They That Come Shall Burn Them


The day of the Lord will come quicklyI’ve been thinking and learning about connections lately. This may seem a rudimentary subject, but its importance has been revealed to me in ways that have helped secure it in my mind. I’d like to share a few thoughts that have caused me to reconsider the idea of human connections as being imperative to our happiness, eternal salvation and oddly enough, even our very survival.

Consider this scripture as delivered by the angel Moroni to Joseph that September night in 1823, “For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall burn as stubble; for they that come shall burn them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.” As he said, this is slightly different from Malachi 4:1.

The difference of course, is that it is not the day that comes, but “they that come” which shall burn up they that do wickedly, even as stubble. This has caused me to wonder who they are. It has also impressed upon me that in order to avoid being burned at the day of the Lord’s return, it would probably be helpful to be on friendly terms with those who are coming to do the burning.

We Must Be Sealed To The Fathers

new-heavens2I don’t think they intend to burn the inhabitants of the earth on purpose. They can’t help it. They are so filled with light and glory that their very presence burns those who are not used to being in their company. See, that’s where the idea of connections comes in. When you are connected to someone, you like to hang around with them. You’ve been with them before, even quite often.

You have conversed with them, discussed important subjects with them, perhaps asked favors of one another and, in general, have come to be a part of each other’s families. There is a bond of brotherhood or sisterhood between you, a common set of goals and interests. You miss each other when you are apart and yearn for the day when you can be reunited. You are connected.

This connection is the kind of bond that cannot be severed by time, distance or even death. There is no death, really. That belongs to the world of time and mortality. Those who will come are the fathers or parents of the human race. They are the patriarchs – and matriarchs – who have been faithful and who have claim upon those who are sealed to them. We should seek that sealing.

That Temple Has Not Yet Been Built

Jacob Blessing SonsWithout such a familial sealing the whole earth would be utterly wasted at the time the Lord returns with the fathers. When the Lord comes with the City of Enoch – now that will be a glorious and dreadful sight – they will come to a place prepared for them – Zion – a place with a temple. Those who are awaiting them will receive them, fall upon their necks and kiss them.

This temple or tabernacle is required in order for the Lord to seal us to the fathers so that we will not be burned at their coming. The fathers include Adam down to Noah and Melchizedek, as well as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. These and many more will return with the Lord and the City of Enoch. It is in the temple that has yet to be built where we are sealed to them.

There is much work to be done before heaven will look down and see what is so comfortable, so familiar that it appears to accurately reflect a pattern that exists in the heavens. When they see what we have here, then they will come to a sister and brother on the earth, united by belief, by covenant, by knowledge, light and truth or in other words the glory of God which is intelligence.

The Snuffer Interview – Part Four

SaltLakeTempleNightWhat I’ve summarized in this post so far is based mostly on material found in the lecture on covenants given October 2013 in Centerville. I learned a couple of things I had not imagined previously. One is that we don’t make covenants, God does. We can only accept or reject them. We can make vows, although the Savior counseled against it, but we do not make covenants.

Isn’t that an interesting thing to learn especially when you think about the temple? Think about that the next time someone accuses you of breaking your temple covenants, especially the law of consecration. The other thing I learned is the importance of understanding to whom we are to be sealed. Moroni was very clear about how critical this is. It fulfils God’s covenants to the Fathers.

When I interviewed Denver last month, I asked him for ideas on how to help multi-generational LDS families deal with some of the distressing things he has declared as a messenger or servant of the Lord. I found his answer to be revealing. I had no idea just how distressing this message has been for Denver, as a convert, to accept and deliver. I hope this helps you understand better.

Question Four: In the same lecture, you quoted from your journal, describing the disciplinary process you went through, your appeal and the significance of section 121 which contains the phrase, “Amen to the priesthood of that man.” You then read, “Last general conference (April 2014), the entire First Presidency, the 12, the 70, and all other general authorities and auxiliaries, voted to sustain those who abused their authority in casting me out of the church. At that moment, the Lord ended all claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to claim it is led by the priesthood. They have not practiced what He requires. The Lord has brought about His purposes. This has been in His heart all along.”

