedly taught Daniel, or to get a feel for how Daniel views the current state of the church, our leaders, or the current Brethren a good place to start might be here: http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=26980&hilit=angels&start=30

        If you sign up for a free account, you can search all of Daniel’s public comments. I spent a great many hours studying this all out while praying before getting the full answers to my prayers. As it does not appear that Daniel is coming back, I thought this might be the best I could do for you.

        1. Thanks Daniel, for some reason I thought you needed an account to access that. Good to know you’re still around.

        2. Daniel A. Rogers

          You are welcome. That link will also allow someone to search all my posts for whatever keywords they wish to find.

          Anyone that spends their time on that is really wasting their time. My words are not worth searching and contending over. I am not worth the time. Read the Book of Mormon instead.

          I am still around, I apologize if you felt I was ignoring you.

      8. Frederick Volcansek

        SteveF,

        If you have not seen visions, had revelations, or had angels minister to you, according to the scriptures, you do not have faith.

        For where faith is, there will the knowledge of God be also, with all things which pertain thereto — revelations, visions, and dreams, as well as every necessary thing, in order that the possessors of faith may be perfected, and obtain salvation;

        Mormon stated that when you have faith, angels “appear” and minister to you.

        I too am a witness of the Father and the Son. I have seen them both. I know that these things occur today, just as they have in times past. It is just like we sing at church, the visions and blessings of old are returning and angels are coming to visit the earth.

        I am really surprised to hear you call Daniel a liar. That is a strong accusation. However, what really matters are your own experiences, not those of Daniels, or mine or others. If you have not received these things, then you need to do what it takes to repent and come into God. No one can be saved in ignorance. We all just come to know God for ourselves. Do we honestly think we will be able to bear His presence in the world of Glory if we do not see Him here in the flesh?

        116 Neither is man capable to make them known, for they are only to be seen and understood by the power of the Holy Spirit, which God bestows on those who love him, and purify themselves before him;
        117 To whom he grants this privilege of seeing and knowing for themselves;
        118 That through the power and manifestation of the Spirit, while in the flesh, they may be able to bear his presence in the world of glory. (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 76)

        1. It seems to me like your suggesting I have not, and if so I do not know why you’d make such an assumption. At any rate, the scriptures and teachings of the prophets are quite clear, that repentance requires faith (faith unto repentance, etc.). Therefore, a person who repents has exercised and has faith. We can see by this that the interpretation you are giving to the scriptures is not consistent with the doctrine of repentance.

      9. Steve,

        To me it seems like we are talking about degrees of faith, not the existence or absence of faith. I absolutely agree it takes faith to repent, to change, to forsake all one’s sins. It is a constant exercise of faith, even after baptism, to stop evil and impure practices, to receive forgiveness and strength through the Atonement, to develop lacking virtues, to cease sins of omission, to do what the Holy Ghost guides one to do, etc.

        Ether 12
        3 For he did cry from the morning, even until the going down of the sun, exhorting the people to believe in God unto repentance lest they should be destroyed, saying unto them that by faith all things are fulfilled—

        But then there are greater degrees, grace to grace, of faith, which is what I think Daniel and Frederick are saying:

        Moroni 7
        36 Or have angels ceased to appear unto the children of men? Or has he withheld the power of the Holy Ghost from them? Or will he, so long as time shall last, or the earth shall stand, or there shall be one man upon the face thereof to be saved?
        37 Behold I say unto you, Nay; for it is by faith that miracles are wrought; and it is by faith that angels appear and minister unto men; wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain.
        38 For no man can be saved, according to the words of Christ, save they shall have faith in his name; wherefore, if these things have ceased, then has faith ceased also; and awful is the state of man, for they are as though there had been no redemption made.
        39 But behold, my beloved brethren, I judge better things of you, for I judge that ye have faith in Christ because of your meekness; for if ye have not faith in him then ye are not fit to be numbered among the people of his church.

        So it is true, in a certain sense (that Mormon uses here), that if we step off at a lower plateau, then our faith has ceased also. Although I do believe that our Father and His Beloved Son are very patient with us and our efforts to progress. I also believe they are very interested in our progress, even anxious for us to grow up unto Them.

        You have accused Daniel, here (and Denver not here), and pretty much the whole group claiming these experiences, of being liars, based on personal revelation after the pattern of D&C 8-9. That is certainly your right to interpret your own personal revelations. But you can see, plainly, how the discussion deteriorates into subjective criticism. I am still studying many things out in my mind. But I am trying to keep my mind and heart as open as I possibly can to the truths taught in The Book of Mormon, which I know by the power of the Holy Ghost is true.

        I agree that I do not see how Daniel’s testimony and experiences could be anything but truth or lies, the one or the other. Faith-promoting fantasies or fabrications cannot be the work of God. The Lord is real and His truth is things as they really were (reality past), really are (reality present), and really will be (reality future).

        If your revelation on the dishonesty of another person’s claims is based only on clarity of thought and burning bosom vs stupor of thought, I do think it is possible you are misinterpreting the signals. I don’t consider that a sure knowledge, but more of a belief based on interpretation of revelatory signals. But that is how I would feel if it were me. This is your feeling and your perspective and I judge you not.

        Perhaps you could elaborate on the thought processes and things you felt led you to this conclusion, the errors in doctrine, teaching, etc. Apparently there is something about the chronology of Daniel’s experiences that bothers you. You also mentioned things on the LDSFF blog, which I’m reading, which bothered you. Please share.

        All I can say at this point for sure is that Daniel’s testimony inspired me to renew my own personal study and sincere search to come unto Christ and be perfected in Him, by striving to live more fully by the Spirit. In this I have felt the Spirit more powerfully (i.e. the doctrine of Christ and the doctrine of election).

        Ether 12
        41 And now, I would commend you to seek this Jesus of whom the prophets and apostles have written, that the grace of God the Father, and also the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of them, may be and abide in you forever. Amen.

        I am still struggling with some of the contradictions that surround Denver’s teachings and those who have apparently followed him and likewise testify as he does to firsthand knowledge. I’m still trying to figure out how the Church fits into their framework. On one hand I feel they are condemning it and its post-JS leaders up to the present. On the other I feel they are still supportive of the Church as the legal administrator of the first principles and ordinances. In other words, it does not completely make sense to me yet.

        1. Geoff, I appreciate what you are saying, but the nuanced view you give is not what Frederick said. Even if we apply your nuanced view, I still find it inappropriate to judge anybody’s level of progression to the point where you can say: if you have not had such and such experience, you do not have faith.

          Furthermore, Frederick said that “Do we honestly think we will be able to bear His presence in the world of Glory if we do not see Him here in the flesh?”. I don’t think his implication that if someone has not seen God in the flesh they will not be able to bear his presence in the world of Glory, is true. I think this most obviously doesn’t apply to people who die before the age of eight, and likely to people like Joseph Smith’s brother Alvin who didn’t even have the law to understand such principles before they died. Who’s to say what other nuances of life might make exceptions to this implied rule.

          Once again, It’s all the same basic paradigm that I’ve been fighting against this entire time. As I said, I am very familiar with it, because believed it for quite a long period of my life.

          As for your questions, again, I am not about to allow this to become a one sided public interrogation more-so than it already has. In an effort to avoid it inevitably spiraling into this once I start answering questions, I have stated that I will answer questions to the extent that Daniel is willing to answer questions. I think it is only fair.

          All I can say is that the things I say are very clear to me, I am not mistaken. Or from an outsider perspective you can know that I am confident enough in my revelation that I do not have doubts.

          However, in an effort to be as helpful as I can, if you would like to share an email address, I’d be willing to contact you privately to elaborate on my experiences if you feel that might be helpful.

  192. Daniel, thank you again for your faith in sharing and testifying. Your words have really helped and inspired me.

    Thank you all for the sincere and lively discussion. Steve, Log, Good Will, RC, Rick, I appreciate all of you and your perspectives.

    Someone, and it may have been the Holy Ghost, taught me once, according to my understanding, that there at least 3 components to being “right” (it’s a little ironic – my last name is Wright, which means to fix, or make right, not to be right – as in Wheelwright – fixes wheels, etc. – now I see it as I need a lot of fixing!):
    1. The truth – the right content/message/meaning, etc.
    2. The right way, in a Christlike way – for example, it must be communicated in the right way; with love and persuasion and longsuffering, not anger and force and impatience.
    3. At the right time – a time and a season, when someone is ready; for example, you don’t discuss hot topics with someone when they are hungry and tired.

    I believe this, even though I’ve executed it poorly many times in my life.

    How does that apply to our discussion? Well, I think some of us, including me, have missed some of these things in our communication and it has occasioned some discord and maybe even contention.

    I wish to repent of it, for my part.

    I am a firsthand witness of the gift and power of the Holy Ghost and the baptism of fire. And through that medium, filled with love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentlenessss, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance, I know that the doctrine of Christ is true. Receiving the Holy Ghost as our true guide, and a remission of your sins by fire and the Holy Ghost, is the only way to enter the gate to this part of the path which leads to eternal life, back to the Son and the Father.

    2 Nephi 31
    17 Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.
    18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.
    19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.
    20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.
    21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

    We can make our calling and election sure in this life. We can seek and obtain the same blessings as all our forefather prophets. If anyone has done it, then it can be done by anyone. God is no respecter of persons. This is the truth. We all have the capacity, it is up to us to choose to truly repent, forsake all our sins, shed our unbelief and come unto Him in faith and hope to be saved individually.

    1 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, I suppose that ye ponder somewhat in your hearts concerning that which ye should do after ye have entered in by the way. But, behold, why do ye ponder these things in your hearts?
    2 Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost?
    3 Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.
    4 Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannot understand them it will be because ye ask not, neither do ye knock; wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark.
    5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.
    6 Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh. And when he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh, the things which he shall say unto you shall ye observe to do.
    7 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.
    8 And now, my beloved brethren, I perceive that ye ponder still in your hearts; and it grieveth me that I must speak concerning this thing. For if ye would hearken unto the Spirit which teacheth a man to pray, ye would know that ye must pray; for the evil spirit teacheth not a man to pray, but teacheth him that he must not pray.
    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.

    I was prayerfully seeking and searching about verses 5-6 when I was led to the Second Comforter. What an eye-opening blessing that has been for me. It was the only book I could find which interpreted verse 6 the same way the Holy Ghost had shown me: that Christ manifesting himself unto you in the flesh was a personal visitation, the Second Comforter. I know for myself that this is true doctrine, by the power of the Holy Ghost. I am truly glad to meet others who have learned this for themselves, independently.

  193. Lastly, what is the purpose of PTHG? It was to give cause to the disaffected to believe in the restoration and the divine role of the Church and to come back into the fold.

    What does PTHG do? It establishes that NOT EVERYTHING THE HIERARCHY HAS DONE, DOES DO, OR SHALL DO, IS NECESSARILY THE WILL OF GOD.

    It also establishes that NOT EVERY LEADER IN ANY POSITION IN THE HIERARCHY NECESSARILY HAS DONE, DOES DO, OR SHALL DO, THE WILL OF GOD IN ALL THINGS.

    Who can argue with those statements?

    The point is to eliminate unjustified expectations which mortal men can hardly avoid disappointing. When people fall away from the Church over historical issues, or even by being mistreated by their leaders, they do so because they had been taught to trust in a group of what they perceive, and is popularly taught, as infallible men who are always in lockstep with Christ. Their faith is in men, in other words, and when men fail them, then their faith is broken. Snuffer has tried to establish their faith in God and Christ, and to believe in the divine calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

    So the conflict is and always shall be between those who follow and have faith in men, even if the men being followed are indeed servants of God, and those who follow and have faith in Christ.

    And, by the by, the former always have, and always shall, outnumber the latter, by far.

    I find the divisions enlightening.

    President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel–said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church–that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls–applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints–said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall–that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves, envious towards the innocent, while they afflict the virtuous with their shafts of envy.

    1. Oh yeah, and I forgot.

      It also establishes that, as can be seen in our history, NOT EVERY LEADER NECESSARILY HAS EXCEEDED YOU, THE READER, IN KNOWLEDGE, POWER, OR AUTHORITY.

      That one might be one people who have faith in men could have a problem with.

    2. “And, by the by, the former always have, and always shall, outnumber the latter, by far.”

      At least, until the Savior comes, and the former are burned, while the latter join Him in the clouds.

    3. That’s my biggest takeaway from PTHG–prophets and leaders aren’t perfect, but that’s ok. God is running the show.

  194. Does the Lord need to send angels from heaven if He has His Church and Apostles here giving us what he would tell us?

    To many of the comments show that people who are following Denver have lost respect and belief that President Monson and the Apostles are REAL prophets, seers and revelators. What is the positive aspect here?

    Why does Denver throw in his hatred of going to church? What does that say to his followers?

    While you may say you don’t follow him, you certainly do.

    Please explain to me what talking for 2 hours, and writing, and blogging that the priesthood isn’t real is intended to promote? How does this edify?

    What does saying the Lectures on Faith should be in our scriptures but men like James Talmage didn’t have faith, so they excluded them mean?

    These “gems of contention” that Denver sprinkles in his talks/writings/blog is the real issue and the real question.

    Like Steve F explains, there is bitter in the fountain.

    1. Daniel A. Rogers

      “How vain and trifling have been our spirits, our conferences, our councils, our meetings, our private as well as public conversations—too low, too mean, too vulgar, too condescending for the dignified characters of the called and chosen of God, according to the purposes of His will, from before the foundation of the world! We are called to hold the keys of the mysteries of those things that have been kept hid from the foundation of the world until now.” (Joseph Smith – DHC vol. 3, page 295)

  195. Hi Rick, can you please quote or link to Denver’s statements about hatred of going to church and that the priesthood isn’t real? Thanks.

    1. Page 6 of his Idaho Falls transcript:

      “I loath to waste time, and I’m captured each Sunday in a three-hour block. So I spent a lot of time reading scriptures during church each Sunday.”

      As a bishop, how do you feel when members are hooked to their smart/cell phones during church?

      1. Rick, I can certainly appreciate your perspective. I’ll need to reply one at a time here.

        I don’t think I read quite as much venom into Denver’s sarcasm. As a bishop I don’t mind at all if someone spends their time at church reading the scriptures. That’s just my opinion. I don’t like wasting time either, and some lessons and talks at church do feel unproductive – but I usually feel it is an act of charity/love and sustaining them in their callings to listen and participate. I do mourn, with Joseph Smith, however:

        How vain and trifling have been our spirits, our conferences, our councils, our meetings, our private as well as public conversations—too low, too mean, too vulgar, too condescending for the dignified characters of the called and chosen of God, according to the purposes of His will, from before the foundation of the world! —Joseph Smith writing from Liberty Jail, found in DHC 3: 295, also found in TPJS, p. 137.

        This is not an indictment against the Church or its leaders, of which I am one (the lowest of them), but rather against some of our culture and bad habits/traditions. I long for more depth and sincerity and power in the Spirit in all our meetings. It does not surprise me when people tune out – either because they are not making the effort to tune in or because they are bored or apathetic. Both aspects, the presentation and the participation, are a problem in the Church culture where I reside and currently preside in Arizona (densest LDS population outside of Utah and some parts of Idaho).

        Is Denver’s comment somewhat critical? Yes. Is it false? I don’t believe so, the way I read him.

      1. I agree with Log on his use of loathe. It’s a strong word, but I would be surprised if he meant hate. He goes to Church every Sunday, even though he is currently excommunicated. If he hated it, I don’t think he would attend. It does sound like he attends more out of a sense of duty, or family solidarity, and possibly even sustaining his Ward. I’m just guessing.

        I read the whole entry in the link to his blog, on priesthood – I don’t see where he says it isn’t real. Please quote the part that struck you that way.

        The way I understand it, he is recapping some history about the unfolding of the offices, ordinations, and revelations on the priesthood with which I am not totally versed.

        Have you read Rough Stone Rolling: A Cultural Biography of Mormonism’s Founder? I think you might be surprised at how messy our real history is. I would not be surprised if the unfolding of the priesthood organization was line upon line and had some bumps and bruises and disagreements among the early brethren along the way. For example, we don’t like to discuss how many of the Prophet’s close associates turned against him for what they considered to be legitimate reasons, how many apostates blot our history: counselors in the First Presidency (several), including Cowdery and Rigdon, the President of the Twelve, Thomas B. Marsh, all of the Three Witnesses: Cowdery, Harris, Whitmer. This is just the still-famous list. Can you imagine this in our present Church culture? It’s unthinkable, yet this is how the Restoration started rolling. These guys knew Joseph Smith as personally and intimately as we wish we could. He was a lot more human up close – died at only 38 – he was young. I think of what I am like at 40 and can hardly believe what he accomplished in his life in less time.

        Long story short, I would not be surprised if Denver has the history right. Again, I don’t have a problem with the worts in our history. I don’t consider these indictments of the Church or its leaders. The truth is the truth – sometimes it’s idyllic and beautiful and sometimes it’s just unappealing and even disappointing, just like our own lives/histories. This marvelous work and a wonder has been carried out, the whole time, through imperfect but sincere human beings. I’m not a fan of the hero-worship in our society or in our church culture. I don’t think the Lord likes it either. It’s like President Hinckley’s quote, where he mentions “life” you could substitute “life and people”:

        “Life is just like an old time rail journey … delays, sidetracks, smoke, dust, cinders, and jolts, interspersed only occasionally by beautiful vistas and thrilling bursts of speed. The trick is to thank the Lord for letting you have the ride.”
        ? Gordon B. Hinckley

      2. Geoff, I’d recommend reading the review that Log recently provided a link to. I’m only part way through it, but so far its doing a decent job at pointing out many of the historical (and doctrinal) flaws in PTHG.

  196. Does the Lord need to send angels from heaven if He has His Church and Apostles here giving us what he would tell us?

    Apparently He does, according to the Book of Mormon, and the endowments.

    To many of the comments show that people who are following Denver have lost respect and belief that President Monson and the Apostles are REAL prophets, seers and revelators. What is the positive aspect here?

    Let me quote this again.

    Quoting President Lee: “I bear witness to you that those who hold the apostolic calling may, and do, know of the reality of the mission of the Lord. To know is to be born and quickened in the inner man.”

    Let me say, again: by this standard, I am a prophet, as I have been born and quickened in the inner man.

    I have no problems believing them to be prophets by that standard.

    When they claim more than that, I will believe more than that.

    Why does Denver throw in his hatred of going to church?

    You are misrepresenting what Snuffer said. But, then, most people do.

    And Joseph Smith, according to that gem of a quote Daniel brought up, agreed with Snuffer. But hey, if you disagree with Joseph Smith and Snuffer, more power to you.

    What does saying the Lectures on Faith should be in our scriptures but men like James Talmage didn’t have faith, so they excluded them mean?

    Faith is a word which has a specific meaning in a scriptural context, and that is the context Snuffer is speaking from.

    And you are misrepresenting what Snuffer said again. But, then, most people do.

    Please explain to me what talking for 2 hours, and writing, and blogging that the priesthood isn’t real is intended to promote? How does this edify?

    Why don’t you attend and tell me?

    1. I put the quote, and a definition in a reply to Geoff. Not misrepresenting, actual quote. Maybe he is like Moses and needs someone to explain what he means. That is the problem, what he says is not what his followers say, maybe because he is so trained as a lawyer he can’t be clear, or maybe that is the way he wants it.

      You don’t have the apostolic calling, so you are not sustained as a prophet.

      1. And yes, by recasting his words, you misrepresent him. Loathe need not mean hate. If I used the word, I would simply mean “strong distaste.” But neither you nor I are Snuffer.

    2. Faith, in Snuffer’s lexicon, means one has been administered to by an angel.

      I disagree with him. But that’s what he means.

  197. Also, Rick, I don’t think in tarring me or others as “followers” of Snuffer, or in your demonstrated penchant for recasting Snuffer’s words in a consistently negative fashion, that you are following the Golden Rule.

    1. I’m not the one calling the leaders of the church “money changers”. That is a comment from a Denver supporter.

      His comment about loathing to waste time in church came from him.

      Again, what does he mean by that? What is the real representation?

      I would suggest that his comments and proposals are why he was excommunicated. I wouldn’t think that his appeal will be any different, maybe I will be surprised.

      If the appeal doesn’t change, how will his supporters feel and deal with it.

      1. So, as long as I quote someone else, I can be exempted from the Golden Rule? And if I use a thesaurus, and replace “follower” with “supporter,” I can say things with the same semantic content, but somehow avoid getting dinged, right?

        The real representation is just exactly what he said – which, I say again, was exactly what Joseph Smith said about meetings in his day. These things are not deep, nor dark – they are speaking plainly. I personally find the foyer class in the second hour to be more enlightening than the official offering, but hey, to each their own.

        I honestly don’t care whether Snuffer’s appeal is successful or not. His sacrifices are not my sacrifices, his trials are not my trials, and I have no personal stake in his outcome (even though I hate injustice). If he’s telling the truth, he’s all good, whether they ex him, stone him, or slay him. He’s in God’s hands, as am I, and you, and anyone else who seeks to serve Him.

  198. To be clear on where my perspective starts:
    I believe, consider and sustain President Monson and the other Apostles as Prophets, Seers and Revelators.

    I believe President Monson is a REAL prophet.

    I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the true and living church on the earth.

    I don’t consider Denver to be a prophet.

    I know people who say that Denver has helped them. I don’t have an issue with that.

    I have read the Second Comforter. I don’t disagree with it, I have known about seeing Christ in this lifetime years ago when reading Elder Bruce R. McConkie books.

    I do wonder about comments that our leaders are “money changers”, I consider such comments as results of some of Denver’s writings or comments.

  199. I have been accused of misrepresenting Denver’s comments or points. So I will provide a few direct points (post Denver’s excommunication) and ask Log, Geoff, Steve F and others to represent his comments.

    Page 23 – Boise Transcript
    This restoration merely got its toe in the door in the day of Joseph Smith. And hardly even that. The prophecies and the promises and the time and the opportunity are upon us. The question is, will this generation be just as careless, just as indifferent, as the one when the last, real prophet’s voice was heard among us?

    Page 6 – Idaho Falls Transcript
    “I loath to waste time, and I’m captured each Sunday in a three-hour block. So I spent a lot of time reading scriptures during church each Sunday.”
    Page 7 – Idaho Falls Transcript
    ‘In 1921 The Lectures on Faith were dropped from the scriptures by a committee comprised of George F. Richards, Anthony W. Ivins, Melvin J. Ballard, James E. Talmage, John A. Widstoe, and Joseph Fielding Smith. That committee dropped The Lectures on Faith from the scriptures because, “Certain lessons entitled The Lectures on Faith which were bound with Doctrine and Covenants in some of its former issues, are not included in this edition. Those lessons were prepared for use in the School of Elders. But they were never presented or accepted by the Church as other than theological lessons or lectures.

    That’s a lie. “

    Page 13 – Idaho Falls Transcript
    “It is clear there is a disagreement between Joseph Smith and this committee. Therefore, either Joseph Smith had an incorrect idea of God’s character, perfections and attributes, or alternatively George F. Richards, Anthony W. Ivins, Melvin J. Ballard, James E. Talmage, John A. Widstoe, and Joseph Fielding Smith had an incorrect idea of God’s character, and perfections and attributes because they disagree on this Lecture. The one saying these ideas are so vile and so error ridden that it must be taken out of the scriptures, and the other saying this is a true statement of our doctrine, and therefore, needs to be in our scriptures.”

    Page 14 – Idaho Falls Transcript
    Consequently and correspondingly, either Joseph Smith did not, indeed could not, have faith. Or alternatively George F. Richards, Anthony W. Ivins, Melvin J. Ballard, James E. Talmage, John A. Widstoe, and Joseph Fielding Smith did not, indeed could not, have faith.

    I Will Not Start A Church – Blog post Friday October 18, 2013

    When religion is reduced to a market and business interests drive programs, I find it repugnant. The idea that you identify under served areas and build temples to drive larger temple recommend participation to produce a cash stream may excite business leaders, but it repels me. That the church now recaptures the cost of building a new temple in two to three years after building one is little more than priestcraft. The Jews used their temple as a place of commerce. The Latter-day Saints have turned the temples themselves into merchandise. That is NOT my ambition. It causes me to mourn, not to become excited that I might join in the feeding frenzy upon the sheep.

    I consider these points made by Denver to create doubt in our leaders and the church. He considers it truth. So please represent what you understand.

    1. If the truth creates doubt in our leaders, then I submit you – personally – have a problem.

      So fact check. If he’s lying, then you would be doing everyone a service to demonstrate they are lies.

      But if not – if he’s telling the truth – then you are in the position of saying the truth hurts.

      Frankly, Rick, you appear to me to be reading to controvert him, and are not reading to understand him; you literally seem to not be able to concede the least point, even if it is established beyond legitimate question. Why not spare yourself the trouble and simply ignore him?

    2. In fact, why would you NOT fact-check, and ask instead for everyone to rephrase him?

      What purpose does asking people to rephrase him serve? Are we seeking to make a man an offender for a word?

      Explain your purpose, Rick.

    3. Michael A. Cleverly

      The Church’s Joseph Smith Papers project is such a treasure! They’ve made high resolution scans of the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants easily accessible to anyone online.

      From the preface (pages iii and iv) it is clear that [as of February 1835] Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdrey, Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams vouched for the Lectures (part one, the Doctrine) and the Revelations (part two, the Covenants) with the expectation that they would “be called to answer to every principle advanced” therein.

      The Doctrine and Covenants placed the Doctrine (the lectures) first ahead of the Covenants (the revelations). Hence the title, presumably.

      The typesetting bears witness to the primacy of the Lectures. They are typeset in a larger font than the Revelations, which, in contrast, have the appearance more of an appendix. (Compare the size of the font used for the lectures beginning at page 5 vs that used for the (the revelations beginning at page 75.)

      At the back of the book on pages 263, 264, and 265 is a record of the proceedings of the General Assembly held on 17 August 1835 where the book was presented to the Church and put to a canonizing vote wherein all the priesthood quorums and general membership unanimously accepted by testimony and vote the Lectures and the Revelations, the Doctrine and the Covenants. From the recorded statements statements on these pages it is clear that the assembly was voting to accept and canonize both the lectures and the revelations.

      Lecture Thirds says on page 36:

      Let us here observe, that these three things are necessary, in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.

      First, The idea that he actually exists.

      Secondly, A correct idea of his character, perfections and attributes.

      Thirdly, An actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing, is according to his will.

      [Emphasis in the original]

      Assuming (if only for the sake of argument) that the 3rd lecture teaches correct doctrine, what Denver says about either Joseph having “faith unto life and salvation” or the 1921 committee members, but not both, is obviously logically true due to the second premise above (irregardless of how any of us may feel about the matter).

  200. So answer the questions Log, represent his comments as you think he means.

    Why do you hang around the blog world? You seem to enjoy commenting back and forth.

    What I see in comments is the direction people who adopt Denver’s philosophies are going, which is doubt in the Church and the Apostles. That is truth.

    His excommunication did not surprise anyone, made some sad. From his latest talks and posts, I wouldn’t expect his appeal to be any different.

    Let’s see what happens then. Maybe I will be surprised. Until then, I will continue to irritate you and expose those parts of his talks and blogs that can cause some people to lose faith.