This is an astounding declaration. It has been the subject of much discussion on the forums and blogs. It was and is a difficult thing for many LDS members to hear or read. FAIR and other apologetic sites have fallen all over themselves to show how impossible such a claim can be. The idea of a modern, living prophet, authorized and in possession of all priesthood keys held by Joseph is the bedrock of the LDS Church claims to be God’s kingdom on earth today. Your claim evokes emotional distress in some who consider it. It’s been a while since this declaration came out. Is there anything you would add now to help multi-generational members of the LDS Church deal with such a devastating, all-encompassing foundational claim? What would you add?

ANSWER (Denver): I would add that it’s a mistake to focus on me when you think of this issue. The issue is larger than a single man, and the issue deserves careful consideration of everything that was covered in that first answer in this interview.

I am no happier than others are about this. Does anyone really think that this does not upset me? Does anyone believe that I have pride in this, or it makes me pleased to say what I have said? Those that think that, have no idea who I am or what is in my heart. I’m probably more brokenhearted by the things I’ve been told and commanded to teach that the audience could be. I receive unwelcome news and then deliver it to others. This is an ordeal, nothing else. Unwanted, unwelcome, unsought, and unpleasant. I do it to please God, not to get praise. It does not inspire praise from most people who hear what I say or read what I write.

I have spent days mourning, unable to speak about some things, even with my wife, as the events have unfolded. There have been times when I have been so upset that have not been able to carry on a conversation about what is underway. It has required two and three days for me to adjust to unwelcome news. I could give you an example but I’ll pass on that.

How The Lectures Were Received

On second thought, I will give you one example: The section you read in the question quoted from my journal was written months before it was read to an audience. When it was written, I thought that writing was only for my family, my kids. I did not expect it to become public.

There are some times when the Lord gives you the words to write, and there are some times when you compose it yourself. That particular entry was given to me to write. I considered it extremely private. I considered it extremely personal. Outside of my wife alone, no one was aware of that entry in my journal until the talk made it public.

Every one of the 10 talks were given by inspiration to me in outline form before they were delivered to an audience. On the day I first began to prepare to give the talks, I sat down and in one sitting I wrote all the outline notes for the first five talks. I ran out of time that day and so only the first five were outlined. I also didn’t want to put any notes down for the next series until after I delivered the first two, so I could gage the time it would take to cover the topics. The first two talks were given in fairly rapid succession, only eighteen days apart. It was after those were given that I went on to outline the sixth, seventh, eight, and finally the ninth talks. But I never got anything for the 10th talk.

You should understand these outlines were prepared months in advance. I had a long hiatus between first and second parts of the year—between talks given in the beginning months and the conclusion the next year. During winter we didn’t drive, and so I had all nine talks outlined but I had nothing for lecture 10. Nothing. My eventual conclusion—because the content had been given by inspiration to me on lectures 1 through 9—ultimately, was all the 10th lecture was going to contain was a summary of the first nine. So, literally, I began to go back to the notes and to highlight what I would use as a summary in the 10th and concluding lecture. I prayed about it and nothing was given to me. So left to my own I thought it was a reasonable conclusion.

I finished the 9th talk in St. George and with it concluded all the notes I had. But on the night that the ninth talk was given, that night I was awakened and the content of the 10th talk was revealed to me. If I had known anywhere along the line the content of the 10th talk I would have done something to prepare the audience for what was coming. I didn’t know what was going to be in it. When I got the content of the 10th lecture, it was so distressing to me that I told my wife the next day while on a walk down in St. George (we stayed in the area for a while) that this was not going to be good. This was not going to be a pleasant thing. She asked me about it, but I told her I would not be able to discuss it right then.

I wrote down all the notes, I transcribed what needed to be said, but I didn’t give any preview of the talk to her. Unlike the other ones, I just continued to try and change the Lord’s mind about the content. She heard the talk for the first time with the audience. She knew how upset and distressed I had been and what I had been saying about the material. At the first break in the lecture she got up, came up to me and said, “I now get it.” That lecture was not easy to give.

No Ulterior Motive In The Message

People who think that I’m enjoying this, and that I look out and say, “Good! Now I’m giving the Mormon Church their comeuppance!” don’t realize anything about what it takes to do what has been asked of me, or how extremely difficult all of this is. I’m not happy about the burden. It ill-suits me.