    1. I understand his comments precisely as they stand. I have nothing to add or subtract from them – in their original contexts. He was perfectly straightforward and clear.

      Why do you hang around the blog world? You seem to not enjoy it quite so much.

      And I see you are not going to admit that IF Snuffer is telling the truth, THEN you are claiming the truth hurts.

      I see you are not going to answer WHY you have chosen to NOT fact-check, BUT rather insist on getting rephrasings of Snuffer’s words.

      I don’t know why you care about his excommunication – what possible significance can it have, to you?

      And if you lose faith because of the truth, then you don’t have faith to be losing. If you have faith, after all, you hope for things which are not seen, which are true. Faith in falsehoods is not faith at all, but unbelief. The truth hurting would be a sign that repentance is needed.

      1. This is an example of comments I’m talking about, from Jared:
        “I have felt so heart-broken and betrayed by the church’s flat rejection of Denver Snuffer that I had a very difficult time listening to General Conference last week. God finally sends us a real prophet with a real message from Him and they ex him! It makes me want to grab a whip and drive out the money-changers!”

        I’m saddened that people have lost confidence with the leaders. I wonder why they consider Denver to be a prophet. I wonder how they rationalize through a temple recommend, on the sustaining leaders and supporting apostate parts. I would suggest their faith is what seems to be shaky.

        Just because Denver says something doesn’t mean it is truth. There are multiple people who say there is false statements in his book. See this link, which you have already commented on http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/passing-up-the-heavenly-gift-part-one-of-two/ .

        The truth is Denver is excommunicated. The truth is you and others claim he is a prophet. How does this matter to me? I’m interested in how this paradox would take place.

        People on either side of this debate have commented how they have prayed and received witness, coming to different opinions. So that doesn’t appear to help. I find that interesting.

        People who are supporting Denver are sign seekers. They want the leaders to say one way or the other if they have been visited of Christ, or else they are not real apostles or prophets. This is where repentance is needed.

        I admit that I have not been looking for something. I don’t get all torked up on the history of the church. I watched conference, enjoyed it and have confidence that the Lord is in charge, is leading His Church, and that our Leaders receive his will for guiding the Church.

        Daniel has made a bold claim. Steve F has made a bold claim. Opposite sides! In my lifetime, this is something that brings to light the scripture of the very elect being deceived. It also brings to light this scripture, 2Nephi 9:28-29:

        28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

        29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

        I would suggest that applies to Denver, but I’m sure you will say that it applies to me.

        Interesting.

  201. Rick, you don’t know the power of the dark side! Totally kidding. Smile and laugh a bit if you are a Star Wars fan – which I totally am. Can’t wait to see what Disney does with it. 😉

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1O-DFtgc0Y

    If you don’t cry laughing watching that, then you’re taking things a bit too seriously. : )))

    Seriously, though, I understand where you’re coming from. It’s a pretty idealistic, orthodox, all or nothing, black or white paradigm. I think that’s why you have a hard time understanding or even tolerating Denver’s perspective. I think Log’s point is, why not just label him an apostate and be done with it (stop blogging, etc.).

    Denver is very bold, outspoken (not at Church), and opinionated, and he is critical of our modern Mormon/Church culture and in many ways he’s calling the leaders on the carpet for things he doesn’t agree with. He’s been excommunicated and paid a heavy price for this approach. He says he has been called/assigned to do this by the Lord. This is unfathomable in your view. I don’t necessarily agree with or even understand what or why he is doing what he’s doing. For example, the comment about money changers and temple building. I’m inclined to assume much more benevolent motivations by the brethren in the decision-making process for how, when, and where temples are constructed. Denver seems to think it is motivated by money/tithing-income, at least in part. He’s also said some pretty critical things about real estate investments such as City Creek.

    http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2012/10/churches-built-by-men-part-5.html

    Is he wrong? I don’t know. Is he wrong to express views or opinions that censor the Church or its leadership? Well, he got excommunicated for it and that hasn’t stopped him. He feels he is on a mission. I’m not going to follow that path.

    Our present Church culture does not tolerate dissent, or even much disagreement – it is almost always interpreted as disloyalty and is often quickly squashed (depending on the leader). The Lord, in His ministry, seemed to tolerate it very often and without being perturbed. I think he is much more in favor of agency, patience, and pure persuasion than we sometimes are, when it comes to souls. We all get to choose.

    I don’t believe everything Denver says or agree with how he says it, but I don’t have to pass judgement on him, a mistake I made earlier in this conversation. I am not going to label him or castigate him or presume to know his heart or sincerity. It does not affect what I know I need to do. Time will bring the truth of all things to light and I’m willing to see it unfold.

    Is it possible that his Stake President and High Council made an error in excommunicating him? I think it is possible. I served on a High Council and I am a bishop right now. One of the reasons the Lord gave me this calling was to help me become less judgmental of others. I know I am fallible. Is it possible for the Apostles to make a wrong decision? From my point of view, they are fallible, so yes it is possible. However, this does not change my support or sustaining of them. I also do not believe “sustain” means we have to agree whole-heartedly with everything another person, or leader, says or does, or how they do it. And I do not interpret the “do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?” question too strictly. It has never been clearly defined to me (by any of my leaders) on how to interpret, or (heaven forbid) enforce it. I have family members who meet those criteria. I interpret it, for myself (since everyone gets to judge for themselves how to answer the questions – I’m not even authorized to explain or alter the questions), to mean do I oppose the Church? Absolutely not. I’ve explained my position pretty clearly, in too many words probably. I believe the Church is first net the Lord is gathering his people with. I won’t repeat it all here.

    “Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.” – Gandalf

    The word of the Lord is truth. I’m still trying to weed out the philosophies of men from my view, and make it more like His.

    I do not believe, in the least, that seeking to come unto Christ and be perfected in Him, to be fully redeemed by Him, to make one’s calling and election sure, and receive the Second Comforter and the visions of heaven, etc., is, in ANY WAY, sign-seeking. None of these things occur until after one has sufficient faith to receive it. You might want to clarify your position on this. Don’t throw out or discredit the doctrine for any reason, and don’t mislabel it. I would recommend the same criteria to you that I did to Steve when it comes to doctrinal truth: please be careful to “condemn not the things of God” because of the faults or mistakes of men and “take heed, my beloved [brother], that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.” Moroni 7 is a great chapter.

    I’ll wrap up by saying I understand why you think (and correct me if I get any of this wrong): Denver cannot possibly be inspired by the Lord, because he is out of line – and now he is also, officially, an apostate (from the Church). And being out of line goes against everything you believe. It and he must therefore be of the devil. It’s black and white.

    I no longer agree with that. It is hard to explain why, because I did just a few days ago. But now my heart just feels softer and more filled with love and compassion. I feel inclined not to judge what I do not know.

    I hope this helps. It is not, in any way, meant to provoke you.

  202. Geoff, you are a much softer touch than I.

    Honestly, I wish there would be more “priestcraft” in my metropolis; it would save me a bundle in gas.

    I expect to see “Disney Princess Yoda” costumes for Halloween…

  203. Seeking the Perfect Day is in the scriptures. It is the message of the Book of Mormon. Elder Bruce R. McConkie spoke of it alot. This isn’t sign seeking.

    Claiming that Christ’s Apostles must announce their Perfect Day or they are not real apostles, this is sign seeking. Believing that someone who has claimed the Perfect Day and is therefore a prophet is a variation of it.

    No one that I know of has an issue with Denver’s Second Comforter. Many (not sure the number) have been encouraged to seek the Perfect Day because of it.

    The issue came with the publication of PTHG. The link that Steve F gave gives a response to the book. From the review, you can tell why Denver was excommunicated.

    I have looked at log posts and his first two talk transcripts that he has published. I see the same type of logic from PTHG.

    So I don’t think his appeal will change anything. I could be surprised and be wrong. Time will tell.

  204. Claiming that Christ’s Apostles must announce their Perfect Day or they are not real apostles, this is sign seeking. Believing that someone who has claimed the Perfect Day and is therefore a prophet is a variation of it.

    Oddly, nobody said they “must announce” their “Perfect Day” or “they are not real apostles.”

    At least, not that I can see. Maybe you have a specific example?

    And I am not seeing in the scripture any justification for your view that making the claim that Christ’s apostles must announce the basis for their knowledge, that we may evaluate whether they have sufficient warrant to justify their claim to knowledge, constitutes “sign seeking.”

    So even if someone made that claim, which I haven’t seen, you don’t have a sound basis to condemn it as “sign seeking,” unless you have access to a book of scripture which I haven’t seen.

    I also don’t see where “believing” a claim to be eyewitness to the Resurrection can be considered “sign seeking” from the scriptures.

    Please, feel free to substantiate these claims which you have made.

    1. When one selects a math teacher, is it wise to refuse to analyze their qualifications to teach math? If it is wise to analyze their qualifications, the purpose of which is to determine whether they are competent in their field, then can such wisdom be justly condemned as “sign seeking?”

      Just to go to the root of the issue.

      Interesting to ponder.

      1. In our world (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) we don’t select the apostles. Christ does. Whether we like their “qualifications” or not, we are asked to sustain them.

    2. An example. Good Will: He (Denver) has met the Father and has been sealed as His Son. How many bishops, stake presidents or apostles can make that claim? Thomas Monson? No, he has never said as much. In fact, virtually all of the “prophets” (the sustained leaders of the Church) have stated just the opposite. Most have denied ever seeing an angel, much less the Son, even fewer the Father. DS was pushed off the ark (by people like you). He didn’t jump.

      1. I am sorry, but I cannot see where GW said “they “must announce” their “Perfect Day” or “they are not real apostles.”” It does not appear that anything approaching that sentiment can be read out of GW’s statement.

        Rick, I think there is no further purpose served in this.

  205. I’ve been reading all the comments these last few weeks, and not sure we’ve gotten anywhere 🙂

    But I did want to add just a quick comment. I revisited Denver’s Elijah talk, and something struck me. A couple times, it seemed at least to me that Denver expressed some irritation–and his tone seemed to get a bit strident. Listen to that again and see if you can hear it a couple times. He even lets out some light profanity (for some). At one point he did that while discussing the mission of Enoch, and I wondered if he was somehow projecting Enoch’s mission onto his own situation. If so, and if there is a spirit of striving or irritation associated with it, it made me wonder about the source of that inspiration.

    1. Rob,

      I’m not sure I would attach too much significance to irritation. Snuffer is, after all, only human, and we have these examples to consider.

      Malachi 2:17
      17 ¶Ye have wearied the Lord with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?

      2 Nephi 17:10-13
      10 Moreover, the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying:
      11 Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depths, or in the heights above.
      12 But Ahaz said: I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord.
      13 And he said: Hear ye now, O house of David; is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

      Mark 3:1-5
      1 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.
      2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.
      3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth.
      4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.
      5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

      Mosiah 12:25
      25 And now Abinadi said unto them: Are you priests, and pretend to teach this people, and to understand the spirit of prophesying, and yet desire to know of me what these things mean?

      Jonah 4:1
      1 But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry.

      And, if only I could find the citation again, I remember an incident in which it is alleged that a bondsman foreclosed on something of Joseph Smith’s, who grew angry, found the man in the street, rebuked him, and slugged him in the jaw, immediately crossing the street to go to the sheriff to pay the fine for fighting in public. If that account were true, I feel it would be an example of the potential human weaknesses of prophets.

      1. Perhaps log, but from my own experience when I am speaking out of frustration or some such spirit, it is not from the Lord. So that, along with the undertone of confusion and contention that seems to creep into our discussion here, gives me pause. I’m not trying to judge anyone, but to discern the spirits associated with these teachings and discussions.

    2. Can’t forget this classic.

      Acts 23:1-3
      1 And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.
      2 And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.
      3 Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?

    3. Like asking Democrats to support Republicans and vice versa. Denver’s situation will have to play out. While he talks about Lectures on Faith, he takes jabs at previous leadership, sows the seeds of doubt. Of course others will say it is truth.

  206. All the more reason to look only to the perfect Lord Jesus Christ as our example, our Savior, Redeemer, Prophet, Priest, and King. He will not disappoint nor lead astray. Take the Holy Spirit as your guide and come unto the Holy One of Israel.

    Prophets, Apostles, Stake Presidents, Bishops, etc., all men fall short of the glory of God and sooner or later disappoint in some criteria or another.

    I believe the purpose of the prophets is to bring us to and teach us the doctrine of Christ. Once we receive the Holy Ghost, we can feast upon the words of Christ, which will tell us what/how to do, and the Holy Ghost will show us what/how to do – we can pray and do and be taught from on high. I believe the Lord intends for us to become independent from others, spiritually self-sufficient. I don’t mean a law unto ourselves, but a community, a family of godlike beings, each radiant like Him.

    2 Peter 1
    5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
    6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
    7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
    8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
    9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
    10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
    11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

    According to Daniel’s and Denver’s testimonies, being called up and chosen is the ministry of angels and the personal ministry of Christ. So becoming a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and receiving all the covenants and ordinances herein is phase 1 of our spiritual journey. Being true and faithful and enduring to the end of the test, forsaking all our sins and unbelief, keeping all His commandments, letting the Holy Spirit guide us continually, until we are called up and chosen – this is phase 2 – becoming members of the Church of the Firstborn should be our goal once we have received everything the Church here on earth has to offer.

    Do you believe that?

    Do you believe Denver actually received this? He definitely claim to have. There are others, including Daniel, who have followed the same path Denver teaches he followed, i.e. in the Second Comforter book, who testify that they have received it.

    Do you believe that someone could receive this and not be in harmony with the presiding brethren of the Church here on earth?

    1. Geoff,

      You have changed. You have palpably, tangibly changed. You have gone from scattering and resisting light — to reflecting and transmitting it. Your posts here have gone from spreading confusion to spreading understanding. It’s an amazing transformation to behold. And you’ve cheered me up. I’m actually happy for you! You’ve inspired me. This whole thread has been worth it — over 550 comments! Over 156,000 words! — just for you. You made it worth it.

      Rick, hang in there, bud. In this case, being “born again” may be tough for you. It’ll seem to you, perhaps, like an impossibly tight squeeze. (“There no way I can pass through that!” you may say.) You may even think this is the way to certain death! That you’re leaving a “warm and comfy” spot you’ve known and trusted for so long. But someday you’ll see that you’ve “outgrown” this place you’re at now, that “it’s time to move out”. Not reject your “mother”, but honor her, by growing up. When you finally make your “move”, you’ll see the light at the end of the tunnel. And want to embrace it. A whole new world.

      1. I have been born again. A couple of days ago I was able to participate in a priesthood blessing. The power was there. I am grateful for the experiences that I have witnessed in my lifetime. I enjoyed conference and the messages our leaders, the Lord’s Apostles, gave. I enjoyed Stake Conference today, I love my Stake President, he is a man of God. A year ago two General Authorities who knew no one in our stake, we’re led by the Spirit and found the man The Lord wanted to serve in that position.

        A good approach that has served me well for years I heard in a church meeting. The speaker encouraged us to pray for our leaders and their families each day. I have done that, and do that. I love our leaders from the General Authorities to our Bishops.

        Denver has plenty of cheerleaders. I just disagree with his later “truths”, and I think over time it will be uncovered what they really are.

  207. I’m pretty sure the right question, if you’re asking the Lord about all this, is something like, “Is so-and-so’s testimony true?”

    1. Steve F didn’t care for Denver or Daniel’s. I question Denver’s with the current stuff he is preaching.

  208. Steve, maybe you should highlight exactly which things you feel contradict the scriptures or the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith in Daniel’s writings.

    1. Daniel A. Rogers

      Oh please don’t. I don’t deserve that kind of attention. Read the scriptures instead. If you don’t believe me that is OK with me. I feel no need to convince others about what I have experienced.

      I have born testimony. If the spirit tells you to reject it, than that is OK with me. The Lord knows what we need and maybe His purposes are fulfilled in rejecting it. At least that is what I pray for.

      In any case, I know what happened to me and no amount of parsing over details will change that. The purpose of sharing is to increase faith enough that others get their own experiences to rely on.

    2. Daniel,

      You’re right – you don’t deserve that kind of attention. My purpose in asking Steve to produce a comprehensive, scripturally and doctrinally sound list of problems that he has with you is not so I can evaluate you.

      You are not the focus of my question.

    3. I also do not feel the need to prove my witness. I am however willing to clarify anything I’ve already said if Daniel is also willing to do as much. Since Daniel’s witness is relatively short, I actually only have a few clarifying questions – nothing too extensive.

      But if Daniel doesn’t want to do that, we should probably just let it rest.

  209. Being blunt, Daniel, you are not the only one whose testimony is on trial here. Your witness agrees with the scriptures and the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith as far as I can see. And your testimony contradicts Steve’s.

    At least one of you is bearing false witness.

  210. In fact, being blunt, for I am now highly displeased, I am sick to death of hearing “this places the Church / Brethren in a negative light, therefore it is false.” Go worship your idols, then, and cease cumbering the ground of discussion, and pretending to believe the Book of Mormon.

    1. Haha, no need to get yourself into a tizzy, Log. I assure you it has been just as difficult for me to hear you state your interpretation of the Book of Mormon as fact, never conceding even the clear and obvious points, and to assume your reading is always the one “without interpretation at all” – because it is just not the case. When everyone’s opinion is not worth a straw, except your own, it can make a conversation frustrating.

    2. I can see where a straightforward reading of the Book of Mormon would be frustrating to some; however, D&C 109:60 nailed it down – it is no longer an open question as to who the Gentiles are. The Lord gives line upon line, here a little, and there a little, and eventually one has the whole puzzle.

      But when someone claims revelatory knowledge, then they are claiming to not be expressing an opinion. That is, of course, the point. Therefore, they invite cross examination, that we may see whether, on its face, the claim to knowledge is warranted by the experience from which the knowledge was allegedly derived, and refusing to submit to such cross examinations invites summary rejection. All the more so when that hidden knowledge is used as a club, and especially when it is used in conjunction with the argumentation tactics of those who dwell in the great and spacious building. John Bennett used revelation as a way to seduce women.

      Daniel has been forthright, and consistent with both the scriptures and the teachings of Joseph Smith. I believe him, and agree that the experiences he relates, if true, warrant his claims to knowledge.

      As has Snuffer.

      1. As I said, I am open to clarification questions concerning what I have stated if Daniel is as well. All I’m requesting is equal treatment. If Daniel does not want to do this, what has been said stands and you can examine and pray about it as you will.

      2. Daniel has satisfied me. You needn’t do as I have requested, but then, I never had power to compel you, and I won’t be attempting to manipulate you into doing it. My opinion of you should not worry you; you know how highly I value opinions, no matter the platform from whence they are expressed, neither the station of the person expressing them.

        1. I hope it may give others at least some pause, that Daniel doesn’t seem to want to answer a question as simple as whether his short statement/witness can be understood chronologically or not. It’s not like I’m asking him to give an entire treatise on the subject requesting that he do my homework for me (like your asking of me Log). If you are willing to stand up and be and act as a second witness with very large/significant claims, why avoid a simple question?

      3. John 9
        8 ¶The neighbours therefore, and they which before had seen him that he was blind, said, Is not this he that sat and begged?

        9 Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he.

        10 Therefore said they unto him, How were thine eyes opened?

        11 He answered and said, A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.

        12 Then said they unto him, Where is he? He said, I know not.

        13 ¶They brought to the Pharisees him that aforetime was blind.

        14 And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes.

        15 Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see.

        16 Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.

        17 They say unto the blind man again, What sayest thou of him, that he hath opened thine eyes? He said, He is a prophet.

        18 But the Jews did not believe concerning him, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight.

        19 And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?

        20 His parents answered them and said, We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind:

        21 But by what means he now seeth, we know not; or who hath opened his eyes, we know not: he is of age; ask him: he shall speak for himself.

        22 These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.

        23 Therefore said his parents, He is of age; ask him.

        24 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner.

        25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.

        26 Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes?

        27 He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples?

        28 Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses’ disciples.

        29 We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.

        30 The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.

        31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.

        32 Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.

        33 If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.

        34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.

        1. So I suppose this “But when someone claims revelatory knowledge, then they are claiming to not be expressing an opinion. That is, of course, the point. Therefore, they invite cross examination, that we may see whether, on its face, the claim to knowledge is warranted by the experience from which the knowledge was allegedly derived, and refusing to submit to such cross examinations invites summary rejection.” no longer applies?

          This is typical of you Log, apply standards only when it suits your position. Any standard you apply to me asking questions to Daniel about his witness, applies equally to you asking questions about my witness. The only difference is that you are asking for far more than I am, I’m only asking a simple clarification question, nothing extreme or out of the scope of being reasonable, and your asking me to gather, summarize, and provide all the information I have obtained in hours upon hours of study, that provides evidence for my witness. You’ve got to stop the double standards Log.

        2. Also notice how the man who was blind answered their clarifying questions the first time, since he “told [them] already”. Your bold portion doesn’t seem to apply to basic honest clarification questions that have never been answered.

  211. Did I mention Daniel fully satisfied me? I asked him specific questions, he gave me specific answers.

    There is no double standard in play. And that would be the second or third false accusation you have levelled in this thread, at least twice naming me specifically.

    If you do not accuse each other, God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven, and if you will follow the revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I will take you into heaven as my back load. If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you. If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours—for charity covereth a multitude of sins.

    When a person lacks that charity, and evinces the spirit of the accuser, manifested clearly through false accusations, I tend not to receive his words – I fact check on ever little thing he says, because he has proven himself untrustworthy.

    1. And, bluntly speaking, I would also cease to engage someone who had already declared me a liar; I would interpret further questioning as being transparently for the purpose of justifying that declaration in front of an audience, and seeking to make me an offender for a word.

      But hey, maybe that’s how others grew up, and the like being poked and prodded by hostiles. What do I know?

    2. I find it ironic that you accuse me of being untrustworthy, after trying to chastise me for making an accusation

  212. I’m curious, many people here seem to find what I have said to be inappropriate. Perhaps it is, maybe I have gone about it all wrong. So let me ask an open question. Let’s assume that there is a false prophet or a false teacher that comes into the flock falsely proclaiming to have seen Christ. An individual then discerns by revelation that the claims are indeed false, and that the false witness and words of the false teacher are going to deceive, persuade, and potentially bring spiritual harm to others.

    Given this scenario, is the person allowed to tell other members of the flock, those whom the false teacher has give a false testimony to, of their revelation in an attempt to help or warn those people? Or is he required to sit idly by and not warn those people, never revealing what God has told him? Or is there some other option that is the right course of action?

    This is a sincere question, I am trying to discover if I may have made a mistake.

    1. The person is allowed to do whatsoever he will, as are any others.

      “Every man has a natural, and, in our country, a constitutional right to be a false prophet, as well as a true prophet.” – Joseph Smith

      What I would NOT do is be sloppy. I would examine very carefully what a person says to do. If what they say to do passes the Moroni 7 smell test, then I would provisionally believe them.

      If I truly received revelation that so-and-so is false, and made claims about so-and-so’s teachings which were demonstrably false, then there goes my credibility. So I would be very cautious to represent their claims extremely accurately.

      For myself, apparently the questions I have asked about Snuffer and the Church are sufficiently complex that it cannot be answered with a simple “he’s false.” Therefore I continue to study, rigidly apply the principles of justice and logic, watching out for all bad argumentation – specifically, rhetorical tricks (euphemistically called “logical fallacies”) – and see how it all plays out, waiting until the conditions are fulfilled that I shall get my answer.

      1. As I’m sure you are aware, revelation is not dependent on evidence or logic. Additionally, a person’s testimony/witness could be completely compatible with revealed truth, and yet it would not make it necessarily true.

        So are you saying that if a person obtains revelation, unless they have evidence beyond the revelation, they should not share their revelation and try to warn/help others? They should only try to warn and share their revelation if they can provide evidence and logic that will support their claim to the satisfaction of those they warn?

        If so, does this same standard apply to the false teacher claiming revelations or visions, etc.? Must they also be required to provide evidence and logic in order to prove their claims to those they share their witness with?

        1. SteveF, what about the teaching that we will only be given revelation for ourselves or to guide those under our stewardship? If we hold to that standard, there really isn’t much to discuss here on this thread at all 🙂

      2. Revelation obeys the rules of logic and evidence. God does not violate the law of noncontradiction; He doesn’t lie. Therefore, when two people claim revelation, and their claims are logically contradictory, at most one of them can be right.

        Likewise, if a man were to say he’d received revelation that the warnings to the Gentiles throughout the Book of Mormon are not aimed at the Church, then by D&C 109:60 I know his source to be false – for whoever speaks against the scripture does not do so by the spirit of prophecy, by which scripture is given, and I know Joseph was a true prophet.

        And if a man says the earth has a temporal existence which exceeds 6000 years, then likewise I know he is not speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost, for Joseph was pretty clear on that, too (D&C 77:6).

        Also, people have a nasty, damning habit of claiming more for their revelations than the revelation itself can support. When you’re playing the hot-or-cold game, trying to locate a hidden object while another party tells you “hot” or “cold” depending on whether you’re looking in the right direction or not, it is not lying to say “hot” when you are in the ballpark, even if you are not looking in precisely the correct direction. And I have known people in leadership positions who have nearly left the Church after finding out their “hot” answer about the truthfulness of the Church wasn’t quite as specifically all-encompassing as they enthusiastically believed it to be. The answers you get are critically dependent upon the questions you ask.

        I’m saying, in the end, false accusations and misrepresenting the claims of them whom you are accusing undermines your credibility. Credibility is the only thing a witness has if he hasn’t got public evidence.

        That is why it is so interesting to me to see that Snuffer does not make false accusations – indeed, from what I can see, he makes none at all, despite his biting observations of the culture of the Church, and of the Church as an institution. There are only a few points where his teachings have exceeded the scriptural warrant, in my view, and none of them are substantial. Indeed, much of what he says was already said by Nibley, and the rest was said by Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon prophets. Again, what he says to do passes the Moroni 7 smell test. And that is where you should be looking – what is he saying to do?

        The innuendos and inferences and otherwise attempting to make him appear to be an offender for a word because he says things which “put the church in a negative light” is to play the role of the false prophets of the Book of Mormon. The wicked priests of Noah tried that exact tactic on Abinadi. The whole episode is profitable to consider.

        1 And it came to pass that after the space of two years that Abinadi came among them in disguise, that they knew him not, and began to prophesy among them, saying: Thus has the Lord commanded me, saying—Abinadi, go and prophesy unto this my people, for they have hardened their hearts against my words; they have repented not of their evil doings; therefore, I will visit them in my anger, yea, in my fierce anger will I visit them in their iniquities and abominations.

        2 Yea, wo be unto this generation! And the Lord said unto me: Stretch forth thy hand and prophesy, saying: Thus saith the Lord, it shall come to pass that this generation, because of their iniquities, shall be brought into bondage, and shall be smitten on the cheek; yea, and shall be driven by men, and shall be slain; and the vultures of the air, and the dogs, yea, and the wild beasts, shall devour their flesh.

        3 And it shall come to pass that the life of king Noah shall be valued even as a garment in a hot furnace; for he shall know that I am the Lord.

        4 And it shall come to pass that I will smite this my people with sore afflictions, yea, with famine and with pestilence; and I will cause that they shall howl all the day long.