Multigenerational families may have their family traditions, but I was truly converted at the age of 19. I invested my heart and soul into the Church. It was like coming home for me. I believed I was the Church’s best friend and loyal supporter.

I was the single most successful missionary in the mission in which I was baptized, as just a lay member of the Church. I produced investigators continually, and baptized many of them, the missionaries baptizing many others.

When I transferred by the military to Texas I was called as a stake missionary. There was a third missionary serving there who was waiting for a visa to go to Brazil. In those days it was difficult to obtain visas. Every night when I came home from work, that missionary showed up and he and I were missionary companions. We went out and tracted, and taught, and baptized. There was a young couple, the husband was studying to become a minister in the Church of Christ. We began teaching him with him trying to convert us, and us convert him. We got the couple to the point of having a testimony of the Restoration. They got an answer from prayer. They had a testimony, but they were faced with the crisis of losing his profession and of alienating his family. They concluded, despite the fact they had been converted, they couldn’t pay the price to be baptized. They told us they didn’t want us have come by anymore.

I taught Gospel Doctrine in Sunday School for nearly 3 decades. I was on the High Council. When I spoke as a High Councilor in my Stake, the Bishops announced in advanced who the visiting High Councilman would be, because attendance would go up. I loved the gospel and I was devoted to the Church. To say it is more distressing to multigenerational families than to me is incomprehensible to me. It is a tragedy what has happened to the Restoration. But it has happened. Ignoring it will not change the events. To focus on me when dealing with so important a matter is ridiculous. Forget about me and study the issues.

Transcript One: http://3tcm.net/a-visit-with-denver-snuffer-transcript.pdf
Note: This version has been reviewed by Denver, missing material added

Transcript Two: http://3tcm.net/tim-malone-Q&A-with-denver-snuffer.pdf

Link to the MP3: http://3tcm.net/Denver_Snuffer_QA_13May2015.mp3
Note: The file is 60MB. It’s best to right-click on the link to download it.

Link to a PDF of answer to question four: http://3tcm.net/question-four.pdf

37 Responses

  1. I believe this is how we connect.

    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.

    Like

  2. To anyone:

    What is the law of two witnesses, and how does it work?

    Do I need two passages from the standard works that clearly say the same thing before I can be sure the teaching is of God?

    If I encounter two coincidences that seem to point in the same direction (like maybe I should seek baptism by someone in the Mormon remnant movement, or by the LDS missionaries, or the Global Missions Church Elders in Eastern) is that a prompting from God?

    Is that what the law of two witnesses means?

    Like

  3. I’m very curious about this temple. I’m a bit of a fence sitter admittedly. Watching your movement and seeing if it flowers, but I would be delighted if you built a temple. Delighted. There’s a lot of things that appeal to me about the Fellowship movements; namely the down to earth nature of the entire thing. Churches plural rather than a unified, catholic church.

    Also wanted to mention. I’ve been a follower of your blog for many years Tim (2008 I think), and know that you are a good man indeed. I’m just at a strange time in my life where I have to be very cautious in my decisions. I’m 24 and about to serve a mission; been home helping my parents out.

    Like

    • Have you ever heard of the law of two witnesses, and do you know what it means?

      Suppose you serve your mission on the east coast (where few people have heard of Denver Snufer) and the first two investigators you talk to have read his book, and have questions about the Mormon Remnant movement?

      Would that be “two witnesses” telling you to put your cautions aside and join the movement?

      I’m not sure this is really a Mormon concept, but I know some Pentecostals (or Charismatics) who tend to interpret passages that speak of the truth being established in the mouth of two or three witnesses that way, and I think Joseph did speak or write on the subject.

      Do you know what he had to say about it, and can you share your understanding?

      Like

      • I’m familiar with the concept but have never really given it much thought, usually considering my own revelation/intuition/opinion, etc on the subject more important than the views of others. Self centered I know. It’s something I’m working on.

        I would never set my cautions aside for such a weighty thing. I’ve made serious covenants and they have to be taken into consideration. Coincidental mentioning of Bro Snuffer’s work is not enough to warrant dramatic choices. But I appreciate the sincerity of your question.

        A quick googling brings this http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/19-15.htm up, though it seems the circumstances of need don’t really correlate. Of course there are also the two witnesses that are supposed to appear in Jerusalem before the Second Coming, so there might be some deeper thing going on here.

        I’m curious as to what your fascination on the subject stems from. I suppose my overriding opinion on the matter is that the books that constitute the bibles include myriad contradictions, and that having two people agree on a particular point is of little virtue in terms of it’s validity. Whenever witnesses come into play, they need to be actual witnesses of something big happening; something not everyone has seen.

        I’ve had some very precious experiences that I equate with the Divine in my past, though I all in all have never really been a spiritually sensitive person. This leaves me in the dreadful position of having to logic the entire debate of Bro Snuffer vs the Status Quo LDS Church, which is of course a flawed stance. The scriptures are full of true prophets rising from the dust of the masses and calling foul on the powers that be. Sometimes these men are true virtuous men of God, sometimes they are false.

        The holy books say that even the elect will be deceived, and if the elect can fall astray, where does that leave Sean? I’ve turned to musing and have gone off track, but I think that at the end of the day the law of the witnesses is supplementary to one’s own revelation.

        Like

        • I have the same concerns about the validity of DS. There is a crucial different, IMO, between Joseph Smith and Denver Snuffer: Joseph not only brought forth volumes of scriptures, he actually produced real life witnesses,, who were in the presence of divine beings, who are able to testify first-hand as to the validity of his supernatural experience. Denver Snuffer has not produced anything along these lines so far. Granted, if anyone sounds like Joseph, it’s Snuffer. However, I for one think it is reasonable to demand additional first-hand witnesses to verify what Snuffer is insisting upon. Sorry, a blog comment either by Tim Malone or any blogger here prefaced: “the Lord has revealed the following to me,” doesn’t have any persuasive impact on me: I too have had many impressions communicated to me through the Holy Ghost, but I do not expect anyone else to believe me merely because of this. For this reason, at some point Denver Snuffer will need to deliver the “goods”, for example bringing forth additional scripture and accompanying witnesses. Or, in the alternative he should step down and go away, because if he is not a valid witness, none of his rhetoric is helping Mormonism out of the quagmire it currently finds itself in. I, along with Malone, and many bloggers, really “want” Snuffer to be right, because the restoration itself seems so diluted and bogged down in the surrounding culture, it’s difficult to see how Zion can ever even be considered under current circumstances. I think the Law of Witnesses is valid, but only in regards to actual first-hand witnesses who bear testimony of actual supernatural events from God. Best.

          Like

        • I feel you bro. I’m sitting in nearly the same place you are. Snuffer seems legit, but I’m not making any big decisions yet regarding him.

          Like

      • Mike,

        Look at the scripture log posted in the first comment. “WE will come unto him, and make our abode with him.”
        The law of two witnesses when it comes to us accepting spiritual truth is beautiful. Jesus said he did not witness of himself, but if he did his witness would be true. People go all about seeking outward witnesses of spiritual truth. This is sign seeking.
        The Holy Ghost will witness a truth to you, the Father will, the Son will. This does not even go into the Holy Spirit or other spiritual manifestations.
        Two outward witnesses mean absolutely NOTHING when it comes to a spiritual truth. I could walk into a polygamy compound and hear 20 witnesses of warren Jeff’s in an hour… Well that means nothing, but if you continually receive a spiritual witness inside of yourself about the same topic, especially from different heavenly beings, you are dealing with multiple witnesses.
        In the law they talked about multiple witnesses in order to convict criminals, this worldly way of using witnesses is part of the lower law and involves the judgement of men. If people want to base their spiritual lives off of listening to outward witnesses, they will be driven about and tossed. Who witnessed to elijah, or Ezekiel, or Noah? Those witnesses are the ones that matter. After all, why not consider that every human being on the planet could be wrong, and only listen to the witnesses from heaven? That is how prophets in the past have come about on many occasions.

        Like

  4. Tim- I subscribed to your blog over a year ago, and I am impressed. Thank you for Truth. I pray more will come to realize, “Truth”. Especially our “leaders”.
    Keep up the “truth” Tim, you are serving the LORD well!!!