        5 Yea, and I will cause that they shall have burdens lashed upon their backs; and they shall be driven before like a dumb ass.

        6 And it shall come to pass that I will send forth hail among them, and it shall smite them; and they shall also be smitten with the east wind; and insects shall pester their land also, and devour their grain.

        7 And they shall be smitten with a great pestilence—and all this will I do because of their iniquities and abominations.

        8 And it shall come to pass that except they repent I will utterly destroy them from off the face of the earth; yet they shall leave a record behind them, and I will preserve them for other nations which shall possess the land; yea, even this will I do that I may discover the abominations of this people to other nations. And many things did Abinadi prophesy against this people.

        9 And it came to pass that they were angry with him; and they took him and carried him bound before the king, and said unto the king: Behold, we have brought a man before thee who has prophesied evil concerning thy people, and saith that God will destroy them.

        10 And he also prophesieth evil concerning thy life, and saith that thy life shall be as a garment in a furnace of fire.

        11 And again, he saith that thou shalt be as a stalk, even as a dry stalk of the field, which is run over by the beasts and trodden under foot.

        12 And again, he saith thou shalt be as the blossoms of a thistle, which, when it is fully ripe, if the wind bloweth, it is driven forth upon the face of the land. And he pretendeth the Lord hath spoken it. And he saith all this shall come upon thee except thou repent, and this because of thine iniquities.

        13 And now, O king, what great evil hast thou done, or what great sins have thy people committed, that we should be condemned of God or judged of this man?

        14 And now, O king, behold, we are guiltless, and thou, O king, hast not sinned; therefore, this man has lied concerning you, and he has prophesied in vain.

        15 And behold, we are strong, we shall not come into bondage, or be taken captive by our enemies; yea, and thou hast prospered in the land, and thou shalt also prosper.

        16 Behold, here is the man, we deliver him into thy hands; thou mayest do with him as seemeth thee good.

        17 And it came to pass that king Noah caused that Abinadi should be cast into prison; and he commanded that the priests should gather themselves together that he might hold a council with them what he should do with him.

        18 And it came to pass that they said unto the king: Bring him hither that we may question him; and the king commanded that he should be brought before them.

        19 And they began to question him, that they might cross him, that thereby they might have wherewith to accuse him; but he answered them boldly, and withstood all their questions, yea, to their astonishment; for he did withstand them in all their questions, and did confound them in all their words.

        20 And it came to pass that one of them said unto him: What meaneth the words which are written, and which have been taught by our fathers, saying:

        21 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings; that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good; that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth;

        22 Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing; for they shall see eye to eye when the Lord shall bring again Zion;

        23 Break forth into joy; sing together ye waste places of Jerusalem; for the Lord hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem;

        24 The Lord hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God?

        25 And now Abinadi said unto them: Are you priests, and pretend to teach this people, and to understand the spirit of prophesying, and yet desire to know of me what these things mean?

        26 I say unto you, wo be unto you for perverting the ways of the Lord! For if ye understand these things ye have not taught them; therefore, ye have perverted the ways of the Lord.

        27 Ye have not applied your hearts to understanding; therefore, ye have not been wise.

        1. I really don’t see how your comment is very relevant to what I’m asking. And I think your King Noah example only works if you are comparing the Church leaders to the apostate and wicked King Noah. Since I do not think our Church leaders are apostate or wicked, the example doesn’t hold water for me. Maybe you can try to apply what your saying to the scenario I gave, and I’ll might be able to make more sense of what you’re saying.

      3. You asked what I’m saying (while attempting to shoehorn me into a box).

        I responded:

        I’m saying, in the end, false accusations and misrepresenting the claims of them whom you are accusing undermines your credibility. Credibility is the only thing a witness has if he hasn’t got public evidence.

        I’m not sure where I lost you. Please clarify your confusion.

        1. I pointed out legitimate issues with the model you tried to provide me for my hypothetical scenario. And even asked you questions to clarify your meaning. I’m not sure how that’s “attempting to shoehorn [you] into a box”.

          I’m trying to understand if I made a mistake somewhere, and I asked for a model to address my hypothetical scenario in an effort to discover principles I may have overlooked to see if I had really done something inappropriate, like several people here have implied.

          You lost me, because your comment appears in the chain that is about my question, but what you said doesn’t seem relevant to the question I am asking, and it doesn’t seem like you are creating a model that I can apply to the hypothetical scenario I proposed in order to help me understand where I may have gone wrong.

      4. You went wrong in falsely accusing, and you go wrong in attempting to use revelation as a club, with which to beat your “opponents” into submission.

        If I were to try to push a genuine revelation, I would use persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness and meekness, and love unfeigned and kindness, and pure knowledge. If I lacked those things, I would use evidence and logic. If I had none of that, I would probably shut up.

        1. “You went wrong in falsely accusing” Would you care to back that up with facts, since you state it as a fact? Or are you claiming revelation?

          “you go wrong in attempting to use revelation as a club, with which to beat your “opponents” into submission.” Yet another accusation, would you care to back that up as well? I feel like I’ve spent most of my time defending my right to have had my own witness in the first place, and share that witness.

          “I would use persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness and meekness, and love unfeigned and kindness, and pure knowledge.” These are not words I would use to describe the attitude you’ve displayed toward me. Would you?

        2. Log, from my perspective it comes across as you trying to fight me or attempting to beat me down, despite that I asked a genuine question looking for real advice. I’m just not willing to entertain this any longer, despite if what it looks like to me is right or not. So I’m officially ending my conversation with you.

      5. False Accusation #1, naming me, specifically.

        “I know now for myself that those like Denver, you, Log, and others that share your same basic message have received much of your doctrine, and your thoughts are being influenced from time to time, by a false spirit….”

        That message, of course, is that we are to be identified with the Gentiles (D&C 109:60), and the warnings of the Book of Mormon to the Gentiles are warnings to us.

        False Accusation #2, naming me specifically.

        “This is typical of you Log, apply standards only when it suits your position.

        You’ve got to stop the double standards Log.”

        The standard was, of course, the refusal of a witness to be cross-examined as grounds for summary dismissal of their testimony. I had already spoken with Daniel privately, who answered my questions freely. There was no double standard in play.

        I am ignoring the specific false accusations towards Snuffer.

        Using Revelation as a Club in a “Conversation”:

        “You need not waste your breath in trying object or convince me otherwise, I know what the Spirit has revealed to me, and if you will receive this Spirit, you will know that I speak the truth.”

        That’s the end of the conversation – clubbed to death at that point, really.

        And I would say I am using logic and evidence in a neutral fashion. Were it otherwise, I would not listen to you, or even talk to you.

      6. I gave you real advice. But I will give you the true standard.

        2 Nephi 32:9
        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.

        and

        Doctrine and Covenants 63:64
        64 Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation.

    2. Incidentally, I am sometimes guilty of sloppiness too. But I try real hard to represent the people I disagree with in such a way that they agree I have been fair, and can accept my characterization of their claims, or, better yet, just quote them if they’re sufficiently clear.

      Do I succeed? Not always.

  213. On another note, something that surprises me is how several people want me to clarify my understanding, and are skeptical toward my witness, but I seem to be the only one that thought or wished to ask Daniel any questions. Why the big difference?

    Is it because Daniel’s claims are more miraculous, and people simply want to believe it? Why does it seem nobody else took this tremendous claim he made, and did any research or homework on it? But instead accepted it wholesale without question or research?

    It reminds me of a cultural flaw found among LDS members in the US, that we are very susceptible to getting scammed. Because we are a believing people, unchecked it can work to our detriment at times.

    Imagine a member comes to you and promises you that this new program he has discovered will help you to obtain all the monetary blessings your family will ever need and more. And on top of this, it will on average only take a person 2 to 5 years of hard work and dedication to achieve this end. Your friend comes across as very sincere, and he is a member, so why shouldn’t you trust him? You might ask, how does a person’s testifying that the fruits of ‘the doctrine of supporting your family’ are true, real, and available to all ring false, deceitful, or inspired by a devilish/false/lying spirit to you? Is it not a good thing your friend is testifying of? And if the promised end is good, then how can your friend’s testimony be false? I hope you can see the danger of this type of logic. In the case of Daniel, I hope you can recognize that his witness may not only be to promote coming unto Christ, but in context of the conversation it appears that since this was intended to be a second witness, that it may have been given to also support Denver’s claims. Furthermore, it seems to be promoting as true the doctrine of “Gentiles in the Book of Mormon should be understood as referring to the LDS”. While this information alone is not enough to understand the true thoughts and intents of a person, they are things that I would think would at the very least give a person pause to consider that other motives could be in play than helping you to seek the face of Christ, or to ‘help you monetarily support your family’ as it were.

    It seems because of this desire to believe, we have this tendency to want to believe and accept grandiose claims without really doing all the due diligence and prayer that it takes to make informed and good decisions. Or in other words we turn a blind eye, knowingly or unknowingly, simply because we want to believe something so badly. But this of course does not make a claim true. And when the person seems so sincere, how can they be lying? I hope you see the flaw in such logic, if a liar is to achieve any amount of success, at the very least he needs to be able to come across as sincere. I hope we believe/trust others’ testimonies based on more than just really wanting to believe or because they come across as sincere – I know studying it out in one’s mind to the best of one’s ability to receive a confirmation from the Spirit will usually take a great deal more effort than that.

    I hope you realize that just about any random member can write what Daniel wrote here, and sound sincere about it if they want to. That doesn’t make the claim true. We have members who have become adulterers, we have members who have become criminals, and we have members who have fallen prey to the darkest of sins at times, even murder. Then why when I say that a member has justified lying to promote his genuine beliefs is it so implausible to imagine? Especially when there are other known examples of just this. Or do we think God cannot reveal it to the sincere in heart when someone is attempting to deceive them? God knows the thoughts and intents of man, and I know God can reveal all things to a person.

      1. Perhaps unless someone here is a general authority, none of us should be getting revelations to tell anyone else here what is or isn’t inspired? While I believe personal revelation should be available to each of us to weigh the various claims here, I’m hesitant to have anyone else’s claimed revelations (Denvers or anyone else who may have posted here) guide my own beliefs. And there sure have been lots of interesting claims on this thread!.

        1. robf, I generally like the thought. But if the principle is that we cannot share our revelation/witness with anyone outside of our own stewardship, it would negate being able to bear our testimony with our leaders, and would probably negate most testimonies born in testimony meetings, since most people do not have stewardship over every person in the congregation.

          Maybe a more consistent principle is that we are not to use our revelation to command others outside of our stewardship, nor expect others outside of our stewardship to be bound by our witness/testimony. Another principle may also be that we are not to reveal revelation of doctrine or teachings that have not yet been revealed by the Church.

  214. I still find it inappropriate to judge anybody’s level of progression to the point where you can say: if you have not had such and such experience, you do not have faith.

    This is not scripturally accurate.

    2 Nephi 9:23
    23 And he commandeth all men that they must repent, and be baptized in his name, having perfect faith in the Holy One of Israel, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.

    What happens when men have faith?

    40 And it came to pass that the Lamanites said unto him: What shall we do, that this cloud of darkness may be removed from overshadowing us?

    41 And Aminadab said unto them: You must repent, and cry unto the voice, even until ye shall have faith in Christ, who was taught unto you by Alma, and Amulek, and Zeezrom; and when ye shall do this, the cloud of darkness shall be removed from overshadowing you.

    42 And it came to pass that they all did begin to cry unto the voice of him who had shaken the earth; yea, they did cry even until the cloud of darkness was dispersed.

    43 And it came to pass that when they cast their eyes about, and saw that the cloud of darkness was dispersed from overshadowing them, behold, they saw that they were encircled about, yea every soul, by a pillar of fire.

    44 And Nephi and Lehi were in the midst of them; yea, they were encircled about; yea, they were as if in the midst of a flaming fire, yet it did harm them not, neither did it take hold upon the walls of the prison; and they were filled with that joy which is unspeakable and full of glory.

    45 And behold, the Holy Spirit of God did come down from heaven, and did enter into their hearts, and they were filled as if with fire, and they could speak forth marvelous words.

    46 And it came to pass that there came a voice unto them, yea, a pleasant voice, as if it were a whisper, saying:

    47 Peace, peace be unto you, because of your faith in my Well Beloved, who was from the foundation of the world.

    These are they of whom the Savior spoke.

    3 Nephi 9:20
    20 And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not.

    So says Moroni.

    Ether 12:14
    14 Behold, it was the faith of Nephi and Lehi that wrought the change upon the Lamanites, that they were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

    If you have perfect faith in Christ, you shall at that point be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost.

    That is why Mormon said this.

    Moroni 7:39
    39 But behold, my beloved brethren, I judge better things of you, for I judge that ye have faith in Christ because of your meekness; for if ye have not faith in him then ye are not fit to be numbered among the people of his church.

    Because, of course, in the Nephite Church, they taught this correctly.

    Moroni 6:4
    4 And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith.

    It is only after they were baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost that their names were recorded in the membership of the Church.

    So, yes, there are some experiences which, if you haven’t had them, are a reflection of your lack of faith.

    1. Incidentally, this is a point at which I disagree with Snuffer, and can by the scriptures establish my view: if a person has faith, then they have been baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost, scripturally speaking.

  215. Frederick Volcansek

    Geoff, I appreciate what you are saying, but the nuanced view you give is not what Frederick said. Even if we apply your nuanced view, I still find it inappropriate to judge anybody’s level of progression to the point where you can say: if you have not had such and such experience, you do not have faith.
    Furthermore, Frederick said that “Do we honestly think we will be able to bear His presence in the world of Glory if we do not see Him here in the flesh?”. I don’t think his implication that if someone has not seen God in the flesh they will not be able to bear his presence in the world of Glory, is true. I think this most obviously doesn’t apply to people who die before the age of eight, and likely to people like Joseph Smith’s brother Alvin who didn’t even have the law to understand such principles before they died. Who’s to say what other nuances of life might make exceptions to this implied rule.

    Steve I will refer you to the Lectures on Faith. In them we learn, “for there is a great difference between believing in God and knowing him—knowledge implies more than faith.”

    “For where faith is, there will the knowledge of God be also, with all things which pertain thereto — revelations, visions, and dreams, as well as every necessary thing, in order that the possessors of faith may be perfected, and obtain salvation;”

    Notice that it says that when you have faith, you will also have the knowledge of God, including revelations, dreams, visions, and according to Mormon, angels that “appear” and minister to you.

    Far too often we confuse belief with faith. We start with belief, but must progress to faith, which faith produces the fruit of the knowledge of God.

    Again, you repeatedly attack Daniel, but he doesn’t matter. For you, only your knowledge of God can save you. If you do not receive the knowledge of God, you don’t have faith, according to the Lectures on Faith. For where faith is, so is the knowledge of God.

    When we live without the knowledge of God in our lives, we essentially are in a state of apostasy. Repenting means to turn and face God. Frankly, the way we think of repenting commonly today is completely wrong. The scriptures teach us how to fill ourselves with light, in other words, repent, and that leads us to God.

    45 For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ.
    46 And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit.
    47 And every one that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit cometh unto God, even the Father. (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 84)

    When we hearken to the voice of the Spirit, we turn to God and He fills us with His light. The Spirit gives light to every man who hearkens to the voice of the Spirit. This passage describes repentance.

    Finally, you can deny what D&C 76:116-118, that is up to you. It says what it says. When you have seen into heaven, you will understand why and how Alvin received celestial glory. God is merciful. However, do not think you can discount his words because they seem too harsh or difficult. The word of The Lord has been given to us. If we deny it, or rationalize what it says, we will condemn ourselves.

    1. D&C 76:118 describes being transfigured, how it is that while in the flesh a person may be able to bear His presence. It is not discussing some sort of requirement that must take place in this life to be able to endure the presence of God in the life hereafter.

      I also find your interpretation of the Lectures on Faith quotes to be faulty. But I appreciate you giving references for why you believe the assertions you made.

      1. Steve, I for one feel that this discussion has deteriorated occasionally into disputation and even some contention. You can feel it when it is no longer edifying. I believe this is due in part to the cognitive dissonance associated with Denver’s paradigm vs the traditional paradigm of the Church and its leaders.

        I hope you do not feel any spirit of attack from me. If you have, then you have my sincerest apologies. I would love to e-mail with you: geoffreyRwright@hotmail.com

        Ether 12
        28 Behold, I will show unto the Gentiles their weakness, and I will show unto them that faith, hope and charity bringeth unto me—the fountain of all righteousness.

        And charity, it seems, has been lacking sometimes here. At least I feel so. I’m not going to point any fingers, except at myself. Let every man be his own judge. It would really help elevate this thread if we all remembered:

        Moroni 7
        45 And charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
        46 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, if ye have not charity, ye are nothing, for charity never faileth. Wherefore, cleave unto charity, which is the greatest of all, for all things must fail—
        47 But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.
        48 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.

        2 Nephi 31
        20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

        2 Peter 1
        3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
        4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
        5 And beside this, giving all (humility &) diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
        6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness (reverence/holiness);
        7 And to godliness brotherly bkindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
        8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
        9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
        10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
        11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting bkingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

        In fact, on topic, I always thought that a certain degree of charity, the pure love of God/Christ, and of all men, was a prerequisite to receiving all these things, enduring to the end, making one’s calling and election sure, the Church of the Firstborn, etc. I haven’t sensed anything but charity from Daniel or Frederick. I don’t feel they’ve been contentious either.

        Steve, I have struggled, as you have, with the claims of those who are testifying of their personal theophanies. I have not shaken hands with a resurrected being nor been caught up, as they’ve described. I do want to believe them, because I want to have that type of faith, and I read the scriptures with the same meaning when it comes to the doctrine of Christ and of election. I feel very strongly that these things are real and possible for each of us. Their testimonies confirm this and give the answer that the way is (and this is also scripturally accurate) to feast upon the word of Christ and take the Holy Spirit as our constant guide.

        I also see your point that claiming these experiences (falsely) could be used in the way you’ve described: to give spiritual weight to their paradigm and teachings (e.g. Denver’s paradigm), to possibly feel elitist and fawned over (the wow factor), and even possibly the same way Log has indicated several times using revelation “as a club” – in the sense that, how can a person with mere belief stand up to someone with faith/knowledge – the spiritual bullying factor, we might call it. In other words I admit logically that someone could have very subtle motives for falsely claiming these things – to usurp the inherent authority of knowledge. The Enemy is very clever and subtle and he has executed this device before. I’m not accusing anyone here of doing that. The question is: whether this is the case with Denver and/or those who agree with him claiming similar things?

        I’m also conscious of this, in terms of what can be shared or not – the Spirit is the constrainer:

        D&C 63
        64 Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation.

        I am beginning to see just how incompatible Denver’s view and the traditional view are.

        Is there anything we can discuss further without digressing?

        Maybe someone can help me with these questions:
        Is someone willing to clearly describe what this non-traditional view is? Starting with “Gentiles” references in the Book of Mormon = LDS.
        How do the pieces fit together?
        What keys do Pres. Monson and the Apostles have according to this view?
        What is the role of the Church today?
        If it was completely rejected when the Saints were moved out West, are we just on an individual basis with the Lord now?
        Are all the LDS ordinances important and necessary?
        Is the vicarious work for the dead in the LDS Temples valid and important?
        According to this view, what beliefs are currently held in the traditional view which must be shed to purify one’s faith?

        Steve, maybe you have some more questions you can add to this list, which, if answered, will help some of us clearly understand this paradigm and be better able to discern whether it is true. All these answers have implications. I do see corruption in LDS culture. Here is an example: there is a lot of hero-worship, people who idolize Church leaders, from the bishop up to the top. I’ve been the object of this as a bishop and have had to try and quell it – it’s one of the reasons I look forward to being released. It sits just as uncomfortably with me when I hear people idolizing the Brethren. It’s kind of like Mormon celebritization (I may have made that word up). You all know what I mean. A lot of bowing and scraping to leaders, too, trying to be well-thought of and rise in the ranks – aspiring. It makes my stomach turn. I know many humble, wonderful leaders so don’t take this as a blanket condition – but there is a lot of it and it’s wrong. I was guilty of it, too, because I was under the impression that one could not have one’s calling and election made sure unless one became a high-ranking leader (like a Stake or Mission President at least) – how wrong is that? I knew a missionary, a Zone Leader, who aspired to be an Assistant to the President and when I challenged him on his aspiration with D&C 121 “aspire to the honors of men” he responded that we could aspire to the honors of God (meaning positions of authority). It didn’t feel right.

        btw, I think I mentioned somewhere on this blog that I had been to the Temple thousands of times – it turns out my math was way off, correction not thousands.

        1. I emailed you yesterday; just wanted to make sure you got it and it wasn’t stuck in spam or something

  216. Please don’t mistake honest, sincere questions as accusations of any kind? (I know they can be interpreted that way.)

  217. Geoff,

    I can claim no revelation on these. I can give anecdotal evidence for why I believe certain things.

    What keys do Pres. Monson and the Apostles have according to this view?

    All of the keys necessary to direct the administration of the outward ordinances. Even if all we had, institutionally, was the Levitical priesthood, that would be true, as demonstrated by the Jews.

    What is the role of the Church today?

    To sound the gospel in every ear, to administer in the outward ordinances to as many as will submit to them, and to keep the people from descending into wickedness.

    If it was completely rejected when the Saints were moved out West, are we just on an individual basis with the Lord now?

    I’m not sure what it means to be rejected as a church. It is also possible that the rejection pertained to that generation living at the time.

    Are all the LDS ordinances important and necessary?

    If Snuffer et al are telling the truth, then the second anointing as administered by the Church is not necessary; even if they’re not telling the truth, it can’t be necessary, for how many have died not having it – it would make God a partial God and a respecter of persons.

    Is the vicarious work for the dead in the LDS Temples valid and important?

    I think so; the Lord cares about what goes on in the temples, and I cannot fathom why He would unless they were valid.

    According to this view, what beliefs are currently held in the traditional view which must be shed to purify one’s faith?

    None. It is possible to purify one’s faith, whatever you believe about Church history, as you discovered at age 11. The only thing required of all of us is to receive all things which come from God, and condemn them not.

    1. Thanks, Log. I appreciate your perspective and taking a stab at these. I am still very much trying to contextualize these things. It does involve quite a bit of reexamination of many of my “givens.” (Which is kind of funny because a branch of my ancestors were surnamed Givens). I hope this comes through the typed word, but I am not trying to contend anymore here – my heart and mind really did change last week and I truly seek understanding – as part of that I will assume sincerity and honesty in anyone I engage with. So I mean no offense with my questions.

      What keys do Pres. Monson and the Apostles have according to this view?
      All of the keys necessary to direct the administration of the outward ordinances. Even if all we had, institutionally, was the Levitical priesthood, that would be true, as demonstrated by the Jews.

      I think I understand this one, but if this is true how do you explain the difference between this and what the living Apostles claim today: “all priesthood keys”, including the sealing power, etc.?
      Closely related to this would be their claims about who they are, Apostles, legal successors of Joseph Smith, keepers of the gnosis, etc. Are you saying they are simply mistaken but sincere, or deliberately deceiving?
      How can they be authorized servants operating under such misconceptions?

      What are the outward ordinances? Do they include the Temple ordinances?

      Under any circumstances I can agree with you on the role of the Church. The way I’ve put it is: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the first net gathering candidates for The Church of the Firstborn. Do you agree with that essentially? Until recently I had always thought the process for joining the second was governed by the Apostles – that it was both a spiritual experience with the Lord and an ordinance performed by His servants, the prophets. Under this non-traditional view, it seems that angels and the Lord Himself are the only ones involved. Is that about right?

      I also agree with you on the possibility that the rejecting of the church may have only been for a season back in the 1800’s. As far as I can tell, the Lord does not say how long they would be rejected. Help me out here. Maybe it was only until they completed the next Temple?

      D&C 124
      32 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.
      33 For verily I say unto you, that after you have had sufficient time to build a house to 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;
      34 For therein are the keys of the holy priesthood ordained, that you may receive honor and glory.

      Second Annointings: what do we really know about this? Unless you know someone personally who has received this ordinance, it seems very hush-hush. The rumor is that those who receive it are instructed strictly to keep it to themselves. We do know, from the historical record (do we not?) that Joseph Smith administered this ordinance to several of the early brethren. Perhaps it is not essential in this life. That would not necessitate the conclusion about the Lord being partial. In fact, this was always my impression that it was possible but very difficult. It sounds like Denver is teaching that it was a form/substitute for the real thing, which is only administered by the Lord after heavenly angelic preparation, etc. This, to me, seems to invalidate the ordinance but this begs the questions about Joseph Smith performing them when he was alive. Anyway, I know that’s a bit convoluted but can you try to fit those pieces together?

      The vicarious temple ordinance question depends pretty heavily on the “what are the outward ordinances” question. All of the ordinances we have are based on ordinances which the Prophet Joseph instituted. Did he view them as merely outward or powerful/efficacious? By outward do you mean symbolic/shadow of the real thing and the Holy Spirit of Promise attends the real thing?

      I also agree that the doctrine of Christ may not depend on getting all one’s beliefs right, but I can see how some possibly wrong beliefs would be a barrier to faith. Still working this one out, too.

      1. Michael A. Cleverly

        Geoff,

        Here’s my current thinking regarding sealing power–

        Just as there are degrees of priesthood, I think there are degrees of sealing authority. I’m unaware of any accepted terminology to distinguish them but in my mind there are two types which I call:

        1. Conditional (or provisional) sealing authority

        2. Unconditional sealing authority

        As an example of the first type, our temple ordinances (endowment, sealing, etc.) to be of eternal significance must be subsequently ratified by the Holy Spirit of Promise. They aren’t automatic. The living have to live true & faithful; the dead have to (at least) accept the vicarious work done on their behalf, etc. This sealing power can be delegated from the President of the High Priesthood to temple workers around the world.

        As an example of the second type, the scriptures also have examples of men who received what seems to be an unconditional sealing power. This is the type of sealing power that Nephi was given in Helaman chapter 10. Prior to this time Nephi was undeniably a prophet, the leader of the Nephite church, the lawful successor to his father Helaman, a recipient of much revelation, etc. But here, in this chapter, it seems that he has so proven himself that the Lord grants Nephi a divine investiture of authority to act in the role of the Holy Spirit of Promise himself. This type of sealing power cannot be given from one man to another, but only received from the Lord directly just as JST Genesis 14 makes clear.

  218. I think I understand this one, but if this is true how do you explain the difference between this and what the living Apostles claim today: “all priesthood keys”, including the sealing power, etc.?

    I believe they have the sealing keys, otherwise known as the keys of the kingdom; these, I believe, were duly conferred upon the 12. As far as I can tell, this just means that heaven honors baptisms performed by the Church, and does not honor baptisms performed outside of it. These keys may only be Levitical in nature – the ordinances performed must yet be ratified by heaven through the faith of the recipient. That is why, I believe, you were baptized by fire at 11 rather than at 8.

    Closely related to this would be their claims about who they are, Apostles, legal successors of Joseph Smith, keepers of the gnosis, etc. Are you saying they are simply mistaken but sincere, or deliberately deceiving?

    If you were called to be an apostle tomorrow, would the call, in and of itself, bestow any new knowledge upon you? Would it correct any false beliefs? Would the call, in and of itself, mandate the reception of the Second Comforter? I think the historical record answers with a resounding “no.”