    Micheal Tollis

    Like

  5. Tim, I did not finish your post. Few postings of recent have moved me to tears, literally.

    Connections, covenants… matter. In the end, it will be ALL that matters. We minimize our daily, mortal interactions to our detriment. I have often wondered what it would be like to have a “virtual” life, global, map of ALL our interactions across the our individual lifespans. The comings and goings … the human stretching, heaven bending… they are ALL of no little consequence. In eternity, none of this will be of little consequence.

    Thank you. And thank you for your hug.

    Like

  6. I’ll be the least favorite on this forum. It seems to me that there are a bunch of people willing to trade their allegiance from one patriarchal church to another. It makes no sense to me. Denver is a sifter. God is using him but not in the way most believe. God is using him to see if we will jump from idol worship of leadership to idol worship if Denver. Has Denver healed anyone, has there been any miraculous events he has prophesied? His promise of baptism of fire to those being rebabtized has not come to pass. Yet so many are willing to make excuses for the nonperformance. His admonition to get 7 women to sustain a priesthood holder and using Isaiah’s words is not only flawed but an abomination. It is my understanding that Isaiah 4:1 means the one man is Jesus Christ. The seven women is the church or the bride. Read revelations about the 7 churches and Isaiah 4 makes much more sense. The only one who can take away our reproach is Jesus Christ. Another instance where Denver has misunderstood and then promoted his own logic and yet everyone clamors to be on his boat. Denver is skilled in the language of persuasion. Why do you all want to preserve an aaronic priesthood when you yourself can receive much more? The only analogy I can come up with is this. Do you want the fresh fruit of the tree of life or fruit that has been preserved as in an old bottle. For if you continue on this path of preserving the restoration you won’t receive the fruit from the tree of life. Go forwards but backwards. Go to Jesus, not Denver. As you do the Angels will gather you into the church of the firstborn. Otherwise you merit having just another mortal leader instead of our Jesus.

    Like

    • The preserve the restoration movement to me is a bit like someone coming along right before John the Baptist, insisting that what is needed is to restore or preserve what Moses started. Then John comes along, and then Christ comes along, and a whole new paradigm is introduced, but the preserve Moses people already have there hands full restoring the thing that Christ is doing away with.

      Like

  7. 1. I am not a member of the remnant movement, I have not (at this time) sought baptism.

    2. Denver never claimed Isaiah 4 as the source of the 7 women sustaining. Read the transcript: http://denversnuffer.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/10-Phoenix-Transcript-Preserving-the-Restoration.pdf

    He did reference in a footnote that others had made a connection:

    There have been four different people who have contacted me (one during the first break in the talk), all of whom have associated this requirement of seven women sustaining to a fulfillment of Isa. 4: 1 and 2 Ne. 14: 1. If that is the case, then the meaning of being “called by thy name” is clearly a reference to the name of Christ. Seven women sustaining the man to perform the baptism precedes the ordinance of baptism itself. When baptized, we take upon us the name of Christ. It is the name of Christ that will “take away our reproach

    3. I don’t think Denver would deny that the movement is largely “Aaronic” at this point. Baptism and the authorization to baptize is all acknowledged to be part of the Aaronic law. The whole point is to seek for the Melchizedek power, not from Denver’s hand, but from the Lord’s himself. Denver has been consistent about this from the beginning, I don’t know how you could have misunderstood, unless you are reading more from what OTHERS say about Denver than what he claims and teaches himself.

    I do acknowledge that many have only substituted an idolatrous following of LDS General Authorities for an idolatrous following of Denver, but that is not because of something Denver has demanded or even asked for.

    Like

  8. Ben, the parables of Jesus had hidden, underlying messages for those with eyes and ears to see … so with DS … DS has been a servant … his books were needful to wake us. But there are layers upon layers of understanding and progression. Some think he is the Davidic Servant, but I do not. Some think he is a prophet, but I do not. Some may argue that his time has not come for having power to heal and such. Can anyone tell me of any miraculous healings done by DS? Or why rebaptisms have not produced baptism of fire? One of the biggest red flags for me was when DS stated that if a person cursed him that person would be cursed, but if that person blessed him, that person would be blessed. Seriously? You all believe that? This is mind programming at its very best, and at its very worst, it destroys faith that God is a merciful God. It puts fear into someone that they better not mess up and they better follow a mortal or they will be damned. How do you explain the psychology of that statement? DS has claimed that everyone is born with priesthood … and as evident in the NT scripture we all have the holy priesthood … so what does preserving JS teachings benefit any of us? Why is DS so adamant that Joseph did not practice polygamy when all the evidence stacks up against Joseph … I suppose we all get to choose what we want to believe is true. Truth is a two-edged sword … DS wants to stick with the Aaronic law … I’m done with that ..