    How can they be authorized servants operating under such misconceptions?

    Have you been filled with light and love since the day you were baptized by fire, dwelling in that state of perfect unity with God, your prayers answered instantly, revelations flowing constantly? Have you been filled with light and love since the day you were consecrated as bishop? Can you believe that it is possible that not everyone the Lord calls has been baptized by fire? The selection criteria for His servants are the Lord’s.

    Moreover, questions people don’t ask aren’t answered.

    What are the outward ordinances? Do they include the Temple ordinances?

    Yes.

    Under any circumstances I can agree with you on the role of the Church. The way I’ve put it is: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the first net gathering candidates for The Church of the Firstborn. Do you agree with that essentially?

    That’s pretty much it, I think.

    Until recently I had always thought the process for joining the second was governed by the Apostles – that it was both a spiritual experience with the Lord and an ordinance performed by His servants, the prophets. Under this non-traditional view, it seems that angels and the Lord Himself are the only ones involved. Is that about right?

    Let’s put it this way – no man baptized you with fire, and you know this; you received it by repenting and calling upon the name of the Lord until you had unfeigned faith in Christ, and you would remember the Savior praying with and for you unto the Father in words that can be felt but not uttered; that was your qualifying call, and your first experience with the Holy Spirit of Promise.

    I also agree with you on the possibility that the rejecting of the church may have only been for a season back in the 1800?s. As far as I can tell, the Lord does not say how long they would be rejected. Help me out here. Maybe it was only until they completed the next Temple?

    I don’t know. I know that even if the institution is rejected, that says nothing about any particular individual. That is one of the questions I shall ask when I am received.

    Second Annointings: what do we really know about this?

    The text of the ordinance is online, and you can find people who have fallen away from the Church after having received them. The conclusions to be drawn from that are up to the individual.

    It appears stake presidents and upwards get them, and others at the discretion of the higher leadership, with the criterion for selection recounted in PTHG.

    Anyway, I know that’s a bit convoluted but can you try to fit those pieces together?

    I don’t know enough about it; but let’s put it this way. In PTHG, you get Elder Clark who received them, but it apparently carried no power into his heart, like so many of our confirmations. I conclude from that that it is like our confirmations – lacking in power, and therefore requiring the exercise of mighty faith to obtain the promises therefrom.

    Did [Joseph] view [outward ordinances] as merely outward or powerful/efficacious?

    I know you’re asking about temple ordinances, but I think the true answer is in this statement: “Baptism by water is but half a baptism, and is good for nothing without the other half–that is, the baptism of the Holy Ghost.” That same mighty faith you exercised to receive that other half of baptism is, I believe, required for all ordinances in the gospel to be made of effect. There is no automatic “in.”

    By outward do you mean symbolic/shadow of the real thing and the Holy Spirit of Promise attends the real thing?

    Essentially.

    I also agree that the doctrine of Christ may not depend on getting all one’s beliefs right, but I can see how some possibly wrong beliefs would be a barrier to faith. Still working this one out, too.

    Yes, it’s those wrong beliefs we mistakenly consider or pretend as knowledge – our sacred cows, the things we won’t allow to be touched, for whatever reason – which damn us, and prevent us from recognizing truth.

    “It’s not what a man knows that hurts him; it’s what he knows that just ain’t so.”

    1. I wasn’t clear at the top – I believe the keys of the outward ordinances of the temple are also there. I didn’t mean to imply only our baptisms were authoritative.

    2. And the Q12 had authority to lead, per D&C 107. The quorum has been in continuous existence since the days of Joseph, therefore the keys they had must have been propagated through it to today.

      The FP, Q12, Q70s, Presiding Bishopric, area authorities, and stake presidents, are the duly authorized husbandmen of the Lord’s vineyard, until the Lord comes and destroys us, and gives the kingdom of God to others, who shall render Him the fruits thereof in their seasons (JST Matt 21:55-56).

    3. Also, LDSAnarchist has taken the position that a temple in any state of completion, so long as it contained a baptismal font, and was used for baptisms for the dead, fulfills the conditions of D&C 124:32. Therefore, since the incomplete Nauvoo temple had such a font and was used for that purpose in 1841, the Church was not rejected along with their dead.

      I dunno.

  219. Part 2 of Gregory Smith’s review is up: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/passing-up-the-heavenly-gift-part-two-of-two .

    I just finished it, it is very well done! I think the evidence is almost irrefutable to any able thinking person, it made some good/important points that I hadn’t even considered; people will have to really grasp at straws to disagree with what is outlined there. I don’t doubt that will happen, but for those really interested in seeing the facts, this is an excellent resource, the best I’ve seen.

  220. Well-poisoning is contrary to truth and righteous judgement. So also is argumentum ad hominem, which can be illustrated abundantly from the article cited.

    Perhaps confirmation bias accounts for the difference between our respective opinions on the quality of the article.

    I notice as well that Smith commonly uses not Snuffer’s actual claims, but makes claims for Snuffer and proceeds to debunk those.

    Moreover, Smith engages in mind reading – same as Fawn Brodie.

    Each may judge for themselves, of course.

  221. There is, of course, nothing to concede about Snuffer’s claims when we’re not discussing his claims, now, is there?

    So if you happen to prevail upon a claim of mine, that says nothing about the status of Snuffer’s claims.

    I’m not sure why that even needs to be said, but there it is.

    It was during this thread that I realized that even I had misconstrued Snuffer’s claims. I, though, am apparently the only one who will admit to having made that mistake.

  222. Hi Brethren. Steve & Log, perhaps you could attempt to highlight the points from Greg Smith’s review, part 1 and 2, that you feel are particularly relevant, one way or the other. Can you call out which points are well-poisoning, straw-man, and ad-hominem, as well as confirmation bias? I mean, Greg Smith is obviously of the traditional view and his article reads very much like a FARMS review of an anti-Mormon book, but I thought he stuck pretty much to critiquing Denver’s arguments and methods, not Denver as a person. Which arguments do you feel were straw-men? I still need to read PTHG, so I can’t put these in complete context yet myself, but you and Steve have, so maybe you can try to list the points. Is it worth going through point by point? Denver said on his blog:

    I regard his misunderstanding of the book and his attribution of motives which I simply do not possess as only his opening position. It will not be his final position. He will be led to a better conclusion about me in years to come. His motives arise from defending what he honestly believes to be threatened by what I wrote. This is good, even commendable. His mistake is to read with such alarm and fear that he turns a difference in understanding into an attack on me and my motives. With time and patience he will figure those things out much better than he does at present. Given the Lord’s patience with me, can I give Gregory Smith any less patience?

    Read charitably his review. That is how I have taken it. At present I am too busy to go through and respond point-by-point to his rant. If I find the time, I may respond to his review.

    If Gregory Smith reads this (or someone knows him) I’d like to invite him to come to the talk I will be giving on November 2nd in Orem at 9:30 a.m. The address and directions will be posted soon.

    I hope Denver does write a response. Greg’s review is pretty well-written and is reasonable. In the first part, he gives a point summary I quote below:

    http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/passing-up-the-heavenly-gift-part-one-of-two/

    1. Priesthood conferred by ordination is just a potential (“many are called”) and not actual bestowal of power (“few are chosen”). To truly receive priesthood power, a type of divine theophany is necessary (36).
    2. Oliver Cowdery gave a charge to the original twelve apostles requiring them to seek to behold the face of God. This charge was discontinued in the early 1900s because so few had a theophany-type experience (88–89).
    3.Brigham Young, many other post-Joseph Smith leaders, and modern apostles sometimes explicitly deny having had theophany-type experiences, “parsing” [sic] their words carefully to give false impressions to their unwary listeners (61, 65, 87–88, 243).
    4. Brigham Young was ordained an apostle by the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, not Joseph Smith, and so he did not receive priesthood keys or authority from Joseph Smith (87).
    5. Brigham appealed to his ordination as an apostle as the ground for his right to lead the Church following Joseph’s death. Brigham could not have received all the necessary keys from Joseph (especially the sealing keys), since traditional LDS history dates their receipt to 1836, a year following Brigham’s ordination to the apostleship (87–89, 105–110). Furthermore, Joseph did not ordain the apostles (see point #4) and so could not have given his keys to Brigham and the Twelve.
    6. Joseph Smith did not receive the ultimate sealing powers in 1836 from Elijah in the Kirtland temple, but instead had received them by 1829 in association with the receipt of the revelations that later became D&C 132. This 1829 receipt of authority met the criteria outlined in point #1 above (75, 327).
    7. Despite the apostles’ claims, the necessary authority from Joseph could only be fully transmitted in a temple—since Joseph died before the temple was finished, it was impossible for them to receive everything God wanted them to receive (268, 272–276, 283).
    8. The Saints sinned in Missouri, and Joseph Smith had to offer God his life in order to get them another chance (98–101, 104, 285, 404).
    9. God commanded the Saints to build the Nauvoo temple, but warned them of dire punishment if they did not do so with enough speed or zeal. The Saints’ sufferings subsequent to Joseph’s death are evidence that God was punishing them for not building the temple quickly enough, as he had warned them he would (197, 202–206, 268–270).
    10. There were no divine, Pentecostal-type experiences in the Nauvoo temple as there were in the Kirtland temple. This demonstrates that God did not fully accept the temple because of the Saints’ delay in building it (381).

    Snuffer’s Conclusion: The apostles’ lack of full authority, and God’s displeasure with the Church subsequent to Joseph’s death, means that since Joseph the leaders have been misguided. They have introduced inappropriate innovations in practice or doctrine. Mormonism has lost some vital truths which members, independent of the institutional Church and its leadership, can reclaim if they are faithful.

    Undergirding everything is Snuffer’s claim to have seen Jesus Christ, and to therefore have his “calling and election made sure.” A large portion of his critique focuses on the supposed absence of this blessing among post-Joseph Smith leaders of the Church. Furthermore, Snuffer has portrayed himself as an expert on the topic in books and elsewhere:9

    The books I have written do not ever touch upon Calling and Election, nor discuss the Second Anointing. But they will tell you what is required to go and learn from the Lord about these things directly. If you want answers about that, then follow the same path as the ancients did, as Joseph Smith did, and as Abraham did. I’m only interested in helping you understand the path…. Most people who spend time writing about second anointings and calling and election don’t know what they’re talking about. The best treatment of that subject is something which ought to come from the Lord directly. Or an angel assigned by Him to minister to the person who has prepared.
    The challenge is preparation. I’m all about that. That is what I write to explain and what I encourage all to do.10

    These doctrines and the experiences that go with them are among the things that Snuffer sees the post-Joseph Smith Church as minimizing and rejecting, in part because of what Joseph could not pass on and in part because of the failings or inadequacy of subsequent leaders. Because Snuffer claims [Page 189]experience and expertise in a matter about which he says the modern leaders are either ignorant or inappropriately silent, this forms the implicit basis for his effort to steady the historical and ecclesiastical ark. “The culminating ordinances of Joseph Smith’s restoration… [is that w]e are to be prepared in all things to receive” direct revelation from God.11 “The real thing is when a person actually obtains an audience with Jesus Christ, returns to His presence, and gains the knowledge by which they are saved. This was the topic I first wrote about, and has remained the underlying theme of everything I have written” (53, italics added).

    In a sense, Snuffer is more right than he knows when he claims to be a lawyer, not a historian. He is also absolutely correct when he says that he has not provided us with history. What we have, rather than the unadulterated “truth” he claims to provide, is simply a type of legal brief. In this case, however, the lawyer does not address—or even mention—evidence that does not support his client’s case. And so, we must proceed to cross-examine his presentation.

    In my mind the difference between these two perspectives, which I’m just going to refer to as traditional vs Denver (non-traditional is too generic here, but I mean no disrespect), is starting to boil down to a few major points of departure. Maybe you guys could help me add to the list, without necessarily trying to prove each point one way or the other just yet. In other words, perhaps we can agree on where the two paradigms are actually incompatible. One upfront comment, too: it is difficult for me to differentiate sometimes where Denver is just expressing his opinion versus doctrine based on his revelatory experiences. Also, Log, I’m not sure what points in Denver’s paradigm you fully agree or disagree with. Here’s what I’ve got so far:

    1. Is the work of gathering members from within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints into The Church of the Firstborn the purview of the mortal Apostles/Prophets via second anointing, washing of feet, etc., possibly attended by heavenly manifestation, but kept very, very quiet (traditional view) OR that of heavenly beings, the Holy Ghost, angels, the Lord’s personal ministry (actually conversing with the Lord through the veil, etc.)?
    2. Is The Book of Mormon primarily addressed to the LDS, i.e. Gentiles = LDS, OR is it addressed to the world, or at least a much broader audience, i.e. Gentiles = non-Israel, including LDS/Israel? (We know it states that it is also addressed to the remnant of the Nephites/Lamanites and eventually to the Jews as well). This is an important one because many of the implications of Denver’s claims hinge on this interpretation. I’m endeavoring to study this one carefully since Denver and Daniel both agree on this.
    3. Are the ordinances, namely: baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, Priesthood ordination, washings/anointings, endowment, sealing, etc. the real thing but conditional on the covenants being fully kept and ratified (or sealed) by the Holy Spirit of Promise OR are they only “outward ordinances”, symbolic rituals, also tied to covenants, that point to the real thing which is administered by heaven? I may have garbled this one a bit, now that I read it. In fact, I’m having trouble seeing a real difference between the two because ratification by the Holy Spirit of Promise could be interpreted to be the same thing as “the real thing”. This might also be the same point as what I might term the difference between authority and power. Authority can be conferred here, but power “the real thing” comes from beyond the veil. It could be a bit of semantics. My current view, even in traditional terms, basically agrees with authority being the potential and power being the actual ability to channel divine power. Seed vs tree with fruit, sort of. Alma 32 degrees of faith/power. Faith being the primary activating principle of power in any case, whether prayer or invocation of priesthood.
    4. The current First Presidency and Twelve Apostles are literally and in every sense true, authorized, chosen (called and elected), and anointed prophets, seer, and revelators who use veiled language to bear special witness of the Lord because it is too sacred to divulge otherwise right now, and possessing all the keys of the priesthood that can be bestowed upon men, including the keys of the kingdom, the fulness of the priesthood, and sealing keys of Elijah (i.e. D&C 110 is true and literal) OR they are administrative custodians of the preparatory Gospel: Article of Faith 4; carrying out the mission to spread that Gospel via The Book of Mormon to the world, but limited by point #3? The historical basis for this is contained in many of Greg’s summary points of Denver’s claims (the Saints did not complete the Nauvoo Temple, so the fullness of the priesthood was withheld, Joseph and Hyrum took it with them when they were martyred/murdered, etc).

    If we don’t want to focus, I think our discussion is at an end. We’ve all said a lot of things, covered a lot of ground, but we’ve also spread ourselves pretty thin sometimes by being too broad. I don’t know. I’m pursuing these things on my own, in any case.

  223. Geoff,

    Pertaining to Smith’s review of PtHG, it’s probably fair to assume that unless Smith is actually quoting PtHG, he’s not addressing a claim which can be found in the book. I took specific issue with what Smith claims as point #10 in the comments to that review simply as a representative of that practice of Smith, and I have run out of steam to continue the debate.

    Believe it or not, I really, really don’t like contention, and would rather be doing other things.

    The well-poisoning reference was not aimed at Smith, even if I feel Smith has engaged in it as well.

    1. I take the latter view. The former directly implies only GAs and their associates are exalted. That’s not the message I get from the scriptures.

    2. The Book of Mormon is “written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile.” The groups mentioned have distinct identities. The Gentiles are profitably read as referring to us (D&C 109:60), and, indeed, the book becomes very sharp indeed with that identification. However, as I read the book, it seems to me that it is primarily addressed to the Lamanites. A group conspicuously not mentioned in the statement of purpose is the heathen.

    3. I have to agree that the two positions you mention are the same thing, and I pretty much hold to that position. However, I would characterize the traditional position as being the ordinances are the real thing, and if you have authoritatively received the outward ordinances (been authoritatively dunked, had authoritative hands laid on your head, etc.) you have received everything there is: the symbol is the reality.

    4. The distinction I would draw is this. An apostolic eyewitness of the resurrection needs to have been physically ordained by Christ Himself, according to the charge first delivered to the apostles in this dispensation – this completes their ordination to the Holy Apostleship to which they have been called. If they have not received that ordination by Christ, they’re still apostles by virtue of their calling and ordination by men; they just are not eyewitnesses of the resurrection according to the charge. As to whether any particular person has completed their ordination, unless they say they have, it is my take that there is no reason to believe they have, barring direct revelation. When there is no claim made, that we should believe it, why then should we believe it?

    What makes a man a prophet? The possession of the spirit of prophecy, or the testimony of Jesus Christ. We learn from Moses 6 that the baptism by fire and the Holy Ghost is the record of the Father and the Son, wherein a man is quickened, or born again. President Lee said some of the apostles may have been born again (thanks to Greg Smith for bringing that gem to my attention). It seems therefore that having been baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost is the minimum qualifying experience which makes men prophets, as the Church uses the term “prophet” today. Indeed, the Comforter received thereby enables men to prophesy as seemeth the Lord good (D&C 42:16).

    Like the apostles, there is an experience which makes a man a true prophet – such an one has stood in the divine council, and been acclaimed a Son of God by God in the presence of the council. See, again, this wonderful paper on the subject.

    And, like the apostles, if a man doesn’t claim to have been in the presence of the Father and the Son, and if God doesn’t tell me that about that man, I have no reason to suppose him to be a true prophet. Indeed, scripturally speaking, a man who has only been born again is more properly termed a saint (that’s what the word means in the scriptures).

    D&C 110, taken literally, does not bear the weight the Church has placed on it. Nevertheless, the temple ordinances are authoritative in the same way baptism is authoritative.

    I have been searching to discover what “the fulness of the priesthood” is; the phrase is undefined in scripture, as is “the fulness of the gospel”. In one context, as evidenced by Greg Smith’s review, part 2, “the fullness of the priesthood” is to have received the second anointing as administered by the Church. I’m not sure that is what was meant in D&C 124.

    I think the fullness of the gospel is to stand in the divine council and to be acclaimed a Son of God before the heavenly hosts, and the fullness of the priesthood is the power that whatsoever ye ask it is done.

    And you have had a taste of that power already (D&C 50:29-30).

    1. It is in the context of Psalm 82, which I would translate as follows (Hamblin wasn’t entirely consistent):

      1 The Gods (????? ?l?hîm) have taken their place in the council (??? ??dat) of God (?? ?el); in the midst of the Gods (????? ?l?hîm) He holds judgment. . . . 6 I [God] said, “You [of the divine council/??dat] are Gods (????? ?l?hîm), Sons of the Most High (??? ????? benê ?elyôn), all of you.”

      that I would understand Jesus’s sayings here. I’m quoting the Revised Standard Version.

      Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

      God called them Gods to whom the word – logos – of God came. The logos of God is Jesus Himself, as we learn from John 1.

      Those to whom Jesus comes are called Gods, even Sons of the Most High, by God; this takes place in the heavenly temple, the divine council. Hence, John 14 and the Second Comforter.

  224. Just wanted to share the link to Daniel Rodger’s personnel testimony and witness of the Second Comforter which can be found at
    http://thesecondcomforter.com
    He has followed the process outlined in Denver’s book, The Second Comforter. I know what Daniel shares here is true. He has experienced what he shares.

    1. I also believe Daniel’s testimony and am so thankful he followed the Lord’s prompting to answer when I asked if there were any other witnesses besides Denver to the process outlined in The Second Comforter: Conversing With the Lord Through the Veil (TSC), which is simply the doctrine of Christ from the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 31-32). Daniel’s testimony changed my heart and helped me cast off a lot of my unbelief. I am also very grateful to Frederick for being a third witness to me.

      I have experienced many of the fruits of the path of instruction leading up to the veil since choosing to truly believe and follow the doctrine of Christ in fulfillment of His promises. I encourage everyone to believe in Christ unto repentance, and to ask, seek, and knock, as you follow the Light of Christ and the Holy Spirit back into His presence. He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. Read the Book of Mormon, the Lectures on Faith, and TSC again with as open, believing, and as child-like (to the Lord) a faith as you possibly can. Cast off your unbelief and deny yourself of all ungodliness, Moroni 10:32-33, D&C 93:1. Trust the Lord and act on the feelings and subjective experiences and signs He gives you. As the Prophet Joseph put it, grow into the principle of revelation, by noticing and acting on the intelligence He gives you, and He will give you more and more, until you reach Him.

      I’m not there yet, but there have been many undeniable fruits and signs following my renewed faith in Him and His doctrine, which, to quote Nephi, is “the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is fone God, without end. Amen.”

    2. I have shared this on Dan’ site http://thesecondcomforter.com but also feel it appropriate to share my comment here as well.
      ******************
      Dear Reader,
      I feel the need to add my testimony here that I know the things Dan has shared are true. I have heard him relate these things in person numerous times and have felt the Holy Ghost confirm the truthfulness and significance of his experiences time and time again.
      I also have had too many spiritual experiences and blessings poured out upon me and my family since embarking on this journey of receiving Christ to turn back and doubt the truthfulness of what Dan has shared here.

      I know the heavens are not sealed. Angels have been present in my own life as I strive to seek my Lord . Dan’s account is a witness to what the Prophet Joseph Smith shared here: “For where faith is, there will the knowledge of God be, also, with all things which pertain thereto: revelations, visions, and dreams, as well as every other necessary thing, so the possessors of faith may be perfected and obtain salvation”. (7th lecture on faith)
      I know that our Savior continues to minister to His saints today just like in ancient times. His promise that He will come to us is real. God is no respector or persons.
      ” And he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female..”
      2 Nephi 26:33

      I know without any doubt that the Savior did come to Dan just like he promised he would in the scriptures::
      “Wherefore, I now send upon you another Comforter, even upon you my friends, that it may abide in your hearts, even the Holy Spirit of promise; which other Comforter is the same that I promised unto my disciples, as is recorded in the testimony of John.
      This Comforter is the promise which I give unto you of eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom”. D&C 88:3
      Dan was commanded to share these thing with us. It is up to each person is to find out from the Lord what it is he or she is to learn from Dan’s account and witness to help them on their journey to getting to know their Lord face to face.

      As a church we are under condemnation. We have strayed from the faith the Lord was trying to restore through the prophet Joseph Smith. Gentiles in the Book of Mormon are referring to us the latter day saints. Unfortunately all is not well in Zion. We need to repent and turn unto the Lord. Relying solely upon others including leaders for our salvation will not save us. “Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm”. 2 Nephi 4:34
      We need to each seek our connection to Heaven because “the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there..” 2 Nephi 9:41

      I’m very grateful that Dan felt to share his witness and for the gift I’ve had to believe.”To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful”. D&C46:14 His testimony has strengthened my faith tremendously.” Our Savior and Father live! Glory be unto them forever and ever.

      Reply

  225. Daniel, without going into any spiritual witnesses of my own, just on an intellectual level there appears to be a several red flags / discrepancies. Let me describe one.

    1) You mention that you were “carried away” into the Heavenly Temple. Likewise on LDS Freedom Forum last month on Wed Sept 4, 2013 you wrote, “I read his [Denver’s] book and after a prayer I found myself, whether in the body or out of the body I could not tell, carried away, escorted by an Angel into the throne room where I saw Christ and His Father speak unspeakable words.” (http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=22678&start=360)

    2) In the scriptures, “carried away” as it relates to heavenly messengers or visions is almost always more fully described as “carried away in spirit” (1 Nephi 14:30, 1 Nephi 11:29) or a very similar variation. John in the book of Revelation describes it as “carried away in the spirit” (Rev 17:3, Rev 21:10). In Lehi’s case we see this described as “carried away in vision” – 1 Nephi 1:8 “And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God.”. But perhaps one of the better descriptions to help us understand what is meant by the phrase is from King Lamoni in Alma 19:6 when it tells us that “the light which did light up his mind…had overcome his natural frame, and he was carried away in God”. Or in other words, although having his natural frame overcome his physical body remained were it was in this physical world, yet in Lamoni’s mind he was being filled with light “carried away in God” or in other words carried away in vision or carried away in the spirit. All these descriptions help us better understand why Paul describes his experience in 2 Corinthians 12 as not knowing whether he was still in the body or out of the body, because these experiences take place in spirit or in vision. Like Nephi being carried away by the spirit unto a high mountain, or Lehi being carried away in vision to witness heaven and God upon his throne, so also Paul describes his experience as being “caught up into paradise” (2 Cor 12:4), and in this state of the spirit it made it so he could not tell whether he was still in or out of the body during the experience.

    The first sentence of your witness here and your testimony from LDSFF are very consistent with scripture thus far. So we are to understand you were carried away in vision, and by your own admission you “could not tell” whether you were “in the body or out of the body”.

    3) But then you proceed to tell us that you “shook the hand of the angel that was my guide”, likewise at the link just provided at your site thesecondcomforter you say “I was carried away into the heavenly temple” and then “I shook the hand of the angel that was my guide” alluding to the keys or knowledge revealed in D&C 129. And if this was not clear enough, in your private email to me (since it was sent in private I will not specify the details you provided) it was made clear in contrast to your other experiences that you meant the handshake with this angel was indeed a physical handshake as per the instructions of Joseph. D&C 129 opens by differentiating between angels that have resurrected bodies of flesh and bone and spirits of just men made perfect who are not yet resurrected as the premise for why a person can feel one (because they have a body) and not the other (only a spirit).

    How is it that when you were “carried away” in vision or in spirit, in this state that you could physically shake the hand of the angel of flesh and bone? And even if it were possible, which I do not find consistent with scripture nor my personal experience, how at this point would you not know whether you were “in the body or out of the body”?

      1. I don’t think so, I used your several testimonies to try and build as cohesive a story as I could make it, and yet there remained discrepancies. This has nothing to do with my spiritual witness on the matter, which I no longer feel the need to discuss, but this is merely a point of getting the intellectual evidence/story straight. My questions are honest and I believe fair. Maybe you can point out where specifically I have mischaracterized your witness.

    1. Trying to find erros by “intellectualism”. By the “facts of the story”. Shaking hands? Have you ever even done that? By what it “means” to be carried away in the spirit? Have you ever done that? Perhaps your insecurities come from your own lack of experiences?

      Intellectually Joseph could not have seen the face of God and lived without the priesthood at age 14.

      D&C 84:21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

      22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.

      How many more arguments could I make against jospeh,who was and is a prophet of God? Yet I know he did see the the Father and live! He conversed with them as one man does with another we all can have that same promise in our lives! The reason we don’t is because of unbelief.

      Why are you attacking him? Do you attack anyone who does not disagree with denver? Would you have tried to find something wrong with anothers testimony if they disliked denver? Or must that testimony only come from the apostles and prophets (15) for you to believe?

      1. You do not know what I’ve experienced, and as commanded I do not share the large portion of what I have. Therefore it is impossible for you to judge on that basis, and your allusions to my experiences or perceived lack thereof are based in ignorance. I shared my spiritual witness about this matter long before I brought up this single point of intellectual discrepancy (of which there are more), so this has hardly been merely an intellectual pursuit.

        Why is it that so many people feel justified in questioning me, but it seems to cause an uproar if I ask any questions to Daniel? I think the discrepancy that I have pointed out is legitimate and worthy of an answer. If there is a good answer to the question, which there may be, then why is it a sin to ask for clarification?

        Daniel has claimed that he was “carried away” and didn’t know whether he was “in or out of the body”. Yet he claimed to shake the hand of the Angel, alluding to D&C 129 (and he explicitly referred to this in his private email to me in regards to this same handshake), which the section opening when taken at face value suggests that the reason you can feel the handshake is because resurrected angels have flesh and bones, whereas spirits do not (which means righteous spirits won’t offer their hand so as not to deceive you, and you will not feel anything when wicked spirits offer their hand back to you), meaning this would be a physical flesh and bones experience. If it was a flesh and bones experience, how would Daniel then not know whether he was “in or out of the body”?

        If I was in a conversation with any person, including Joseph Smith, and they had gone so far as to share these details with me, and I saw such a discrepancy or perceived discrepancy, I wouldn’t mind asking for clarification just as I am now.

      2. I never said I knew. I am questioning you because you are trying to discredit him based off the facts. Here is what you said earlier,

        SteveF, on October 22, 2013 at 5:00 pm said:
        As I’m sure you are aware, revelation is not dependent on evidence or logic. Additionally, a person’s testimony/witness could be completely compatible with revealed truth, and yet it would not make it necessarily true.

        First revelation is NOT dependent on evidence or logic. YES!

        Next you say, So EVEN if it is compatible with revealed truth, ti could be false. So why even try to make it compatible with revealed truth? Either way it could be false or still true. Your endeavor is pointless… And ITS pointless based off intellectualism reasoning.

        Forget the missionary discussions? I don’t think I ever had an intellectual join the church, they found too many things wrong with what jospeh said or the book of mormon said.

        I mean how do you know Joseph was not deceived at age 14?

        Moroni 7:17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

        18 And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.

        19 Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.”

        To me his testimony leads me to seek Christ. To find Christ and to know him myself.

        1. “To me his testimony leads me to seek Christ. To find Christ and to know him myself.”

          I allow you your beliefs in the matter, so I hope you’ll allow me mine. I have explained why I believe my question is legitimate, and I think Daniel is more than capable of responding for himself if he wants to provide clarification.

  226. I want to know what the intellectual justification for “you cannot shake the hand of an angel when you are caught up in a visionary experience” is. That position seems to go way beyond any written source I’m aware of; would you care to enlighten the audience as to whence you get it from?

    The straw man being referred to is that Daniel has not said he was in the heavenly temple only in spirit; he has only said as he experienced it, he couldn’t tell if he was there in spirit, or physically. If he shook an angel’s hand, that would seem to imply he was not merely there in spirit.

    1. “If I was in a conversation with any person, including Joseph Smith, and they had gone so far as to share these details with me, and I saw such a discrepancy or perceived discrepancy, I wouldn’t mind asking for clarification just as I am now.”

      And if you had told Joseph beforehand that you believed he was either lying, deluded, insane, or wicked, I could understand why he might not be forthcoming with additional details.

      If you do not accuse each other, God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven, and if you will follow the revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I will take you into heaven as my back load. If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you. If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours—for charity covereth a multitude of sins.

      History of the Church, 4:445.

    2. SteveF I haven’t answered you directly because I believe you are just looking for a fight. I feel like this has become a distraction. The main point is that the Lord still works among men. I have not set out the complete experience in detail nor have I set out every experience.

      I spoke when a second witness was asked for. The only purpose in me speaking was to say that the Lord visits men. Angels visit men. Visions can be had by the least of us. The purpose is to increase faith in Christ.

      What log said below was right. The whole thing was just so surreal that I didn’t know what was going on, but when I felt the hand I assumed that it was physical (or at least I took it as an indication). Even still it was otherworldly. I have wondered if I was out of my body and in spirit does that mean I could feel something that was also spirit? Or does that mean I was in the body and the angel was too? I don’t know the answer because I couldn’t tell the difference at the time.

      My mind was and is more focused on other aspects. I do not believe there is an adequate vocabulary to describe these things. Or at least I do not have it.

      Overall, I have to give you thanks. Your responses have brought a blessing into my life that means a lot to me. I do not believe you intended it, but the opportunity to testify openly and publicly despite criticism opened a door to a long awaited blessing.

      In the end though, I do not need you to believe me. Christ is the only one worthy of belief.

      1. You are free to believe what you want, but what right do you have to condemn me over that which you are also guilty? My words are honest and sincere.

      2. I don’t condemn you. You publicly accuse, unlike those you have accused; that is a statement of fact, which can be illustrated by reading this thread, independent of any words of mine.

        Demonstrating the spirit of the accuser is a red flag to me. There is nothing else to say.

        1. Then I suppose you are your own biggest red flag. You might consider casting the beam out of your own eye.

          When I sought for clarification in how I might have gone about this wrong, and admitted that maybe I did go about it wrong, I provided a hypothetical situation. You accused me of many things, yet you never did give a model for the appropriate way the hypothetical scenario should be handled. Maybe you would like to do so now? I said:

          So let me ask an open question. Let’s assume that there is a false prophet or a false teacher that comes into the flock falsely proclaiming to have seen Christ. An individual then discerns by revelation that the claims are indeed false, and that the false witness and words of the false teacher are going to deceive, persuade, and potentially bring spiritual harm to others.

          Given this scenario, is the person allowed to tell other members of the flock, those whom the false teacher has give a false testimony to, of their revelation in an attempt to help or warn those people? Or is he required to sit idly by and not warn those people, never revealing what God has told him? Or is there some other option that is the right course of action?

          If you’d really like to help me, please answer those specific questions, and provide a model for that specific scenario. Otherwise, please stop accusing me of committing the sins for which you are also guilty. I have tried to reconsider how I’ve gone about this whole thing, and I have certainly not accused Daniel of anything in the questions I asked today.
          .

      3. I answered you specifically. What would it profit you for me to repeat myself verbatim?

        [a href=”https://www.latterdaycommentary.com/2013/09/23/arguments-against-denver-snuffer/#comment-11212″>Read it again. Grok it. Apply it.

        And don’t bother to accuse me of accusing you. I simply point out that you have publicly, and falsely, accused me, and you have publicly accused others, and the proof is in this very thread. That’s not an accusation – that’s a fact.

  227. “I have tried to reconsider how I’ve gone about this whole thing, and I have certainly not accused Daniel of anything in the questions I asked today.”

    Except inconsistency, right?

    I don’t think so, I used your several testimonies to try and build as cohesive a story as I could make it, and yet there remained discrepancies

    I guess technically that wasn’t “in the questions.” My bad.

  228. Hi folks! I am somewhat confused, so I ask you some questions so I can understand, not to point fingers.

    Daniel, in your testimony you state you are an active member of the LDS church. You also state the church is the Gentiles Christ was warning. You also ask people to read the Book of Mormon, Lectures on Faith, and TSC.

    So does it matter to be a member of the LDS church? What are the false traditions that we need to remove from our beliefs? Are you suggesting that conference talks are not necessary to pay attention to?

    Geoff, you are a sitting Bishop in the LDS church. Are there some issues with your new belief compared to your previous belief and the position you hold?

    I still see a wide gulf between Steve F and the protectors of Denver. In my black and white view, it would seem someone is not correct. Log, is there another way to view this gulf?

    Best regards to all.

    1. Rick, I wrote this up and as I re-read it I realized that I was responding not only to you, but to others – so please don’t take this personally.

      ————

      I don’t think I asked people to read TSC. I did state how it benefited me when I read it.

      I don’t think I’ve said anything about conference. I have watched and continue to watch every hour of it. I have done so for years… decades even. I have attended a same day viewing of priesthood session since I was 12 without missing a single one. Even on my mission I was lucky enough to be in areas to watch conference during my 2 years.

      I don’t think I have acted as a protector of Denver. What I have tried to do was bear testimony that Christ works with men by relating my experiences. I have stated my belief that we should focus on our own connection with heaven.

      I suggest this as a possibility. Maybe one false belief is this idea that it is all or nothing? Hugh Nibley gave a talk about that… I wish I had a quote for ya… it was in Approaching Zion. The idea was basically that satan loves the 2 choice option. He gives you two choices, both of them with a flaw, and then doesn’t care which one you choose. Crap covered chocolate or chocolate covered crap. In this case I’d suggest that the “all is well” is one choice, and the other is the “all is wrong” or “why bother with it at all?”.

      If you want more, then read the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants and don’t skip over the things that call us to repentance. I mean the Lord surely did say the Church was true and living. But didn’t He also say it was condemned? Did Nephi warn against those that say “All is well in Zion?” (He was using the term we use for ourselves, the rest of that chapter he calls us gentiles.) Wasn’t there something in Helaman about which sorts of prophets people accept and which we reject?

      You gain more from a “voice of warning” if you assuming that everything warned about is for you than you do if you assume everything warned about is for someone else.

      Is God a changing God? Is He a respecter of persons? Does He deal differently with men today than He has with others in the past? If men became Sons by knowing Christ then wouldn’t we have to do the same? If He does the same, then wouldn’t they declare it openly like those in the past did? What exactly is the method that faith is brought into the world? (See Moroni 7 and LoF)

      John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

      The scriptures make it clear that this is a literal knowing. It is not enough to know “about” god. You must know Him. If Moses spoke to God face to face, then so must you. The Israelites were cursed because they sent a prophet to talk to God and didn’t go up themselves. Do you think you can avoid that cursing if you rely on another to talk to God and refuse to go up yourself?

      1. Michael A. Cleverly

        This is the Nibley quote in Approaching Zion (conclusion of chapter 4) you were looking for:

        Satan’s masterpiece of counterfeiting is the doctrine that there are only two choices, and he will show us what they are. It is true that there are only two ways, but by pointing us the way he wants us to take and then showing us a fork in that road, he convinces us that we are making the vital choice, when actually we are choosing between branches in his road. Which one we take makes little difference to him, for both lead to destruction.

        1. Yes, that was the quote. Thanks so much!

          You can start noticing this technique being used all over the place once you are aware of it. In fact, it has gotten to the point where I really get suspicious of any matter that appears to only have two options discussed. I take that as a sign that I need to be looking up for the answer.

          The absolutely worst case church scenario that I can think of in the scriptures is the example of the apostles after Christ was crucified. In this absolutely worst case there was a people so far removed from God that they killed Him. Yet, you still find the apostles worshiping in the temple after Christ’s Crucifixion.

          Off the top of my head I cannot think of one example of a person connected to heaven that willing leaves the Lord’s chosen people. Every time that I can think of someone leaving, they have been cast out first. Lehi was cast out, Alma was cast out, etc. I could be wrong, but it just doesn’t seem like the Lord wants people to willingly leave the foundations he has set, no matter what state those foundations are in.

          Now, these are the worst case scenarios. And if it is inappropriate to do this in the worst of scenarios, then how much more inappropriate would it be to limit fellowship with the saints in our situation? The Gentiles in the Book of Mormon have grand and glorious promises given to them. Why would I want to remove myself from those promises?

          That is how I see it anyway. I just read Geoff post and he said things better than I have. 🙂

      2. Amen! Very well put, and I think you’ve said it better than I could, by asking questions which cause us to reflect and reconsider. You helped me put my finger on something about this whole discussion which has bothered but eluded me. Thanks, Daniel.

        And that is that Satan loves to stir up the hearts of men to contend with anger one against another, and he doesn’t care how, over what (could be a great Gospel subject even), or when it happens! He has done so on this forum with this very forked-tongue, all or nothing method. It’s either “all true” or “all false”, Denver is either a prophet or an apostate, we’re either Gentiles or House of Israel, the Church is Zion or it’s in apostasy, the 15 Apostles are either just like Joseph Smith in every respect or they are pretenders, etc. & etc. It is rarely all or nothing, but it works so well to polarize people into opposing one another, doesn’t it?

        I’m sure he’s laughing when we start to accuse each other and argue over semantics too. Sleight of hand, distraction, and diversion are some of his other favorite tactics. Anything he can do to persuade us to reject or disobey truth and dim our light.

      3. Thanks Daniel for your reply. I agree that the Book of Mormon opens up a whole new or set of levels when you start reading it as if it pertains to you personally.

        I suspect most LDS are not reading or pondering it very well.

  229. So does it matter to be a member of the LDS church? What are the false traditions that we need to remove from our beliefs? Are you suggesting that conference talks are not necessary to pay attention to?

    This question is, of course, a trap, and one I have seen used many times. To give any substantive answer to this question nets an accusation of apostasy by reference to this:

    “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. – Joseph Smith

    Therefore, no matter what flaws or faults the Church may actually possess, no matter if obviously false and pernicious teachings are promulgated therein, to claim to see any flaws or faults is to be an apostate, as Joseph is interpreted by many.

    (Remember the Emperor’s New Clothes?)

    I still see a wide gulf between Steve F and the protectors of Denver. In my black and white view, it would seem someone is not correct. Log, is there another way to view this gulf?

    Yes, actually, there is.

    James 1:5
    5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

    You could pray to God and get an answer as to how to view it, without prejudging the issue one way or another.

  230. Here’s an irony, to me, in such things.

    If one possesses the Holy Ghost, one needs no man to teach one.

    John 14:26
    26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

    1 John 2:20, 27
    20 But ye have an unction [anointing] from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

    27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

    The anointing of God is, of course, the Holy Ghost.

    Acts 10:38
    38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

    And if we receive the Holy Ghost, we receive it just like Jesus did.

    2 Nephi 31:12-13
    12 And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.

    13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.

    And how much of the Spirit did Jesus receive?

    JST John 3:34
    34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth him not the Spirit by measure, for he dwelleth in him, even the fulness.

    And this is one of the first principles of the gospel.

    Doctrine and Covenants 39:6
    6 And this is my gospel—repentance and baptism by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, even the Comforter, which showeth all things, and teacheth the peaceable things of the kingdom.

    Does a man who has the Holy Ghost need conference talks?

    If a man needs conference talks, does he have the Holy Ghost?

    Who needs men to teach them?

    2 Nephi 9:48
    48 Behold, if ye were holy I would speak unto you of holiness; but as ye are not holy, and ye look upon me as a teacher, it must needs be expedient that I teach you the consequences of sin.

  231. I’m trying to understand, not laying traps. So I assume, since I can’t seem to get straight answers. If Daniel and you say there are false and pernicious teachings in the church, and false traditions, I would just like to know what you believe they are? And if the church is therefore in a state of apostasy, why does it matter to be a member?

    And so, the leaders are also in this state?

    That is also why I ask Geoff about his situation since he is a leader in the church.

  232. I think, Rick, that such things are not Daniel’s concerns. I’ve seen nothing out of him which criticizes the Church nor the leadership. These topics don’t seem to concern him.

    And my hypothetical statement concerning the potential existence of false and pernicious teachings in the Church is just that – a hypothetical.

    Bluntly speaking, however, if there weren’t false and pernicious teachings in the Church, would we not be a kingdom of priests and prophets? Would we not be holy, all of us? Would we not dwell in Zion, with the Lord among us bodily? Would claims to being visited of the Son, and entering into the divine temple, be greeted with skepticism, accusation, and envy, if we were right with God?

    Lastly, even though the Church has demonstrably, obviously, and incontrovertibly left the path that leads to Zion and the presence of God, it matters whether one is a member, for the keys of the kingdom rest with the Church; only we can baptize authoritatively. This authority is ours until the Lord descends out of heaven.

    3 Nephi 11:33-34
    33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

    34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

    3 Nephi 27:20
    20 Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day.

    And we are commanded to congregate, to edify and teach one another and lift each other up.

    Doctrine and Covenants 59:9
    9 And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day;

    Alma 6:5-6
    5 Now I would that ye should understand that the word of God was liberal unto all, that none were deprived of the privilege of assembling themselves together to hear the word of God.

    6 Nevertheless the children of God were commanded that they should gather themselves together oft, and join in fasting and mighty prayer in behalf of the welfare of the souls of those who knew not God.

    Mosiah 18:8-11
    8 And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;

    9 Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life—

    10 Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?

    That’s why it matters.

  233. To substantiate what I anticipate will be the single contested point: “the Church has demonstrably, obviously, and incontrovertibly left the path that leads to Zion and the presence of God,” I offer the Book of Mormon, and the Doctrine and Covenants.

    3 Nephi 21:23 And they [as many of the Gentiles as shall repent] shall assist my people, the remnant of Jacob, and also as many of the house of Israel as shall come, that they may build a city, which shall be called the New Jerusalem.

    And we, of course, are numbered among the Gentiles.

    D&C 109:60 Now these words, O Lord, we have spoken before thee, concerning the revelations and commandments which thou hast given unto us, who are identified with the Gentiles.

    Zion, therefore, will not be a production of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but will instead be a production of the remnant of Lehi’s seed, to whom the Americas have been given as their inheritance by Jesus himself (3 Nephi 15:13, 16:16, 20:14), assisted by as many of the Gentiles who, through repentance, are holy and can abide the presence of the Lord.

    We had our shot at Zion at Nauvoo. We liked Babylon better.

    D&C 112
    24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.

    25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;

    26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

    The consumption of the wicked begins with the Church at the coming of the Lord.

    Hence, this.

    JST Matthew 21
    50 And now his disciples came to him, and Jesus said unto them, Marvel ye at the words of the parable which I spake unto them?

    51 Verily, I say unto you, I am the stone, and those wicked ones reject me.

    52 I am the head of the corner. These Jews shall fall upon me, and shall be broken.

    53 And the kingdom of God shall be taken from them, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof; (meaning the Gentiles.)

    54 Wherefore, on whomsoever this stone shall fall, it shall grind him to powder.

    55 And when the Lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, he will destroy those miserable, wicked men, and will let again his vineyard unto other husbandmen, even in the last days, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

    56 And then understood they the parable which he spake unto them, that the Gentiles should be destroyed also, when the Lord should descend out of heaven to reign in his vineyard, which is the earth and the inhabitants thereof.

  234. And, lastly, this wouldn’t be the first time a people has labored under the knowledge of their future destruction.

    1 Nephi 15:4-5
    4 And now I, Nephi, was grieved because of the hardness of their hearts, and also, because of the things which I had seen, and knew they must unavoidably come to pass because of the great wickedness of the children of men.

    5 And it came to pass that I was overcome because of my afflictions, for I considered that mine afflictions were great above all, because of the destruction of my people, for I had beheld their fall.

    And that’s before they even got to Bountiful.

    See also Alma 45, and this.

    Helaman 13
    5 And he said unto them: Behold, I, Samuel, a Lamanite, do speak the words of the Lord which he doth put into my heart; and behold he hath put it into my heart to say unto this people that the sword of justice hangeth over this people; and four hundred years pass not away save the sword of justice falleth upon this people.

    6 Yea, heavy destruction awaiteth this people, and it surely cometh unto this people, and nothing can save this people save it be repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ, who surely shall come into the world, and shall suffer many things and shall be slain for his people.

    So, since we are beforehand apprised of our impending doom, ought we not repent, receive the Holy Ghost, and be made holy, that we may abide the day of the coming of the Lord? Or shall we in the pride of our hearts and the blindness of our minds reject the warning and persist in our sins, that we perish like unto the Nephites?

  235. Rick, I will chime in here but it certainly won’t cover everything I think or believe, nor do I expect you or anyone to agree with my point of view.

    Yes, I am a sitting bishop, for the rest of this week at least. I am being honorably released this Sunday after 5 years of service. I live in Arizona, in what Elder Neil Anderson called the most densely populated LDS community outside of Utah/Idaho. So a “minimum” term of service here makes a lot of sense, to give as many brethren the opportunity of bearing this heavy burden, and receiving the attendant potential blessings, learning, and growth, as possible. I am very excited to be released, as is my family. My kids are still quite young: 11, 10, 4 & 4. I normally wouldn’t say anything about this, but on a blog it is so easy to make assumptions about the people you’re typing with but don’t really know – so I’m only saying this to communicate that I’m not being kicked out for any reason. My stake president and I are good friends, I fully sustain him, and we see eye to eye on shorter terms of service in areas like ours. The Lord has confirmed it to him as the presiding officer as well.

    I should briefly note that I strongly believe that position in the church does not define a person’s worth/value to the Lord and should not define a person’s self-worth either. This is a huge problem in the church today, which I have experienced and observed firsthand, especially among the male population. They look at church position and hierarchy like rank and reward (much like the military and the corporate world). What a mistake! Aspiring to positions of authority is spiritual folly. Such men end up being administrators and not ministers and their pride precludes them from true progression and revelation, and exposes them to the dangers of unrighteous dominion. I know this because I was guilty of it for a long time. At some point along my traditional church journey, probably starting on my mission (which is very rank-oriented, almost like the military, everyone would admit), I adopted the false belief that in order to make my calling and election sure and part the veil, I had to receive the second anointing and washing of feet which means I had to rise through the ranks and become a high leader, like a stake president or above – I think at the time of my mission I actually thought it was Apostle. Keep in mind, this was my primary reason/motivation for aspiring. Now I’m not accusing everyone else of this type of false belief and aspiration. In fact, most of the brethren I observe who seem guilty of this also do not even seem to be aware of or motivated by making their calling and election sure, etc. They just attach value and self-worth to rank and authority. Anyway, I don’t have time to expound further on this subject, but suffice it to say it is a fairly common problem and for me, personally, I learned it to be utterly false and spiritually weakening. Serving as a bishop was both a blessing and a consignment for me, personally, because it helped cure me of this type of hypocrisy and aspiration. Please don’t misjudge me for my confession here – I was also motivated by all the right things: love of God and fellow men, a desire to serve them both and do good, to help and lift and heal, to become more Christlike, etc. The falseness I’m describing was a mixture, an undercurrent that was tainting and really inhibiting me from truly coming unto the Lord and being in tune with Him.

    With that said, here is what I believe, and in some cases know to be true. And before I start, I think we really should distinguish better in our language and expressions between what we “believe” to be true and what we “know” to be true. We also should be more careful in our assumptions or current understanding of what things mean. We use a lot of words, often even the same words, and don’t mean the same thing. There are levels of desire, belief, faith, and knowledge, according to my reading of Alma 32. Being taught by the voice of the Lord or an Angel or the Son or the Father, in person, is “more sure” than interpreting our feelings. This is a key.

    I know, by the power of the Holy Ghost and the literal voice of God which I heard at the time of my baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, that:
    1. The Book of Mormon is true, the word of God.
    2. Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God.
    3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s true church.
    By this, and the very answer I received, I know that God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are real and love us and me personally. By “true”, in the above statements, I should clarify that truth is light/good, things as they really were, are, and to be. It doesn’t mean perfect. The Book of Mormon isn’t perfect – not the original gold plates – not Joseph’s translation – and not the version we have now where the grammar and lots of corrections have been made over time. Same with Joseph – he wasn’t perfect – he made mistakes and readily admitted such. The 116 pages incident is a great example. Joseph’s honesty about his imperfection is authentic for a true prophet. The Church is also not perfect, not its highest leaders nor its lowliest members. And we are obviously not living in Zion yet, so we are missing a lot of things. These are not criticisms, these are true realities, these are observable facts, over which we should not be debating. “But the Church is true!” Yes, but it is not yet complete or perfect or prepared to receive the Bridegroom. We have a mixture of wheat and tares, wise and foolish virgins, and all is not well. I believe the Lord, in His marvelous work and a wonder, is going to fix that. I’m not privy to exactly how He will accomplish this.

    I also know, by extension, that the doctrine of Christ as taught in 2 Nephi 31-32 is true, and many of us Latter-day Saints are stopping short of the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, much less what we are supposed to do afterwards as described in 31:18-21 and chapter 32. This is an observable fact to me, and I have had one of the best vantage points over the past 5 years serving as a bishop. Too many of us living beneath our potential and privileges, if we would only exercise real faith.

    I also still believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not The Church of the Firstborn. It is the kingdom of God on the earth, but not the kingdom of heaven. I believe it is the net through which the Lord is gathering as many of His elect as possible, here in mortality, to prepare those who will for being gathered into The Church of the Firstborn, the kingdom of heaven. We must receive all the authorized ordinances and keep the covenants to even be eligible, but then we must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, etc. I believe this second gathering, from primarily within the earthly church, is accomplished by following the Light of Christ, the words of Christ, and the Holy Ghost back into His presence. I believe this is the ministry of angels and of the Lord Himself. I believe the Temple experience is meant to be symbolic of each of our lives, not just the grand/collective scheme. I do not think that being brought to the actual heavenly veil (of which the veil in the Temple is a symbol), conversing with the Lord through the veil, or passing through the veil into His presence are the work of men. I truly believe they are the work of the Holy Spirit, heavenly Angels, the voice of the Lord, and the Son of God Himself. Now that I look back and look deep down – this is what He was trying to teach me the whole time – it has nothing to do with rank or position or even men. But, as I said, it is essential that we receive all the earthly ordinances through His authorized agents and organization. That is the Church. That is the foundation, but that is not the House which we have to build by following the Lord’s instructions. This process also involves actually becoming like Christ, growing from grace to grace in every virtue of godliness, repenting of all our sins, overcoming weaknesses through faith and heed and diligence. We have to keep His commandments as delivered primarily through His Spirit.

    Do we need to listen to and follow our church leaders? Yes. But we are free to let the Spirit show us how to apply their counsel and to evaluate if it is inspired – because leaders are not perfect and they sometimes make mistakes and even ask for what they shouldn’t. This is the key. It is not blind obedience. Sustain does not mean unequivocally agree with or obey, it means support and help. We are still free to choose. Now if we don’t have the Spirit, we’re in trouble, because even if we are blindly obedient we are still following men and trusting in the arm of flesh.

    I have not been taught personally from on high, with surety, that Gentiles=LDS in 1 Nephi 14, 2 Nephi 28, and 3 Nephi 21, as Daniel has. I can, however, plainly read D&C 109:60 “Now these words, O Lord, we have spoken before thee, concerning the revelations and commandments which thou hast given unto us, who are identified with the Gentiles.” And I have read those chapters, not only with the interpretive lens that the references to the Gentiles are primarily us as a church and people, but also directly to myself as an individual, and I found it to be very applicable and enlightening. In fact, I have to say at this point that I believe the most profitable way to read all the scriptures is in as personal an application as possible, i.e. “to me.” Not to that guy or that church over there, etc. To really “liken all scriptures unto us, that it might be for our profit and learning.” (1 Nephi 19:23). This is an exercise in not only faith, but humility, as we ask ourselves, “Lord, is it I?” or “Lord, what lack I yet?” I have found these to be keys to revelation about what I need to do and what I need to change, to return to the presence of my Heavenly Father. I’m not there yet, but I have experienced many fruits of faith as I have opened my heart to believing whatever the Lord would teach me and allowing Him to show me my weaknesses and my follies and my unbelief and false beliefs. He is perfect and He is perfect at helping us if we allow Him to. He stands at the door and knocks, but we have to let Him in, starting with His Spirit. Self-righteousness and pride are huge barriers to this process. Hypocrisy and self-delusion are too. Read Alma 5 (this was to the church in Zarahemla, not the “non-members”) and D&C 121 for some really indicting, introspective stuff. Bottom line for me is, I am going to believe and do, as best I can, what the Lord teaches me.