    I go with what the New Testament says … the royal law is love … If you do a word search in the New Testament you will be surprised ….We have been brainwashed to think the we LDS are somehow special, that we have ordinances that will save us … the only thing that saves us is the grace of God through the atonement of Jesus Christ and striving to be like Him … full of love and grace. We can only be humble and point everyone to Jesus Christ … not to any prophet, not to any mortal … According to 1 Peter 2:9 “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light” We are being told to praise our God … do not get caught in talking about DS all the time … I find myself in groups of good people and all they can do is say – “Denver said this, what do you think Denver meant when he said this? or can you believe what Denver just wrote? ” If you are caught in this whirlwind of Denver activity, think about what you are substituting … You are substituting Jesus for DS … Is that what you want? Why do ye preach and teach about DS? DS has not produced scripture … he has put forth his reasoning and logic of what he believes scriptures mean. I know this is long but it is troubling and concerning to me that everyone talks about DS more than our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ … Because of the following scriptures I do not believe Denver’s statement about cursing.

    According to James 2:8 The royal law is love … If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: The first and great commandment is: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. “And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Matt. 22:37, 39.)

    Come out of darkness … allow Jesus Christ to clothe you with light and truth and love. Discard false teachings and doctrines and teachers.

    Like

    • Hannah, I am not attempting to respond to every point of your comments, just correct what I feel are blatent misrepresentations of what Denver has taught or said. There is enough to question and criticize about Denver without distorting or outright lying about what he has said.

      “Some think he is the Davidic Servant, but I do not. Some think he is a prophet, but I do not.”

      Denver has never claimed to be the Davidic servant, or even a prophet. Others have made this claim for him.

      ” Some may argue that his time has not come for having power to heal and such. Can anyone tell me of any miraculous healings done by DS?”

      This seems to me an arbitrary standard. Do we have records of every prophet in scripture performing healings?

      “Or why rebaptisms have not produced baptism of fire?”

      I have no personal knowledge of this, but I doubt you have the personal knowledge to make a blanket statement that there has never been a baptism of fire attending a rebaptism.

      “One of the biggest red flags for me was when DS stated that if a person cursed him that person would be cursed, but if that person blessed him, that person would be blessed. Seriously? You all believe that?”

      Yes he did say this, and it has troubled a number of people. I don’t know what to make of it, myself.

      “DS has claimed that everyone is born with priesthood.”

      I believe I’ve read or listened to just about everything Denver has said, and I have never seen or heard this claim. Citation please?

      “DS wants to stick with the Aaronic law”

      No he doesn’t, and that is a distortion I’ve already answered above. At this point I really have to conclude you really don’t know what Denver has said.

      Look, as I said, there is plenty to question and wonder about Denver, you really weaken what you say when you intentionally misrepresent what he’s said. I’ve searched in vain for an honest criticism against Denver, but it seems no one is able to make the criticism without completely misunderstanding what he has said. For those of us that are very familiar with what he’s said, the straw men, misquoting, and purposeful misunderstanding of what he has said makes any later counter argument fall extremely flat.

      How many times does Denver have to say to go to the Lord and forget about him before you’ll take him at his word? Forget what misguided “followers” of Denver say, that isn’t what Denver teaches or what he is asking for. I can tell you that in my own case, no recent teacher has more successfully pushed me toward the scriptures, seeking the spirit, and coming to Christ than Denver.

      Like

  9. I’m glad that Denver has opened your eyes … He has been incredible in that aspect for so many of us.

    I have been in small meetings where DS has actually talked and so your assumption that I do not understand or have misinterpreted or out and out misrepresented is not correct. And why the heck should anyone believe me or listen to me? You shouldn’t. I have no credentials or standing with men/women.