    I sustain the Brethren and everyone I raise my right hand to sustain on a regular basis. I don’t think they’re perfect, I don’t think they’re infallible, I don’t necessarily understand or agree with everything they decide, say, or do. But I support them and will help in every way I feel inspired to, with my limited time, talents, and resources. I can answer all the Temple Recommend questions appropriately and honestly. I don’t know what everything means. For example, do I “sustain the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?” Absolutely. But I don’t know everything that means. What exact keys does President Monson hold?

    WE DO NOT HAVE ALL PRIESTHOOD KEYS. Boyd K. Packer, The Holy Temple, pg. 151. I heard President Kimball say on one occasion, as other Presidents of the Church have said, that, while he holds all of the keys that are held upon the earth, there are keys that have not been given to him as President of the Church, because they are reserved to higher power and authority. For instance, he said that he does not hold the keys of the resurrection. The Lord holds them, but He has not delegated them–neither anciently, nor to modern prophets. President Kimball mentioned also the authority to command the elements, to walk on water. The Lord has this power, but He has not given it to mortals, although there are times when righteous men have been inspired to command the forces of nature and have been obeyed.

    I believe the president of the earthly church holds all the keys necessary to administer what the Lord needs him and the church to do, including all the callings, organization, and ordinances we need to prepare us for further light and knowledge. That may be the limit. We are also taught that the Lord reserves the right, through the Holy Spirit of Promise, to ratify or validate these ordinances when we have fully kept the covenants and met the conditions set by heaven. See President Eyring’s recent talk in which he talks about being sealed to his wife. Is President Monson a prophet, seer, and revelator in the same sense that Joseph Smith was? Does he possess a Urim and Thummim? Has he seen the Father and the Son? I don’t know. He, and the other living Apostles, have not commented on these things. And it has very little real bearing on my spiritual progress. Whether they or Joseph have returned to the presence of God will not get me or my family there. I have to qualify. And this is where we seem to be making another huge cultural/traditional fumble of spiritual things in the true church today. We seem like the children of Israel who just wanted Moses to talk to the Lord and be in His presence because we are fearful and would rather be spiritually dependent. If the Apostles bear such a testimony, I will believe it. But it doesn’t matter to me anymore what their experiences have been. I profit from their teachings, by the Spirit, which encourage me to repent and come unto Christ. My observation is that they refer mostly to the Prophet Joseph and Book of Mormon and scriptural prophets when talking about theophanies, so that’s where I’m turning to learn about it. Maybe enough has been said and written by these prophets for us to learn for ourselves. I don’t know, but I believe, I trust, and I sustain. Do I believe the modern-day church is in “apostasy?” No and yes. It depends on how you define apostasy. If you mean total rejection collectively and individually and we have not priesthood authority, then absolutely not. If by that you mean that all is not well in Zion, then yes – and I don’t know all the problems. But I don’t need to steady the ark. It’s the Lord’s ark and He will steady it in His own time and in His own way. I support and sustain the church and its leaders. If the Lord inspires me to play a part in furthering His work, I will do His will. I don’t know the future, I don’t know how He is going to bring about Zion, specifically. I’m not going to assume that everything I think or believe is true, because if you just are so convinced you’re right about things – if you think you already know – then you can’t really learn something new. To be learned is good, only if we hearken to the counsels of God. My endeavor is to be as open and believing and child-like in my approach to the Lord as I possibly can be. He will teach me, and He already is! It is so exciting and enlightening! Dreams/visions, signs, scriptures, by His voice and the voice of the Spirit, the power of the Holy Ghost. I am experiencing the fruits and they taste sweet and pure and they increase faith. They are very subjective, but to me they have already produced a mosaic of proof, for me – it is very personal. But it is very inspiring, both to study, learn, ask, seek, knock, and to serve and share with others!

    Is Denver a prophet or an apostate? I don’t know, but I withhold all judgement of him. The Lord is the judge. Yes, Denver has been excommunicated and I don’t foresee the First Presidency reversing it. But I think it’s very possible that his excommunication was a mistake. All I can say, at this point in my path, is that his first book TSC has brought me closer to Christ. I believe it is true. And I believe the fruits are true. I also believe Daniel’s and Frederick’s testimonies. I’ve had personal conversations with both of them and consider them friends of mine now. They are honest and good LDS guys.

    Rick, I could go on and on – this is already too long on an already very long thread. I am not interested in any debate or contention. I won’t argue with you about any of these things. I respect your point of view and SteveF’s and Log’s and everyone else’s, whether it be totally traditional or not. The Law of Moses was a strict set of commandments designed to discipline the children of Israel and point them to Christ and prepare them, a schoolmaster as Paul put it. The preparatory gospel we administer in the church is similar in many respects, the way I see it – it is not the end, it is the beginning – the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost occurs right after entering the gate to this path – that is supposed to be the beginning of a new life for us – the end of the path, where the tree of life and its fruit awaits is the Father saying “Ye shall have eternal life.” We have to learn obedience and true repentance along the way, even before we start the post-BFHG path. But we shouldn’t stop there or short of there, we must press onward and upward, in faith unto repentance, until we are perfected in Him. This isn’t mythological or fantastic (as in fantasy) or even just post-mortem or millennial stuff (although many may wait that long). This is what we have to do to become what we have the potential to become, and we are the ones holding ourselves back. I personally feel that some of our current LDS culture and traditions aren’t helping either. That’s just the way I see it right now.

    Feel free to ask for further clarification and I hope this has helped.

  236. Geoff, I agree with your comments. I agree that the aspiration of calling/position is false as you stated. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

    Other traditions that would be considered false?

    I’m still cautious with Denver. Maybe it is his tone, it just doesn’t sit with me.

  237. Hi Rick,

    These are just my perceptions and opinions, so take them or leave them. And a lot of these are generalizations that don’t apply to everything or everyone. As Daniel pointed out wisely, above, one of the mistakes we have made frequently in this discussion is framing things “all or nothing”. So please don’t take these as all or nothing.

    For a good scriptural example, I think we would all agree that the parables of the wheat and the tares and the ten virgins (5 wise, 5 foolish) apply to us, members of the kingdom of God on earth, i.e. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Both of these parables indicate that we have true and false, good and bad teachings and people in the Church. In fact, we might take it even further and apply them to ourselves to see which part of us is wheat vs tare, wise vs foolish. There’s a lot of symbolism in those parables. The 5 foolish virgins didn’t have oil in their lamps, were unprepared to meet the bridegroom when he came, wanted to borrow oil from others who were prepared, but ultimately failed to measure up. If we interpret the oil to be personal righteousness, which is personal faith and repentance, which obviously cannot be borrowed, they did not exercise their agency or their faith during the time of preparation (before it was too late). Anyway, without going too much further into that, the Church is not purged of false traditions, teachings, practices, or people right now. We are a mixture, it seems, at almost every level, of true and false, good and bad.

    I’m not going to accuse anyone. But I think we’re all acquainted with examples in the Church, even in leaders. I’ve known bishops and stake presidents who turned out to be abusive criminal, even while they were in office. As a general rule, I’d say the higher you go in the hierarchy, the less likely you’ll find this type of aberration. But in the early days of the restoration, it was not uncommon for Apostles and members of the First Presidency to go off the path. This is one reason we are NOT to put our trust/faith in men, any man, not even the president/prophet, or the institution itself – in other words, the arm of flesh, i.e. idolatry – and why the Holy Ghost must be our constant guide and check.

    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.

    Doctrine and Covenants 45
    57 For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived—verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day.

    So, some of the falseness I see too often are:
    1. Aspiring to the honors of men – as described in my previous comment.
    2. Unrighteous dominion – priesthood leaders who demand militaristic-type obedience and punish anyone who does not agree with or obey them. This is so common, especially in the hierarchy – stepping out of line is always interpreted as apostasy, disloyalty, and kicking against the pricks. We don’t tolerate even differences of opinion. Denver’s non-traditional view of Church history (PTHG) is a somewhat extreme example, but a good one. We can’t tolerate other points of view or interpretations.
    3. Idolatry – Trusting, putting faith in men and things, instead of the Lord and His Spirit. Many of our testimonies are based or focus too much on the leadership of the church, our pioneer heritage, or the Church/institution itself, the box instead of the pearl. A lot of the hero-worship in the church. Kissing up to or venerating leaders. Some of this overlaps with aspiring to the honors of men. I think Joseph Smith probably cringes to hear “Praise to the Man…”
    4. Hypocrisy – So many of us are concerned with appearing to be righteous rather than actually being Christlike. They wear a facade of kindness at church, or in public, and at home they are mean and angry.
    5. Materialism – So many members, particularly in the affluent areas, are selfish and worldly. We equate righteousness with temporal prosperity. If we’re wealthy, we must be righteous because we have been “prospered.” But look down upon the poor and are greedy with our substance. We spend more on toys and leisure than we give to the suffering. The proportion of our tithes (to build buildings, etc.) is like 10:1 to our fast offerings (to help the poor). Not to mention it seems like we are misinterpreting D&C 119 and therefore cannot afford to give more to the poor.
    6. Self-Righteousness/Pharisaism – We’re the true church and everyone else is just spiritually inferior. We look down upon and denigrate other people’s faiths, and take pride in the Restoration. A spiritual superiority complex. Within the church, we take pride in all our outward observances and love to talk about it in public, for the praise of men, “I was in the Temple yesterday…” We hold themselves up as a light. We judge those as inferior who don’t seem as active or obedient as we are. We are full of pride. We are the 99 just persons, who need no repentance, in the parable of the lost sheep. We need no Physician. We are righteous in our own eyes. We may also judge other’s and our own worth by position/rank in the hierarchy. We assume all the warnings in the scriptures must be talking to other people, because they certainly couldn’t apply to us. We’re like the Zoramites with their Rameumptom.
    7. Cliquishness/Exclusivism – This could be a throwback or reaction to the persecution that pushed the Church out west, but we aren’t very good at being good neighbors. We label people as active, less-active/inactive, and non-members. We only hang out and form friendships with active members. We don’t allow public weddings followed by Temple sealings, preferring to be exclusive and pious about it.

    This is just off the top of my head. Denver’s “Churches Built By Men” series, if you can read it openly and honestly, is very scathing but I can’t disagree with a lot of what he says:

    http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2012/10/churches-built-by-men.html

    Many who read it have an even bigger problem with whether it’s his place to say it.

    1 Nephi 14, 2 Nephi 28, Alma 5, 3 Nephi 21, and D&C 121 are very good also at pointing out our flaws, again, if you can read them and liken them to us and each of us.

    If you take an all or nothing approach, like the Church is all good/right or all bad/wrong, you will not see, nor profit from these passages because you will, because you have a testimony, force the conclusion that it must be all good/right and these things can’t apply to us – only others.

    Don’t take this too far, either, I am not accusing any individual or leader or throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I’m describing the tares and the foolish virgins in the Church. What must be cleansed eventually for the organization to move forward. This doesn’t stop individuals from progressing if they are willing and humble. But living in a tainted culture/tradition does hamper and even choke many of us because we perpetuate these false things in a self-justifying paradigm.

    This could be interpreted as criticism, but it is not disloyalty. I would love to see everything in the Church made right and good and beautiful. There is hope through repentance. Collective repentance is hard to achieve because I can only repent for myself. And I am not perfect.

    1. I should point out that I’ve been guilty of all these false traditions/cultural traits to some degree or another. So this has been the beam in my own eye first.

    2. Anyone interested should read this letter from Joseph Smith to Edward Partridge and the Church, which he wrote from Liberty Jail – it is the source for D&C 121 and the spirit and character of the Prophet really shines through. The grammar and spelling also show how human and “unlearned” by men he was. Pure intelligence though and the Holy Ghost are evident, and tutoring directly from heaven.

      http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/letter-to-the-church-and-edward-partridge-20-march-1839?p=1

    1. Log, I like your comments also. I may not agree with some, but you are like the resident blog expert on scriptures. I enjoy getting different viewpoints on scriptures.

      I know how I feel about my children, their spouses, and my grand children. I know I would do anything to help them. So I know God loves every one of his children, and He will never give up on any of them! Only those who willingly choose to reject God and Jesus Christ, and that will be their decision, and I hope it is very few.

      I may be different from some in that I have confidence in our leaders. To invoke “do not trust the arm of flesh” as an excuse to make degrading comments or use as a reason to make up your own scenario is not what I believe in.

      I have not seen or read anything about our leaders that causes me to question them. One reason I have issues with Denver is the negative things he says about them, like “they are damned”.

      It is very easy to be negative if our thoughts are sad or we lose hope in the church and our leaders.

      I choose to believe the Church is not under condemnation. I choose to believe we can make it through the difficult times ahead. I choose to believe the power of God will help us as we are trying our best. Is He going to let the whole world go to waste? Noah preached for 100 years but they didn’t listen. I believe some and I hope many will listen this time.

      I want you to be happy Log! You know so much, you can use it to help others. We can stand up and get out of all this mess that is around us, we can stand up and help lift others up. Each of us can be Zion. We can help our spouses and our families be Zion. And we can fight to our last breath to help any of God’s children to be Zion too. As we do so, we will find ourselves prepared to meet Christ. I am and will be glad for everyone who does so.

      Nephi didn’t give up on his family, even when they tried to kill him. He didn’t give up even when he knew the future result with his posterity.

      Who cares if we don’t have the “fullness of the priesthood” until God gives it to us? If we follow the commandments we will get it when the time is right.

      How do I know this? Because I know God loves His children and he wants us back!

      1. Rick, grace and peace to you and yours. I love and respect you as a brother, even though we don’t know each other personally, with your own point of view, beliefs, and agency. I wish you and your family well. I feel our 11th article of faith applies as well within the fold as it does without.

        Articles of Faith
        11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

        For some reason, I feel inspired to say just a few more things. I hope they will be helpful to you or someone. A lot of my comments have simply helped me sort things out by writing.

        I hope you won’t confuse cognitive dissonance with the Spirit telling you that something is false/wrong, both of which are unpleasant feelings. I beg your pardon if you already know this. But cognitive dissonance is the very uncomfortable feeling and distressing state of mind that results when a person is confronted with reliable information that contradicts what he/she believes to be true or fundamentally holds dear. Many of the issues we’ve been discussing on this thread create cognitive dissonance with a fundamentalist/traditionalist view of the church.

        Let’s start with Denver. His first book was all about the Second Comforter. He does a very good job describing the process for obtaining this blessing and state of knowledge – honestly, it’s the best treatment I’ve ever read on the subject by any person. At the end of it, he testifies that he has experienced this. Fast forward 7 books later and he writes a very non-traditional version of church history, PTHG, for which he is excommunicated, and it sounds like not just local leaders are involved. From a fundamentalist/traditionalist perspective, the easiest thing to do is to dismiss him as an apostate. Excommunication for apostasy = apostate, the Church & its Leaders = the Lord, done deal. For folks like me, who had read TSC and received a witness from the Holy Ghost that it was true (it does not contain anything very “controversial”), but who had not read PTHG, Denver’s excommunication was very confusing and disappointing – it created cognitive dissonance. Was he one of the very elect who got deceived (i.e. something went awry between TSC and PTHG)? Was he lying all along and I was deceived?

        There are 4 common methods people use to deal with cognitive dissonance created by contradictions like this: 1) reject the new information as false, 2) reject the new information as unimportant, 3) add information to validate the original belief, 4) reject the old belief as false in favor of the new information. If the original belief is called thesis, and the contradictory belief is called antithesis, some combination of #3 & #4 might be termed synthesis. In line with our discussion about most truths not being “all or nothing”, some form of synthesis between competing cognitions/beliefs has usually proven to be true in my experience. Cognitive dissonance has become my friend over the last few years as it has helped me challenge my own false beliefs, illusions really, and prove true ones. It is painful, in a growing pains kind of way. It is so much easier to choose option #1 or #2, and simply dismiss any new information that conflicts with our present and dearly held paradigm and all its supports. But it can be a form of hardness of heart and blindness of mind, pride in our learning and “knowing” which prevents us from humbling ourselves, repenting, and learning new things. This could be one reason the Lord tells us we must become as little children, open and believing and teachable. As adults we tend to harden in our thinking and beliefs, to become less pliable.

        The Prophet Joseph commented on this tendency:

        I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen. (Jan. 20, 1844.) DHC 6:183-185.

        What truths, contrary to their traditions, do you think he was referring to, that the Saints would fly to pieces like glass over rather than embrace, abide, to receive exaltation?

        I’m only trying to persuade you (and anyone) to truly and more fully open yourself to taking the Holy Spirit as your primary and most important guide, to letting it show you what is really true or false. The Spirit did a marvelous job of softening my heart and helping me see my own hardness, hypocrisy, unbelief, etc.

        Alma 12
        9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
        10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.
        11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

        It is worthwhile to ponder what are the “mysteries of God?” I have noticed in our prevailing church culture that learning the “mysteries of God” is frowned upon as if it is somehow inappropriate.

        In your previous post you said:

        I may be different from some in that I have confidence in our leaders. To invoke “do not trust the arm of flesh” as an excuse to make degrading comments or use as a reason to make up your own scenario is not what I believe in.

        I have not seen or read anything about our leaders that causes me to question them. One reason I have issues with Denver is the negative things he says about them, like “they are damned”.

        It is very easy to be negative if our thoughts are sad or we lose hope in the church and our leaders.

        I choose to believe the Church is not under condemnation.

        Denver can be scathing, no doubt. This turns a lot of people off from reading any of his stuff – I believe that is his intention even. I haven’t noted his censuring any leader individually or in particular.

        As for me, I sustain/uphold our leaders with my confidence, faith, and prayers, too. I have been a leader, one of the lowest, and have certainly appreciated that support from those I’ve been called to serve. I hope you did not interpret my comments to be degrading of any honestly striving church member or leader. As I said I was speaking of tares and foolish virgins. But I do believe the “arm of flesh” is anything or anyone, including ourselves, that is not according the the will of the Lord. Do our leaders represent the Lord, so in a sense are not just men? Yes, but only inasmuch as what they do & teach is true by the power of the Holy Ghost. I know I made some mistakes in the last 5 years, a few which required sincere reparations and repentance on my part to try and repair. I’ve read enough of the history to see that this imperfection isn’t confined to the bishops, but mistakes are made from the top down. Should we really be expecting any different? We try to live in the Spirit and walk by the Spirit, but we are not perfect. And everything/everyone in the Lord’s service is supposed to hold Him up as the light and point us to the Lord, the Father and the Son, and that is what the Holy Ghost will bear record of.

        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.

        D&C 68
        3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.
        4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.
        5 Behold, this is the promise of the Lord unto you, O ye my servants.

        3 Nephi 18
        24 Therefore, hold up your light that it may shine unto the world. Behold I am the light which ye shall hold up—that which ye have seen me do. Behold ye see that I have prayed unto the Father, and ye all have witnessed.

        D&C 121 is the word of God on proper priesthood leadership and it basically says, by the Spirit and the will of the Lord, and in as Christlike a way as we can. Anything less, or opposite to this, is condemned.

        We have too many instances in our modern church history of church authorities teaching things, sometimes expressing their opinions as doctrines, that turn out to be wrong/false, or in complete contradiction to what other authorities have taught. But the members blindly accepting and following it without discernment. And this is ammunition for the enemies of the work because in many cases we’ve perpetuated the false tradition that our leaders, in the true church, represent the Lord, as if the Lord Himself were speaking, 100% and therefore their teachings are incontrovertible. But then it turns out that there’s something wrong or imperfect, even false and uninspired, about what they said, which is so easy to point out, and the premise is blown away and proven false. And we’ve also perpetuated the false culture/tradition that we, the members, are just blind sheep. “When the prophet speaks, the thinking is done.” Again, not all or nothing, but too much of this, what I’ll call spiritual dependence. I experienced it again and again at the local level even. People who would come to me to tell them what to do because they don’t want to pay the price to get in tune and receive personal revelation. Just like the children of Israel with Moses.

        Some obvious examples of contradictory teachings by high church authorities: Brigham Young, 2nd prophet/president, taught that blacks were inferior, cursed by God, and descendants of Cain, who would never be permitted the blessings of the priesthood. Spencer Kimball, 12th prophet/president, undoes it by revelation in 1978. I’m summarizing here, but you get the point. The doctrine and prediction of BY contradicts current teaching and practice. And this honest list of contradictions, for which we’ve concocted many contrived explanations/answers to the critics, isn’t really short – they fill books with them. Plural Marriage is another prominent one. Many church leaders, including BY, taught the doctrine that it would not only never be discontinued, but that anyone who didn’t practice it would not be eligible for exaltation. Wilford Woodruff discontinued it by revelation. Practicing plural marriage today is automatic excommunication. These are two biggies that the enemies of the church love to throw in our faces, but even today they still derail honest investigators and even born-in-the-covenant lifelong members who are unaware/ignorant of these facts, and the history surrounding them, but learn the shocking/disappointing truth at some point. There really are some irreconcilable teachings in our 188 years. The best explanation I’ve found for these is that someone’s teachings were wrong. In the all-or-nothing paradigm, this creates cognitive dissonance. How can two prophets/presidents, the mouthpieces and representatives of the Lord on earth, holding all the priesthood keys, be contradicting one another? I know what I used to do, which is a form of #1 and #2 above

        I believe they are disappointing, and even shocking, because of the false tradition/paradigm which so many of us have believed and perpetuated that the presiding officers aren’t really men, but almost some kind of demigod/superhero, possessed nearly all of the time by a supernatural mantle which makes it so they cannot make a mistake in teaching or decision. Now we have the teaching of Joseph Smith that “a prophet was a prophet only when acting as such,” but certainly standing up and teaching at a General Conference would be such a time that they are acting as prophets. Many of these teachings came from the pulpit. The only solid conclusion I’ve been able to reach is that they are prophets when they are speaking words inspired by Him, and in any case, we, as members/followers must rely on the Holy Ghost to verify their words, or what portion of their words are from Him, and also show us how to apply them in our lives and circumstances. My point is there is no getting around it, we must become spiritually self-sufficient, independent, and discerning at some point along this path toward exaltation. It even makes sense to me that a person who fully comes unto Christ and becomes perfected in Him, the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ (Eph. 4:13 below), would not need to be led or taught by men anymore (wouldn’t need a prophet to receive what he could receive himself or tell him to do the will of the Lord). So I’m talking about spiritual dependence vs independence, and each person’s capability and potential to receive a fulness directly from the Lord. In other words, we can all come to know him. Do we truly believe it? It is worth deep consideration.

        Ephesians 4
        11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
        12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
        13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

        2 Nephi 32
        3 Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.
        4 Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannot understand them it will be because ye ask not, neither do ye knock; wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark.
        5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.
        6 Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh (liken to yourself, as if Nephi is writing to you, and this is a personal appearance, The Second Comforter). And when he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh, the things which he shall say unto you shall ye observe to do.

        So I look at a lot of things like this: we can benefit from everything if we are enlightened by the Spirit. Conference talks, sacrament meeting talks, EQP and HPG speculation, the Apocrypha:

        D&C 91
        1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;
        2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.
        3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.
        4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;
        5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;
        6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.

        Tell me if we’re seeing things differently. Some of it might be semantics and what one chooses to emphasize. But some of it might also be false traditions and false beliefs vs the truth. To me it seems like, in general/the prevailing culture, we are putting too much emphasis and dependence in the church today on the leader channel of guidance/teaching/revelation and not enough emphasis on personal faith, repentance, and revelation, independent/individual connection to and knowing the Lord. In my mind this very well could be why a lot of the fruits of faith, gifts of the spirit, and power in the priesthood are missing as we look around us in the church – what might be termed the lesser portion of the word. Because all of these things are personal oil, which can’t be borrowed from leaders or anyone else – we can’t borrow our relationship with the Lord. How do you explain why the doctrine of election and of the Second Comforter is so little taught, emphasized, or understood today? And why no one is claiming to have received it? Why don’t we discuss making our calling and election sure, being called up and chosen and anointed, etc., as our highest goal? These things are plainly set forth in the scriptures and in the Temple ordinances. I think it might be primarily because the main mission of the earthly church is to gather people by the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel. Once we’ve received all the preparatory teachings and ordinances (including the Temple), it is up to us to feast upon the words of Christ, live them, receive and heed what the Holy Ghost shows us, receive the ministering of angels, and receive the Lord Himself. No one else can do this for us. So, for me, this isn’t about faith or confidence in leaders. As far as I can tell, they’re doing they’re job. Maybe they could do more if we as a people prepared ourselves better by living up to what we already have available to us. I spend so much time as a local leader just trying to motivate and inspire my people to read the scriptures for themselves, and then to deepen their study, not with commentaries but with the Spirit.

        Seeing what’s missing, collectively and individually, is not pessimism or negativism. It gives each of us and all of us hope through individual repentance. That’s part of the problem. If we just adopt a comfort paradigm where all is well in Zion (that name makes any other interpretation than His earthly church nonsensical, btw) and we’re prospering, where do we go from there? Nowhere basically, because we are chosen and are just waiting to be exalted (after we die, of course) – no need to press forward, because we are pressing, right? We’re like the Pharisees who need no repentance because they are righteous in their own eyes – we’re keeping the law after all, right?

        Sorry for the long post. I hope you get something worthwhile, by the Spirit, out of some of it. For the most part, it is an epistle to myself. I’m not adopting a spirit of criticism, but of hope. I can only envision Zion being built by the pure in heart, who have seen God, and have observed their covenants by the sacrifice of all earthly things, whatever the Lord required of them, and thus obtained faith sufficient to lay hold upon eternal life, in other words, members of the Church of the Firstborn and very likely candidates thereof.

        I could be wrong, though, about a lot of things.

  238. Thank you, brethren (Geoff, Log, Daniel, et. al.). Your words were edifying, clarifying and inspirational. This was a feast! And a testimony in itself.

    Now let us lay aside every doubt and distraction and come unto Christ, as we have been admonished. The existence of these things — this blog, this thread, Denver’s books, the Church, etc. — is evidence of the Lord’s working with — and through — us. Let us not disappoint Him by turning aside or failing to take up the task by quenching the Spirit with unbelief.

    I will strive (once again) to come unto Christ: to come as I am and to submit to being as He would have me be. (I’m going to get on my knees right now and take up that challenge again.)

    Thank you again. Your “fellowship” and testimonies were sorely needed and appreciated.

    1. Log, I’ve very much appreciated your comments and scriptural insight. I hope this isn’t our last conversation.

      Good Will, I whole-heartedly agree with you. Let us hold fast to the iron rod, the word of God, and press forward with steadfastness in Christ, and not give up until we fall down at the foot of the tree of life! And thank you for your comments here.

      I too have been blessed by everyone’s testimonies here. I am eternally grateful for the affect this conversation has had on me.

  239. Geoff and Log, how do you make sections of your comments yellow?

    Also, I need some time to read your long comments before I respond.

    Also, I am reading Pillars of Zion by Larry Barkdull and think it is very good. Anyone else read this?

  240. I need your help.

    Geoff – Log – Daniel – Tim – Steve F – others: I may be eating my words so I would appreciate your feedback.

    I decided to review Denver’s Orem Transcript on the Priesthood, so I prayed this morning that I would have understanding. I am halfway through, taking my time, and this is what I believe so far:

    Denver’s purpose is to encourage us to seek the “higher” blessings like seeing the Savior, receiving the Fullness of the Priesthood, Calling and Election, etc. in this life. He is doing so by patience and long suffering since some of us are hard-headed (like me).

    I believe this is good and is really the same that Nephi wants us to do: obedience, asking, following the Spirit, long suffering. Anything that is good comes from God.

    I would like your feedback on this quote from Denver, what is he saying? What do I need to understand?

    “If the children of Israel in that day, were cursed by God because they said Moses must talk to God and not us, how much greater must be the damnation upon those who say, “you must not talk to God because we have one who does so for you! Who preach: you’re not entitled to receive anything beyond the bonds of your limited position, in this beehive we’ve constructed! Damnable heresy! Doctrines of devils! Propounded by those who are purveyors of a false priestcraft! Unauthorized by God! Unsanctioned by Him! They suffer no themselves to enter in, and they will hedge up the way if you heed them. There is no man on his own errand in this world, who can offer to you salvation. But if God sends a message, you better heed it, even if you find it difficult to hear.” Page 19 Orem Transcript

    Thanks, and I hope you don’t fall out of you chairs and hurt yourself!

    1. I think he’s saying anyone who teaches you that there are limits to what you may ask for, and be given, of God, is not authorized by God in that which he teaches. Those who teach that are like unto the Pharisees of old, who themselves did not enter into the kingdom of God (ie, never were converted), and by their false teachings made it difficult for those who were diligently seeking the kingdom of God to enter in.

      I think, in context, he’s speaking primarily of the correlation department as those who are committing priestcraft, and those whose beliefs towards God are informed by correlated Mormonism. These we may term “Brethrenites,” who point towards the leadership of the Church and not towards God, and they are astoundingly aptly-described by Brigham Young many, many years before they became the majority of the Church, representing our modern faith.

      “There are those among this people who are influenced, controlled, and biased in their thoughts, actions, and feelings by some other individual or family, on whom they place their dependence for spiritual and temporal instruction, and for salvation in the end. These persons do not depend upon themselves for salvation, but upon another of their poor, weak, fellow mortals. I do not depend upon any inherent goodness of my own, say they, to introduce me into the kingdom of glory, but I depend upon you, brother Joseph, upon you, brother Brigham, upon you, brother Heber, or upon you, brother James; I believe your judgment is superior to mine, and consequently I let you judge for me; your spirit is better than mine, therefore you can do good for me; I will submit myself wholly to you, and place in you all my confidence for life and salvation; where you go I will go, and where you tarry there I will stay; expecting that you will introduce me through the gates into the heavenly Jerusalem….Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another’s sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them, They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold scepters of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course.” – (Brigham Young, presented in the Salt Lake Tabernacle on February 20, 1853, found in Journal of Discourses, 1:312)

  241. Yes, thanks Log. I agree as well. That quote, in conjunction with the Prophet Joseph’s statement, is perfect to demonstrate the need for spiritual independence, that each of us needs to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, to develop our own faith, repent of our own sins, make our own calling and election sure, that this is about reconciliation of individual Heavenly-Parent to spirit-child relationships through the great Mediator.

    The Mediator is not a man or men – they only represent Him as authorized agents/instruments in spreading His teachings, the doctrine of Christ, and administering His ordinances – they are not a party to the covenants being made. They are not to be praised, lift up, “worshipped” or followed in this manner. They should be limiting the exercise of their authority very carefully in accordance with D&C 121. Unrighteous dominion is a serious and disqualifying offense. They should not be imposing or enforcing their criteria or interpretations or interpolations on others, or setting themselves up as a light.

    2 Nephi 26
    27 Hath he commanded any that they should not partake of his salvation? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but he hath given it free for all men; and he hath commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.
    28 Behold, hath the Lord commanded any that they should not partake of his goodness? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but all men are privileged the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden.
    29 He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion.
    30 Behold, the Lord hath forbidden this thing; wherefore, the Lord God hath given a commandment that all men should have charity, which charity is love. And except they should have charity they were nothing. Wherefore, if they should have charity they would not suffer the laborer in Zion to perish.
    31 But the alaborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.

    I agree that what we, and Denver, are talking about here is not the preparatory gospel, which I would interpret as joining and being active/faithful members of the earthly church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But rather pressing forward with steadfastness in Christ until we know Him, are like Him, and become perfected in Him and are thus welcomed into the kingdom of heaven, The Church of the Firstborn, called up, chosen, and sealed up unto eternal life. I believe all the ordinances administered by the Church are necessary to prepare us for this. They are very symbolic of this individual/personal journey back to the presence of the Father, through the Son. But it is the difference between receiving the ordinances and making the covenants, and keeping the covenants and having them sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. And it starts with real baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost – which might be termed the Holy Spirit of Promise sealing our baptism by water/immersion for the remission of sins (making us “saints”) – truly awakening/quickening us in the inner/spiritual man, and then growing into the principle of revelation, as the Prophet Joseph describes below “is in connection with these blessings” – or, in other words, to “feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do” and “if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do” and “For you shall alive by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God.”

    Words of Joseph Smith (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 Vols. 3:380-81)

    The Doctrines of the Resurrection of the Dead and the Eternal Judgment are necessary to preach among the first principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
    The Doctrine of Election. Peter exhorts us to make our calling and election sure. This is the sealing power spoken of by Paul in other places.
    “13. In whom ye also trusted, that after ye heard the word of truth, the Gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise,
    “14. Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of His glory, that we may be sealed up unto the day of redemption.”—Ephesians, 1st chapter.
    This principle ought (in its proper place) to be taught, for God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what He will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them, for the day must come when no man need say to his neighbor, Know ye the Lord; for all shall know Him (who remain) from the least to the greatest. How is this to be done? It is to be done by this sealing power, and the other Comforter spoken of, which will be manifest by revelation.

    The Two Comforters
    There are two Comforters spoken of. One is the Holy Ghost, the same as given on the day of Pentecost, and that all Saints receive after faith, repentance, and baptism. This first Comforter or Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence. It is more powerful in expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, and storing the intellect with present knowledge, of a man who is of the literal seed of Abraham, than one that is a Gentile, though it may not have half as much visible effect upon the body; for as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene; and his whole soul and body are only exercised by the pure spirit of intelligence; while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the Holy Ghost. In such a case, there may be more of a powerful effect upon the body, and visible to the eye, than upon an Israelite, while the Israelite at first might be far before the Gentile in pure intelligence.

    The Second Comforter
    The other Comforter spoken of is a subject of great interest, and perhaps understood by few of this generation. After a person has faith in Christ, repents of his sins, and is baptized for the remission of his sins and receives the Holy Ghost, (by the laying on of hands), which is the first Comforter, then let him continue to humble himself before God, hungering and thirsting after righteousness, and living by every word of God, and the Lord will soon say unto him, Son, thou shalt be exalted.
    When the Lord has thoroughly proved him, and finds that the man is determined to serve Him at all hazards, then the man will find his calling and his election made sure, then it will be his privilege to receive the other Comforter, which the Lord hath promised the Saints, as is recorded in the testimony of St. John, in the 14th chapter,

    John 14 (JST)
    1 Let not your heart be troubled; ye believe in God, believe also in me.
    2 In my Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
    3 And when I go, I will prepare a place for you, and come again and receive you unto myself; that where I am, ye may be also.
    4 And whither I go ye know; and the way ye know.
    5 Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?
    6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
    7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also; and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
    8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
    9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
    10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
    11 Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me; or else believe me for the very works’ sake.
    12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
    13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
    14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
    15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
    16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever;
    17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him; but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
    18 I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you.
    19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me; because I live, ye shall live also.
    20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
    21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me; and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
    22 Judas saith unto him, (not Iscariot,) Lord, how is it thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?
    23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words; and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
    24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings; and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.
    25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
    26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost , whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
    27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.
    28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father; for my Father is greater than I.
    29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.
    30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you; for the prince of darkness, who is of this world, cometh, but hath no power over me, but he hath power over you.
    31 And I tell you these things, that ye may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.

    Now what is this other Comforter? It is no more nor less than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and this is the sum and substance of the whole matter; that when any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even He will manifest the Father unto him, and they will take up their abode with him, and the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him, and the Lord will teach him face to face, and he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God; and this is the state and place the ancient Saints arrived at when they had such glorious visions—Isaiah, Ezekiel, John upon the Isle of Patmos, St. Paul in the three heavens, and all the Saints who held communion with the general assembly and Church of the Firstborn.

    The Spirit of Revelation
    The Spirit of Revelation is in connection with these blessings. A person may profit by noticing the first intimation of the spirit of revelation; for instance, when you feel pure intelligence flowing into you, it may give you sudden strokes of ideas, so that by noticing it, you may find it fulfilled the same day or soon; (i.e.) those things that were presented unto your minds by the Spirit of God, will come to pass; and thus by learning the Spirit of God and understanding it, you may grow into the principle of revelation, until you become perfect in Christ Jesus.

    2 Peter 1 (JST)
    1 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ;
    2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
    3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue;
    4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises; that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
    5 And besides this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue, knowledge;
    6 And to knowledge, temperance; and to temperance, patience; and to patience, godliness;
    7 And to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, charity.
    8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
    9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
    10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure; for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall;
    11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
    12 Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.
    13 Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance;
    14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed me.
    15 Moreover I will endeavor that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.
    16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
    17 For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
    18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
    19 We have therefore a more sure knowledge of the word of prophecy, to which word of prophecy ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light which shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts;
    20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scriptures is given of any private will of man.
    21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

    I hope some here are prepared and catch the vision. The truth is hard against all falsehood and uncleanness and pride. I don’t feel critical or judgmental of anyone. I just see the need for repentance, starting with myself. And then, if the Lord commands it, to try and help as many others awake and fully repent as possible. It is glorious and beautiful! This is His work, saving us one at a time. Worship Him – He is the pearl – not the institution or any of its trappings – that’s the box (to quote Pres. Packer’s recent parable).

  242. I am blessed and honored to have been able to take the time this morning to read your words here on my blog. I’m crying as I write this. I have NEVER seen such openness and honesty about a subject that is near and dear to my heart. I am grateful to have found myself home sick this morning (small winter cold) with time to finally read through your comments. Thank you. I have changed my mind. I could never delete this blog as I have said I would do if asked by my priesthood leaders. This dialog needs to be preserved and will be. Bless you all.

    1. Tim and others, I need to do a Geoff. Tim, I hope you are sitting down with a secure seat belt!

      I now agree with you Tim and others who support Denver. I apologize to any on comments where I offended. It is hard to let go of traditions, especially when you don’t think you have a mote or beam in your eye/brain when you do.

      I feel love for you, I have reached out to Daniel, Geoff and Frederick, and have sent emails to Tim. I have received feedback and actually talked to a couple. I saw what happened to Geoff and knew something had happened. Now it has happened to me.

      I actually feel good about and am glad that I hung in there.

      I love you too Log and SteveF. I don’t know what you are going to do with me now SteveF!

      1. Guys, I’m not sure what is going on, but in watching Denver’s blog, he seems to be getting more shrill in his condemnations of church leaders. That doesn’t sit well with me at all. I see red flags all over the place, so not sure what you guys are seeing that is making you all so happy.

        Tim, did you really just mean to say that you would defy priesthood leaders if they asked you to delete this blog? Do you really think this blog is more important than the work being directed by your priesthood leaders?

        One of the red flags that I see is the incessant banging of discordant chords that President Packer has told us about so many times. I’m not seeing the Snuffer message as being in harmony at all with the Spirit and message of our church leaders. The gulf is widening, and I guess we all have to decide which side we are on?

        I’m also puzzled by the (straw man?) representations I see on here of modern church members and wards. In my experience there isn’t as much negativity about spiritual experiences as represented here, though it may be true that many members are not having many spiritual experiences. Banging on the ministry of angels, second comforter, lost keys chord in this way just doesn’t harmonize at all with my experience of these things as connected with the ongoing lives of church members and the work of the church.

        As for why we don’t talk about these things more? Even Joseph Smith barely even mentioned most of the spiritual experiences he had. Perhaps we should be careful in too glibly discussing these things. Often it isn’t what we say, but where and how we say them that can be a problem.

        1. Hi Rob. I also noticed the rather severe castigation of the current brethren in Denver’s latest blog post. Well, he’s not a member of the church so I guess he’s being more direct and forceful in expressing his feelings than we’re used to reading in the past. I’m not trying to defend him, just expressing my own feelings. He apparently felt the desire to weigh in on the rather historical announcement this week. Many of my online friends are overjoyed and frankly, I think it’s one of those “it’s about time” moments. But there is indeed an unintended message being sent which is the point Denver is making. The current change cuts off the pronouncements of all previous prophets who have made declarations on this matter, including President Kimball.

          You asked me two direct questions so I’ll answer directly. Yes, I meant what I said. My contribution to this blog has come to the point where what I write is more of a starter to the conversation. There’s no way I’m going to delete the hours and hours of contributions of others who shared with us how a reasoning and rational dialog should go on important issues of an eternal nature. We all are required to take a stand, make up our minds, choose sides so to speak. I would not delete the blog even if asked by my Bishop or Stake President. Is that defiance? Sorry, I won’t argue a hypothetical situation. It’s commitment. I feel a responsibility to those who have invested so much in helping me grow and understand things better with their many comments.

          As to the second question, I’m going to ask you to first consider this: I find the comments from intelligent Latter-day Saints to be fulfilling a deep-seated need I have to enjoy unity. Rob, I’m different that you. I’m not as well educated. I chose a career path that unintentionally required me to be a bit of a loner in what I know and use on a daily basis to provide for my family. Bear with me. This is going somewhere. I tire of being the resident expert at work for all things technical. I yearn for a team of associates with whom I can share the burden of the responsibility I bear to ensure all the technology we use continues to function as designed. This feeling of being the only one who knows certain things critical to the technical operation of our company weighs heavily on my soul. I am eternally grateful to be a mentor to others to share this burden.

          Now bear with me again as I take this feeling of being the only one who knows something to help explain why I blog and especially why this blog is important to me. The feedback I get in the comments and the direct emails to my posts helps me crystalize my thinking, solidify my understanding and know myself better. Because this blog is important to me, I know it is also important to my Savior and my Heavenly Father. If you’ll recall, it was an apostle who asked us to be involved in the conversations taking place on the Internet. This is my way of following Elder Ballard’s directive. Is it more important than what they are doing? Of course not. But it’s important to me. Therefore, I know it would be important to anyone who loves me.

          I happen to know my priesthood leaders love me. They have told me so. They have counseled me and advised me in many matters. I love to serve in this church. I appreciate the confidence placed in me by my Stake President in allowing me to take some of the burden of the stake finances off his shoulders. I don’t mind. It’s fairly straightforward. There are so many good people I can turn to on tech.lds.org when I have questions. Do you see where I’m going with this? I am concerned about my spiritual growth. I love to teach in the classroom or the pulpit. My greatest desire is to come unto Christ and receive Him into my life to a greater degree. For that, I need to invest a lot of time and energy outside my service inside the church. This is a part of that.

          The work being directed by my priesthood leaders is important but it is not as important as my own work to come unto Christ, to receive him as he has commanded and to prepare myself in all things to enter into his presence. Technically, the work being directed by my priesthood leaders and my greatest work, to come unto Christ, should be one and the same, don’t you think? In any event, The thousands of people who have visited my blog over the years, leaving me comments and answering my questions have done me a world of good, more than I get out of the gospel doctrine class or my High Priest Group, and I‘ve had both callings as well as the calling you currently hold. In addition, my service on the High Council was not as important as this blog.

          Is that arrogant of me? You are welcome to judge as you see fit. This blog is how I grow. This blog is a journal for me. Are we not advised by the Brethren to keep a journal? I have been so honored over the years by good people like you who ask the difficult questions. I am not a theologian, a scholar or even very good at remembering where to find the scriptures I once knew as a missionary or a seminary teacher. I’m an old man now. My health is not what it used to be. Years of stressful work have taken their toll. I think more and more about the spirit world and meeting my parents, whom I love and my Savior, whom I also love but have not met in this life. All of this contributed to my decision to keep this blog going and to make sure it is preserved.

          I’ll let others respond to your additional questions is anyone cares to. This may be the last comment on this long, long thread. Frankly, I am more than amazed at the back and forth, the give and take, and the expression of caring exhibited in the responses to each other. Doesn’t that mean anything to you? Isn’t that a fruit of the spirit that comes from good people trying to know and understand the truth? So Denver can be a bit of a jerk in the way he expresses some things. This journey is not about Denver, it’s about me. Sorry to be so selfish, but I use the blog and challenges from good people like you as a catalyst to prayer and conversations with the Lord. Without opposition, there would be no growth. Am I saying you are providing that opposition? You be the judge of that. I expressed my feelings above. I felt love as I finally had a chance this morning to read all the comments. I was moved to tears by what I discovered. I am content.

          God bless you Rob, and thank you for adding to my journey. I pray the Lord’s best for you and your family. Be loyal to what you are directed by the spirit to do and say. It is different for each of us as far as what we need and how we get to the ultimate destination – to be with the Savior. My needs are different from yours. This blog fulfills a great need. I will not delete it. I intend to press forward, sharing my journey of faith until my dying day if necessary. That is what the spirit is telling me to do. Every time I pray about what to write next, I receive an answer. What more can I say? I will do what the Lord is prompting me to do. My Bishop and Stake President will understand. If not, I will gladly take their correction and make changes as requested, but removing it is now is something on which I have decided to take a stand. It stays. It’s what I need.

        2. Amen, Tim. The words written in this blog have been very important to me personally in my journey. Life-changing. Comforting. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve felt the Holy Spirit confirm the many truths I read here since I discovered your blog last March (the Lord led me to it). I found here hidden treasures and spiritual food that I’ve been hungry for for so many years. I, like you, need the words of other deep thinkers to crystallize my own thoughts and beliefs. The words written here are precious and important….a beautiful creation. I was happy to read of your decision to keep this blog up. To take it down, or un-create it, would be such a shame and a waste. Your words, and the words of many of your commenters have been a blessing to me, and no doubt to all the others that the Lord will lead here. May God keep you and bless you.

        3. There is some truth in what you say, robf. For example, Joseph Smith taught that the ministration of fire and the Holy Ghost received upon baptism were among the phenomena least observed by others. (Not that they weren’t real, only that they couldn’t be perceived externally. He argued the point quite eloquently, though I don’t know where I would begin to look it up for you here.)

          As Denver predicted (and recently demonstrated) the Church leadership is moving farther and farther away from its roots, repudiating its foundational doctrines and minimizing or dismissing its history, even as it changes and morphs its practices to suit the times, even if it has to discredit its former prophets and leaders to do so. (How does a “true believing” Mormon rationalize that?) The leaders can’t lead us astray — except when they do? — and “all is (still) well”?

          We love the Church, flaws and all. But Denver is right: very few men actually receive the higher (power of the) priesthood. Very few. Many are called, but few are chosen. Many serve in Aaronic-type priesthood roles: outer ordinances and such. But who raises the dead or calls down the powers of heaven? Receives revelation or communes with angels? What is “priesthood” anyway if not heavenly? No wonder so many think they “have what it takes” to “hold” the priesthood. They have no clue!

          Yes, Denver is sharpening his arguments. No, it’s not comforting. No one (including him) enjoys it, I’m sure. But is he telling the truth? Yes, from what I’ve seen. (And I’ve experienced “power in the priesthood” both personally and via Church leaders.) Still, my heart tells me there’s “something more”. Denver’s words strike a cord within me. Jesus turned many — even most — away from Him by telling them the truth. The truth (sometimes) hurts.

          It’s going to hurt a lot for the Church to “come clean” about its history (if it ever does). But at least we’ll be on firm ground, then, if that happens. Right now, my bishop won’t tell the “truth” — and he certainly won’t put it in writing — because, as he said (quoting Elder Packer) “Some things that are true are not very useful”. Or, to put it more bluntly (quoting Elder Nelson) “Some truths are best left unsaid” — especially those truths that (for some) destroy faith. (Ironically, it is belief in falsehood that needs to be destroyed, but, the Church seems inclined to foster said belief anyway!)

          You may be right: there is a danger in being “glib” about spiritual things and seeking “signs and wonders”. However, if there are no signs and wonders, our faith is vain.

      2. Wow, Rick! Amazing! Now the “hard” work begins. Fighting day by day to do that “one thing” the Holy Ghost requires, nibbling away at our imperfections, overcoming our sins, clawing our way back to Christ, heeding His word delivered by revelation to us, directly.

        We’ve been given much. Now much is required of us.

      3. Wow. And to think I’ve had front-row seats to not one, but two amazing transformations! I’ve never seen anything like this on any of the forums I’ve read. Usually, people get more and more entrenched in their unchanging opinions, ending up contending “warmly”. The conversations here on this thread have been incredible and I’ve learned so much. Thank you all for your honesty and thoughtful effort. It makes me think of “For charity suffereth long, and is kind…”

      4. Rick, it doesn’t seem like there is much I can do, I hope to allow you your freedom of conscience as you have allowed me mine, and I certainly don’t claim any type of authority over you. My only advice would be to continue to follow those who do instead of looking to those who set themselves up as alternate lights who possess no heavenly keys. Without keys, Denver and others like him can offer you very little, if anything, in the way of salvation. Quite the opposite actually, for if they are convincing enough, people like Denver can bring you a lot of damage. As Joseph Smith said, ““nothing is a greater injury to the children of men than to be under the influence of a false spirit when they think they have the Spirit of God.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 205.)

        I’m assuming you don’t mean that you’ve suddenly started believing that the Church has lost the fullness of the Priesthood (the fullness of the keys of the Priesthood that can be given to mortals on earth) as Denver espouses. So perhaps there is not much to worry about. I don’t know you, but you seem like a good guy to me, so maybe I shouldn’t worry.

        I think time will bear my testimony out, and so I am willing to wait. The disdain, enmity, and vitriol that Denver increasingly displays toward those who rightfully possess the keys of the Kingdom, whom I have a testimony are accepted of the Lord and act as His mouthpieces on earth today, to me very clearly comes from the bitter fountain of the wicked one. If this is not obvious now, I believe it will become more apparent over time. Unfortunately there are those who will be slowly numbed to the point that they will no longer be able to see the obvious, they will be so focused on the sheep’s clothing that they will no longer be able to see the ravenous wolf underneath, even when it bites them. These may have to spend a large portion of their lives trying to recover after finding their lives in spiritual ruin. It is my hope that this will not go on much longer, and there will not many who fall in this way. My best wishes to you all in your journeys.

        In parting I’ll leave you with a quote Brian Hales posted in the comments of the Greg Smith review, from Brigham Young. I think it is something interesting to consider in light of many of the things discussed throughout this conversation:

        “Brother John [Young] referred to some persons receiving revelations. I say to such persons, Go ahead, and get all the revelations you can. If brother Joseph visits you every night, go ahead, and tell him to bring brother Hyrum, father Smith, Don Carlos Smith, St. Paul, Peter, James, and John, and Jesus Christ, if you can induce him to do so. But I could almost lay my hand on that Bible and swear that the man or woman who gets such revelations has been guilty of adultery, or of theft, or has been rebellious and apostatized in feelings, but has come back again, and now professes to have such revelations. Hell is full of such revelations; and I could almost testify that a man or woman who receives them has been guilty of some outrageous crime. I have had men come to me and tell the wonderful great dreams and visions which they have, when those very persons have apostatized heretofore, have denied their God and their religion; and I knew it. Many come to me and tell me what wonderful visions they have–that their minds are open to eternal things–that they can see visions of eternity open before them and understand all about this kingdom,–many of whom have at some time been guilty of betraying their brethren, or committing some atrocious crime. I never notice them much. I sit and hear them talk about their wonderful knowledge, but it passes in and out of my ears like the sound of the wind. It is for me to see to this kingdom, that it is built up, and to preserve the Saints from the grasp of the enemy. The visions of the class I have mentioned are nothing to me. They may exhibit their great knowledge before me; but when they have done, it is all gone from me.” (Brigham Young, October 25, 1857, Journal of Discourses, 5:352.)

        1. Hi SteveF, hope the holiday season is enjoyable this year! I’m not going to complain about our leaders. I really don’t know why Denver does, unless he believes the leaders since Joseph haven’t been “complete”? leaders.

          I respect your knowledge and understanding, so I hope you can give me your thoughts on this scripture:

          2 Nephi 26
          20 And the Gentiles are lifted up in the pride of their eyes, and have stumbled, because of the greatness of their stumbling block, that they have built up many churches; nevertheless, they put down the power and miracles of God, and preach up unto themselves their own wisdom and their own learning, that they may get gain and grind upon the face of the poor.

          I always read this scripture like it was about other churches. However, if you read it as if it is about us, or our church, the meaning really changes.

          If it is about us, what is the stumbling block? How are we grinding upon the face of the poor?

          This is where Denver and others certainly have an opinion.

        2. Rick, I decide the best way to answer your question would be to give context by outlining the whole prophecy of Nephi found in Ch. 25-30. I’ll go chronologically from Ch. 26-30, and reference Ch. 25 when necessary. I think by taking an overview of the whole prophecy, it will become much clearer what is meant (or who is meant) by the term “Gentiles”. I hope by doing this it will prevent you from falling into any erroneous conclusions that could be ultimately be damaging if taken too far. So here’s what I’ve come up with. You’ll want to pull out your scriptures and read alongside this commentary, as I have quoted pretty sparsely. Feel free to ask any clarifying questions if you need. All the best!

          26:1-11 Nephi prophesies what will happen to the Nephites, starting with wars and contentions, to persecution of the saints and the prophets, to the coming of Christ (found in 3 Nephi 11) and the destruction of the wicked at that time, to past four more generations and the speedy destruction of the Nephites.

          26:12-13: In chapter 25, Nephi explains that “the Lord will set his hand again the second time to restore his people [specifically the Jews] from their lost and fallen state. (25:17)” How so? Through “a marvelous work and a wonder” (the restoration through Joseph Smith) the Lord will bring forth His words to the Jews “for the purpose of convincing them of the true Messiah”. Likewise the Gentiles will also need to be convinced that Jesus is the Christ.
          26:14: When will this happen? In the “last days” when the Lord shall bring “these things” forth unto the children of men. “These things” are the words the Lord brings forth to convince the Jews and Gentiles that Jesus is the Christ as part of His marvelous work and a wonder referenced in Ch. 25. Or in other words, this is leading into a discussion concerning the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the restoration, and the events leading up to them.

          26:15-18: Begins discussing events leading up to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.
          -The remaining Nephites & Lamanites are in a state of unbelief (post destruction of the Nephites) and shall be smitten by the gentiles
          -Or in other words the Native Americans will be smitten by immigrant Europeans who shall camp round about, lay siege, and raise forts against them, bringing the Native Americans low in the dust
          -But the words of the righteous (found in the Book of Mormon) shall be written, their prayers heard, and the Native Americans now in unbelief will not be forgotten by the Lord. For eventually through the words of the Book of Mormon, it will be like those who were destroyed will speak out of the ground/dust to them.

          26:19-22: “19 And it shall come to pass, that those who have dwindled in unbelief shall be smitten by the hand of the Gentiles. 20 And the Gentiles are…” Here Nephi repeats what was being discussed at the beginning of verse 15 (European settlers smiting the Native Americans), and then instead of discussing the Native Americans this time, in Verse 20 he rather begins the description of these Gentiles (European settlers) who are responsible for smiting the Native Americans—or in other words verses 20-22 are a description of the Gentiles in the Americas before and leading up to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the restoration. Verse 20 is therefore not talking about the LDS Church today, because it hasn’t happened yet in the chronology of the prophecy. But before moving on to discuss what happens after this portion of the prophesy (for the full context), let’s quickly cover the description of these Gentiles here:
          -pride of their eyes is a stumbling block
          -which causes division and the creation of many churches (note: not church buildings like we might use the word “church” today), which many churches built up causes envying, and strifes, and malice (think Joseph Smith history, and the many contentions and strifes (i.e. war of words and tumult of opinions) that existed between churches that eventually led Joseph Smith to his first vocal prayer and the First Vision.)
          -secret combinations, and works of darkness exist among these people

          26:23-33: This is a brief aside from the events of the prophecy (Ch. 25-30), describing principles of the gospel. (The Lord is good and merciful, commands against wickedness, and invites all to come unto Him and partake of His goodness).

          27:1-5: Now we pick right back up where we left off—to the last days or days of the Gentiles (still pre-restoration, pre-BofM as we will see below).
          -But now we are discussing both Jews and Gentiles, and not only Gentiles in the Americas, but upon all the lands of the earth.
          -All are in a state of wickedness, drunken with all manner of abominations (it is the Great Apostasy; compare to Jacob 5 when the entire vineyard produces bad fruit, before the Lord comes to work in his vineyard one final time)
          -Because of the wicked state of the whole earth, they all shall be visited with great destructions
          -Those who fight against righteousness will be empty inside
          -They will be in a spiritual deep sleep

          27:6-23: The Lord shall bring forth the words of a book, the words of those who slumbered (or were destroyed as it says in Ch. 26), or in other words the Book of Mormon will come forth.
          -The book is sealed and contains a revelation of the beginning of the world to the end, but these sealed things will not be given to the people in the day of their wickedness and abomination.
          -Joseph Smith is therefore given the plates to translate, there shall be 3 witnesses
          -Professor Anthon story

          27:24-27: Once again describes the condition of the people before the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, as the Lord will say to Joseph Smith “Forasmuch as this people draw near unto me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their hearts far from me, and their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men…” Therefore the Lord will proceed to do a marvelous work and a wonder among the people (restoration of His church and gospel).

          27:28-35: Only a short time from the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the restoration before a great many of God’s children shall begin to bear fruit once again.
          -For in that day shall they who are deaf, hear the words of the Book of Mormon, and the eyes of the blind shall be opened that they can see out of obscurity and darkness.
          -There will be joy, for end result of the coming forth of the BofM and the restoration is that the terrible one shall be brought to not
          -House of Jacob will no longer need to be ashamed, for Israel will gathered and redeemed.
          -Many who once erred and murmured will come to understanding and shall learn doctrine

          Chapters 28: now having discussed the restoration, Nephi goes back to discuss the wicked churches that are not the Lord’s.
          28:3-4: Shows that churches built up in Ch. 27 are not buildings, but different denominations contending one with another claiming that they are the Lord’s—which adds to several other reasons why it is impossible given the text to interpret “Gentiles” to mean the LDS Church, for the group as a whole certainly embodies multiple churches established among them.
          The remainder of Ch. 28 describes the wicked state, wicked acts, and wicked teachings of these apostate churches.
          28:32: The Lord will be merciful to those Gentiles who repent and come unto Him.

          Ch. 29 helps us understand the time period we are discussing.
          29:1: at that day when I shall proceed to do a marvelous work (or in other words, the beginning of the restoration)… which will eventually culminate in the recovery of God’s people who are of the House of Israel (just as is outlined in Jacob 5 when the Lord works in His vineyard for the last time. There is not a restoration, falling away after the restoration, and then another restoration for the House of Israel separate from what Joseph Smith already laid the foundation for, rather there is a single restoration in which slowly the bad branches are broken off according to and in balance with the strength of the root as Israel is gathered in, and those Gentiles who are righteous will stay part of the tree and will be numbered among Israel.)

          29:3: The Book of Mormon will go (hiss) forth, and will be the standard unto the House of Israel (think ensign to the nations as prophesied by Isaiah)
          29:4: Many Gentiles shall say “A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.” Do these Gentiles being described here sound like LDS members? or rather those who are outside of the restored Church who are first being introduced to the Book of Mormon?

          29:5-14: The Lord speaks to all His people, and the words of the Jews, Nephites, and Lost Tribes shall eventually all come together, as the Lord remembers the covenants He has made with His people and gathers them to the lands of their inheritences.

          Ch 30. 1 And now behold, my beloved brethren, I would speak unto you; for I, Nephi, would not suffer that ye should suppose that ye are more righteous than the Gentiles shall be. For behold, except ye shall keep the commandments of God ye shall all likewise perish; and because of the words which have been spoken ye need not suppose that the Gentiles are utterly destroyed.
          2 For behold, I say unto you that as many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord; and as many of the Jews as will not repent shall be cast off; for the Lord covenanteth with none save it be with them that repent and believe in his Son, who is the Holy One of Israel.

          The remainder of Ch. 30 describes the effects of the restoration of the gospel, which is to bring all gather God’s people in from all nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples. Or in other words fulfilling the covenants God made with Israel, and gathering in the righteous divided from the wicked. Notice there is no description of a restoration, a subsequent falling away, and then the Church being taken away and re-restored or given to the House of Israel. Rather the House of Israel will be gathered in through the LDS Church, the very same that Joseph Smith restored which continues today. And where do these Israelites come from? D&C 77:11 tells us that the 144,000 to be chosen out of all the tribes of Israel (among others), will be selected and ordained out of “every nation, kindred, tongue, and people”.

          So to get to your question more specifically, I think there may be benefit to seeing what prophecies about the wickedness of the Gentiles might be found in the Church today, and particularly seeing if any of these things apply to you personally. This application may be beneficial because we know that the gospel is first unto the Gentiles, and until Zion is redeemed we will find and slowly need to cut off the bad branches that will be found in the Church, this according to and in balance with the growing strength of our roots (again see Jacob 5). We can help accomplish this prophesied progression by helping to root out evil in ourselves and in each of our respective stewardships.

          But what should be avoided is somehow misinterpreting these verses concerning the Gentiles to specifically be an intended reference to the LDS Church. This is simply false. These versus about the Gentiles clearly refer to a people in apostasy. And if you choose to falsely interpret the verse, the conclusion will be that the Church is in apostasy—which directly contradicts what these very scriptures prophesy will be the result of the restoration. You would effectively be reading the scriptures to say the very opposite of what they are saying. –There are those who have commented here that have come to this exact erroneous conclusion now or in the past, or have come to believe in something effectively similar.

          The prophesies are clear however, that the Church restored through Joseph Smith, the LDS Church, will continue to progress and be the vehicle by which in time all things will be gathered in one, Zion will be redeemed as the prepared bride for the second coming of Christ, and the Kingdom of God will be established in its entirety on earth. The question is then whether we will take part in this work, or whether we will cut ourselves off and join the wicked branches who will be bundled and burned. And I wanted to lay out this entire context for you so you could clearly see what 2 Nephi 26:20 was primarily in reference to. Hope this helps!

        3. For the record, I think SteveF is entitled to his opinions and beliefs. I appreciate he has shown that his interpretation of the Book of Mormon references to the Gentiles is based upon a Church-centric interpretation of Jacob 5 and a prior commitment to the Church not being “in apostasy”.

          It is important that everyone study, ponder, and pray for themselves about these things.

        4. Thanks for your reply SteveF, Log and Good Will. There is certainly much to consider, ponder and pray about.

          SteveF your outline and comments are certainly the view that I have always had. The Gentiles were all the others outside our church, and boy could we see how Nephi’s comments apply to them. With this view, you will come to the conclusion that:

          – Denver is working for the adversary, or
          – Denver started out ok, but the adversary has overcome him, or
          – Due to age, dementia has set in.

          If this is correct, the adversary is carefully leading some of our brothers and sisters on the road to hell.

          On the other hand, if you read the Book of Mormon as if it is for and about us, the Gentile Church, you start seeing warnings that support Denver:

          – Denver truly has received the Second Comforter
          – Denver has been asked by the Lord to deliver a message to us
          – The Heavens are open to those who seek Heavenly Gifts
          – The Church is in a some state of apostasy.

          It is hard to ignore the warnings that Nephi and Christ have given to the Gentiles (which includes us I believe).

          It is hard to ignore Moroni 7 and the lack of gifts due to our lack of faith.

          The scriptures back up Denver, so if he is led by the adversary, it is truly one of the most subtle scenarios ever.

          Here is one thought from me, and you will probably fall down when you hear it:
          – Gross Tithing = Grinding the poor.

          Why? It is a burden more strict than consecration, where at least you get what you need. The poor can’t get joy out of Gross Tithing, they are always fighting to make ends meet. Many members can’t help the poor because all their income goes to needs and tithing.

          In the United States, our church should be filled with poor, what greater doctrine is available? Yet we grind them, with feelings of guilt, and we keep them out of the temple, where the highest ordinances are.

          Read D&C 119:1-5. Read JST Genesis 14, the verses on Abram paying tithes on his wealth above his needs. (Maybe you could expound on these.)

          Tithing should be a great joy, not an over-whelming burden.

          Log is correct, we all need to pray. I also think we need to read the Book of Mormon with open minds.

        5. The funny thing is that this is not the view that I always held. As I believe I mentioned earlier, the traditions that I inherited from my fathers and that I once believed was that the Church was essentially in apostasy, and I read the scriptures according to the very interpretation you are now proposing, that “Gentiles” was particularly referring to the LDS Church. You are correct in your assessment that “the adversary is carefully leading some of our brothers and sisters on the road to hell” for I was once under the influence of this very same false spirit which is leading several away now, and I really do understand in way only decades of experience could, how subtle it really is. It brought a significant portion of my family to the brink of spiritual ruin, and now that I recognize this false spirit it gets very personal to me when I recognize it elsewhere, and I feel a deep obligation to warn others from falling into the trap I once was in.

          Over time I gained a testimony that has led me to my beliefs today, see both here and here where I discuss my experience in the false paradigm and what helped me eventually see the errors of my ways/views.

          Once I received the testimony through revelation for myself, over time and as the light grew brighter, it has become clear to me that my previous view was actually incompatible with the text of the Book of Mormon itself (see several reasons I gave in my outline of 2 Nephi 26-30), even though I previously saw it as proof for my views. And I realized that I had been unintentionally disregarding those scriptures and prophesies incompatible with my view or I just simply didn’t understand them at the time. In the end logic alone was not sufficient to help me see clearly and discern this false spirit, but it was rather testimony and revelation that ultimate helped me change my view. Over time my understanding has increased and now the scriptures are incomparably clearer to my view than when I held my previous views. Perhaps to gain such a view, for some it may take an element of being temporarily taken into deception to finally fully see the deception for what it is and come out on top (as it seem to for me).

          I agree that prayer is key, as well as reading the scriptures with an open mind, but I would also likewise suggest listening to those who possess the keys of the Kingdom today with the same openness of mind and heart while keeping the commandments, and I believe in this way the truth will be made manifest as it has been for me.

          With testimony of the living prophets, modern revelation, and the keys of the Kingdom they hold, questions like those you pose about tithing, or other potential “hard issues” that have been mentioned by Denver or others here, while they can be interesting to explore, are suddenly not so important in the face of revelation. I leave you with my knowledge that the Lord leads and accepts His Church and His Kingdom on earth today, that we are progressing, not digressing, and the keys of life and salvation, even the fullness of the Priesthood that can be held by mortals is found in the LDS Church today, which will go forth as the stone cut out of the mountain without hands boldly, nobly, and independent until Israel is gathered and Zion is redeemed and it fills the whole earth. God bless you in your searches as you ponder and pray about these important things.

        6. “Brother John [Young] referred to some persons receiving revelations. I say to such persons, Go ahead, and get all the revelations you can. If brother Joseph visits you every night, go ahead, and tell him to bring brother Hyrum, father Smith, Don Carlos Smith, St. Paul, Peter, James, and John, and Jesus Christ, if you can induce him to do so. But I could almost lay my hand on that Bible and swear that the man or woman who gets such revelations has been guilty of adultery, or of theft, or has been rebellious and apostatized in feelings, but has come back again, and now professes to have such revelations. Hell is full of such revelations; and I could almost testify that a man or woman who receives them has been guilty of some outrageous crime. I have had men come to me and tell the wonderful great dreams and visions which they have, when those very persons have apostatized heretofore, have denied their God and their religion; and I knew it. Many come to me and tell me what wonderful visions they have–that their minds are open to eternal things–that they can see visions of eternity open before them and understand all about this kingdom,–many of whom have at some time been guilty of betraying their brethren, or committing some atrocious crime. I never notice them much. I sit and hear them talk about their wonderful knowledge, but it passes in and out of my ears like the sound of the wind. It is for me to see to this kingdom, that it is built up, and to preserve the Saints from the grasp of the enemy. The visions of the class I have mentioned are nothing to me. They may exhibit their great knowledge before me; but when they have done, it is all gone from me.” (Brigham Young, October 25, 1857, Journal of Discourses, 5:352.)

          So saith the man having 27 contemporaneous wives and 56 kids! Whose body of “doctrinal” expositions and proclaimed personal “revelations” have been repudiated by a chorus of “prophetic” LDS successors!

          Behold the list!

          Perhaps it would be simpler to identify the BY doctrines not denounced by subsequent LDS leaders.

          His “revelation” that that Adam is our Father in heaven reincarnated? Denounced as false doctrine.

          His pronouncement that modern blacks shall not hold the priesthood because of the curse of Cain? Denounced as “false doctrine” and “racism”.

          His “doctrine” that practicing polygamy is required for exaltation? Repudiated as “not doctrinal”.

          Blood atonement? False.

          Do you see a trend?

          Once you build your foundation on the sand of the philosophies and teachings of men, you set yourself up for deception and disappointment.

  243. I’m also puzzled by the (straw man?) representations I see on here of modern church members and wards. In my experience there isn’t as much negativity about spiritual experiences as represented here, though it may be true that many members are not having many spiritual experiences. Banging on the ministry of angels, second comforter, lost keys chord in this way just doesn’t harmonize at all with my experience of these things as connected with the ongoing lives of church members and the work of the church.

    When I have in the past spoken of the baptism by fire, I have been reprimanded by higher priesthood authorities via reference to Elder Packer’s Candle of the Lord talk, and this regardless of the fact that the baptism by fire is one of the first ordinances and principles of the Gospel.

    Doctrine and Covenants 39:6
    6 And this is my gospel—repentance and baptism by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, even the Comforter, which showeth all things, and teacheth the peaceable things of the kingdom.

    And this in spite of the commandment of the Lord:

    Doctrine and Covenants 19:31
    31 And of tenets thou shalt not talk, but thou shalt declare repentance and faith on the Savior, and remission of sins by baptism, and by fire, yea, even the Holy Ghost.

    Moreover, even though the doctrines are read straight out of the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Bible, all sans commentary, the teachings are opposed by higher priesthood authorities from the pulpit and in quorum meetings.

    One can hear, see, and feel minds and hearts snapping shut when the topics are broached.

    “You’re reading it wrong!” comes the response. “Baptist born-again snake-oil!”

    In short, I have beheld the silencing of true doctrine, the transfiguration of the scriptures, and the conscious preaching of false doctrines, all under the color of authority. These were not isolated instances.

    I suppose I would see things differently if I had not experienced these things, neither known these doctrines, and had not been moved upon to speak of them. Indeed, I might perceive the actions of these leaders to be the justified and necessary silencing of doctrinal nutballs, cranks, contrarians, and marginal Mormons, for the sake of doctrinal orthodoxy; after all, the Brethren cannot possibly lead the Church astray.

    Except the black priesthood ban and its recent denunciation by the Church demonstrates, on empirical grounds, that not only are the united 15 apostles able to lead the Church astray, but as a historical fact they have. And if it is the case that they have led us astray, is it not highly likely that those beneath them have done likewise?

  244. Robf,

    Jacob 4
    13 Behold, my brethren, he that prophesieth, let him prophesy to the understanding of men; for the Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be; wherefore, these things are manifested unto us plainly, for the salvation of our souls. But behold, we are not witnesses alone in these things; for God also spake them unto prophets of old.

    D&C 93
    24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

    You’ll have to decide for yourself what you see. My experience has been similar to Log’s. There was a sister in my ward a couple of years ago who had received the Second Comforter, actually visited in person with the Lord (this is in Arizona, btw). She shared it with a few people, including my wife and me, and one of these other sisters in a leadership role started a witch-hunt that ended up in the bishop’s office with the sharing sister’s TR being threatened to be taken away – at the time I can’t say we didn’t also contribute to the persecution. We all later regretted everything that led to that (and I have since gone and apologized sincerely to that sister). But why was envy and accusations of lying or being crazy the reaction instead of rejoicing in the testimony of His reality and compassionate personal ministry? It’s okay if it’s myth and legend (by that I mean comfortably far in the past, like JS or Nephi, etc.) but not here and now reality? Or it’s okay if it’s one of the authorized/presiding brethren implying it on a broadcast, but not if it’s your next-door neighbor telling you in person? Go look at Tim’s “I have Been Visited By An Angel” post for more examples.

    https://www.latterdaycommentary.com/2013/12/10/i-have-been-visited-by-an-angel/

    From my experience these types of reactions to the gifts of the Spirit and the fruits of true faith are more the norm than the exception, at least in our western/scientific/corporatized culture, which has certainly infiltrated our church culture as well. And the leaders don’t seem to be excepted – they often react with unrighteous dominion in a misguided effort to correct “false doctrine” (really?) or “protect the good name of the church” (we don’t want to be known as a crazy/supernatural church, right?). I know a few others personally who have experienced these great blessings and born testimony of them and they have been severely corrected by their local authorities, released from callings, TR’s suspended, etc. Unbelievable. Really? Is this where we are? It’s probably not all or nothing, and varies by location. I’ve observed it in AZ and TX, so I’m not even talking UT – so I think this type of unbelief has penetrated our culture/tradition, and even our teaching: don’t search mysteries (contrary to the scriptures telling us to search them deeply), etc.

    I don’t consider the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, the First Comforter – which I have received – or the Second Comforter, which I have yet to but yearn to receive, to be the banging of discordant chords. You need to reread 2 Nephi 31-32, as well as Moroni 7 – forget Denver Snuffer (his book TSC is spot-on, btw) if his situation is just confusing you – the doctrine of Christ and of election is core, not fringe, to the Restored Fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ – it is “the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.” We read about it but don’t see or hear it, or truly believe it. Maybe it’s not the brethren’s or the church’s job to teach these things. Maybe once we are baptized unto repentance, it is our responsibility to seek the Spirit, and by that I mean reception of the Holy Ghost, to feast upon the words of Christ (every word that proceedeth forth from His mouth), live by them, do whatsoever the Holy Ghost shows us to do, etc. If we don’t then I don’t believe we are on the strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life, nor having all our ordinances sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. Read the scriptures and seek the Spirit to understand them.

    If these things seem fringe, then ponder if that is a reflection of where we might be drifting. Have we really progressed in our faith and connection to the powers of heaven? Joseph and many of his contemporaries had a more “magical” (i.e. belief in the supernatural) worldview that most people in our day would consider just superstitious and unsophisticated. Take evil spirits and the unseen forces of darkness, for example, the adversary is laughing because he has successfully convinced this generation that “I am no devil, for there is none” – it’s all explained away in scientific terms of psychiatric disorders, etc. Our Western/Corporate/Anti-Faith culture/society is predominating. You could probably cook up an honest experiment to test the truth of these things for yourself, in your very own location.

    For me this is not a question of loyalty, this is a personal quest that has already born fruit and it is not contrary to its teachings or the scriptures. I love the Church, I support it, I pray for it. It is the net which the Lord is using to gather all kinds of fish. This is about becoming a member of The Church of the Firstborn. We are not supposed to become modern-day Mormon Pharisees. It sounds like you have a very all-or-nothing point of view, black-or-white. To me it seems very multi-colored/hued. For example, can you picture a situation where the instruction of a priesthood leader conflicts with the Lord’s will? What if you were like that sister I described earlier, who had been visited by the Lord and commanded to testify of Him, but your bishop told you to shush? What would you do? Obey the church leader, who is supposed to represent the Lord, or obey the Lord with whom you had visited personally? “Well that would never happen!” Priesthood keys and callings don’t stop bad decision or being out of tune with the Lord and His Spirit (I’m not accusing any individual or leader here) – we wouldn’t have D&C 121:34-46 if it wasn’t “the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.” Again, please don’t misinterpret me – these things aren’t all or nothing – we are just observing a strong cultural trend/bias which is very prevalent today. I believe the Lord is causing a stir among us to reverse/correct this and come unto Him, from within the Church. I’m not talking about dissent, but rather purifying the vineyard, the wheat from the tares, the wise from the foolish virgins, etc. The Lord and His Angels will do it.

    Again, I could be wrong about a lot of things.

    1. Well Geoff, you are probably right about a lot of things, but not really about my being a black and white sort of guy. Perhaps you projected that because I referred to President Packer? 🙂 I also did not mean to imply in any sense that I think gifts of the spirit are in any way “fringe” to the rest of the gospel. I am currently serving as a bishop and know that these gifts are integral to the gospel and the Lord’s work, and I am not inexperienced with many of the gifts discussed here. I do however have some concerns about the tenor and approach displayed by some comments here. I usually only comment here rarely to bring up things which I think merit additional consideration in weighing the claims and approaches that dominate the discussion here. At any rate, there’s a lot I chose not to say in a public forum like this. Feel free to email me privately if you want, Tim can give you my email 🙂

      1. Hi Rob, I hope you and everyone else is having a nice holiday season. While I have changed some of my thoughts, I will not complain or speak out against our leaders. Denver has lost his membership over that.

        For me, my testimony of the Book of Mormon is central, and if you read it as if it is for you personally, it really changes what you see and understand.

        For example, I believe the main thing is to bring us to Christ, which is what Denver started his message in The Second Comforter. In the Book of Mormon we have:

        2 Nephi 32: 6 Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh. And when he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh, the things which he shall say unto you shall ye observe to do.

        and

        Moroni 10: 32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.

        These examples are consistent with Denver’s message.

        I received a message from the Lord (not to do with Denver) where I understood that He loves all his children! What is the Book of Mormon trying to tell us with these examples:

        2 Nephi 13:15 What mean ye? Ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor, saith the Lord God of Hosts.

        and

        2 Nephi 26:20 And the Gentiles are lifted up in the pride of their eyes, and have stumbled, because of the greatness of their stumbling block, that they have built up many churches; nevertheless, they put down the power and miracles of God, and preach up unto themselves their own wisdom and their own learning, that they may get gain and grind upon the face of the poor.

        I used to read these versus like it was the Catholics or others. It is us too! What is the stumbling block? Why the lack of miracles? What traditions do we have that grind on the face of the poor?

        I know you are a bishop, and I am grateful for your service. Denver asks some hard questions and he has paid the price for it. We also need to ask some hard questions: personally, family, ward and church.
        Are we guilty on grinding on the face of the poor??? I think I have, I want to repent and see how I can be better.

        I had to step back and understand better, that is why I thank you, Tim, Geoff, Daniel, Frederick, SteveF, Log,Tom, Annelea and all the others for the comments. All I can say is I feel better, it feels good to me.

  245. Denver Snuffer has stolen a little known prophecy from joseph smith and tried to pass it off as a proof that he is sent from god.

    http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-sign.html
    When the Seed of the Woman was born, a new star appeared in the heavens. In like manner, when the Lion of Judah returns, as with his first coming, there will be a new star seen. All the world will note its appearance and shall be troubled at its meaning. When it makes its appearance, you may know His return is soon upon the world. You may also know by that sign that He has given to me the words I have faithfully taught as His servant.

    Joseph said in 1843
    “Jerusalem must be rebuilt.–& Judah return, must return & the temple water come out from under the temple–the waters of the dead sea be healed.–it will take some time to build the walls & the Temple. &c & all this must be done before Son of Man will make his appearance; wars & rumours of wars. signs in the heavens above on the earth beneath Sun turned to darkness moon to blood, oceans heaving beyond their bound.–then one grand sign of the son of the son of man [sic] in heaven. but what will the world do? they will say it is a planet. a comet, &c. consequently the sun [Son] of man will come as the sign of the soming of the son of man; is as the light of the morning cometh out of the east.”

    1. Curious. Your quote of Joseph Smith doesn’t even mention a star. And yet you claim Denver Snuffer “stole” his prophecy of a “new star” from Joseph Smith?

    2. If we see a “new star” appear in the constellation Leo that would be a marvelous sign, indeed.

  246. If Denver’s “new star” is Joseph Smith’s “planet” or “comet” announcing Christ’s Second Advent (in other words, the actual return of Christ Himself to the earth), Denver Snuffer will be the least of our worries!

  247. I am truly grateful for those who share their witness of the doctrine of the Second Comforter.
    I have shared this on Dan Rodgers’ site previously found at http://thesecondcomforter.com but feel it appropriate to share again here because of how much his testimony and witness of what Denver is teaching has impacted me in my search for Christ.
    ******************
    Dear Reader,
    I feel the need to add my testimony here that I know the things Dan has shared are true. I have heard him relate these things in person numerous times and have felt the Holy Ghost confirm the truthfulness and significance of his experiences time and time again.
    I also have had too many spiritual experiences and blessings poured out upon me and my family since embarking on this journey of receiving Christ to turn back and doubt the truthfulness of what Dan has shared here.
    I know the heavens are not sealed. Angels have been present in my own life as I strive to seek my Lord . Dan’s account is a witness to what the Prophet Joseph Smith shared here: “For where faith is, there will the knowledge of God be, also, with all things which pertain thereto: revelations, visions, and dreams, as well as every other necessary thing, so the possessors of faith may be perfected and obtain salvation”. (7th lecture on faith)
    I know that our Savior continues to minister to His saints today just like in ancient times. His promise that He will come to us is real. God is no respector or persons.
    ” And he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female..”
    2 Nephi 26:33
    I know without any doubt that the Savior did come to Dan just like he promised he would in the scriptures::
    “Wherefore, I now send upon you another Comforter, even upon you my friends, that it may abide in your hearts, even the Holy Spirit of promise; which other Comforter is the same that I promised unto my disciples, as is recorded in the testimony of John.
    This Comforter is the promise which I give unto you of eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom”. D&C 88:3
    Dan was commanded to share these thing with us. It is up to each person is to find out from the Lord what it is he or she is to learn from Dan’s account and witness to help them on their journey to getting to know their Lord face to face.
    As a church we are under condemnation. We have strayed from the faith the Lord was trying to restore through the prophet Joseph Smith. Gentiles in the Book of Mormon are referring to us the latter day saints. Unfortunately all is not well in Zion. We need to repent and turn unto the Lord. Relying solely upon others including leaders for our salvation will not save us. “Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm”. 2 Nephi 4:34
    We need to each seek our connection to Heaven because “the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there..” 2 Nephi 9:41
    I’m very grateful that Dan felt to share his witness and for the gift I’ve had to believe.”To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful”. D&C46:14 His testimony has strengthened my faith tremendously.” Our Savior and Father live! Glory be unto them forever and ever.

Comments are closed.