    Until Denver says ‘Thus saith the Lord”, I just put most of what he is saying now on the shelf. I was at a place where I hung onto every word of Denver – it lasted for years. He definitely was a Servant and helped so many of us transition from worship of leadership to desire of receiving the Second Comforter. But I believe the Lord is now using him as a different kind of Servant. His fascination with preserving the restoration, instead of continuing the discourse on the Second Comforter is quite interesting for me to sit back and observe. We are just like the Ancient Jews who worshipped Moses and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Because of their idolatry they missed out and did not recognize Jesus when he was among them. We are in the same position — it is a perfect chiasm of our time for we are now stuck on the myth that Joseph Smith has provided more for our salvation next to Jesus Christ – it is ludicrous. Only Jesus provides salvation … no other man. Yet Denver is keeping many on that wheel of idolatry and illusion by now shifting us from the Second Comforter to Preserving the Restoration. God is watching us … what we will choose. Noah saved humanity, Abraham was the beginning of the covenant Israelite bloodline, and yet we don’t worship them. Why the worship of Joseph Smith? Why has Denver’s teachings transitioned from Second Comforter to Preserving a Restoration when Joseph Smith himself said that it was the Elias who would restore all things before the Second Coming of Jesus Christ? Who is that Elias or Davidic Servant? Why is Denver not talking about that? It is Jesus that brings again Zion … no other … Denver has abandoned the O.T. and I do not believe he understands with

    Who can address and explain Denver’s statement of “cursing”?

    I’m sure if there were massive baptisms of fire because of rebaptisms, it would be known throughout all these forums, websites, and blogs. If people cannot resist talking about Denver and his teachings, they certainly wouldn’t be withholding the fact that they have had baptisms of fire for it would just bolster their belief of Denver’s position.

    The reason I am voicing my opinion is not to condemn Denver … it is to plead with all of you to get back onto the path of seeking the Second Comforter and abandon the preservation or the restoration… The Davidic Servant will be the one who restores all things at the appointed time. God is in control … it is He whom we should be worshipping and seeking. Denver is adamant that Joseph did not practice polygamy and that D&C 132 was changed. However, there is evidence that contradicts Denver and it is in the Nauvoo Expositor … but like I said … we have a choice in what we want to believe.

    Like

    • You continue to make a lot of claims for and about Denver which I find conflicts with what he actually has claimed or said.

      Your arguments would be much more persuasive if you provided some citations and references.

      Like

  10. What things are in direct opposition to Denver’s words, etc?

    Like

  11. I have provided many examples in my comments above that you haven’t addressed. I’ll add some more. Some citations where you can prove these assertions would be helpful, they just don’t sound like Denver to me.

    “Why the worship of Joseph Smith?” (Where does Denver advocate worship of Joseph?)

    “Denver has abandoned the O.T.” (Since he still quotes liberally from the JST of the OT, I find this assertion to be untrue at first blush)

    “D&C 132 was changed.” (I can find no reference that he believes 132 was changed, among those that say Joseph didn’t practice polygamy, he stands almost alone in still quoting 132).

    “…shifting us from the Second Comforter to Preserving the Restoration.” (I’ve not seen this as great shift in message. Preserving the restoration is all about preserving the doctrine that all must come to Christ and receive directly from His hand, is it not? His 40 year lectures were ALL about Christ.)

    Just a few. As I said, I’d love some actual citations or quotes where he says much of what you claim he is saying, I just don’t think they exist.

    Like

  12. Hannah,

    You stated “One of the biggest red flags for me was when DS stated that if a person cursed him that person would be cursed, but if that person blessed him, that person would be blessed. Seriously? You all believe that?”

    I have heard this concern shared by others as well.

    I do not claim to have either Denver’s knowledge or understanding of this statement as made by him. What I will comment and say though, is that basic to the concept that is “karma,” is the knowledge that, “the force (karma) created by a person’s actions that is believed in Hinduism and Buddhism to determine what that person’s next life will be like; the force (karma) created by a person’s actions that some people believe causes good or bad things to happen to that person.”

    I use this term, not to open up a discussion of the philosophical views of either Hindduism or Buddhism, but rather as a platform. Since “Denver’s Story” really is the story of every “man” (as in the scriptures), it would seem to me that any time, any of us sit in judgment over another person; in either a blessing or a curse, we ourselves are SIGNIFICANTLY impacted by this action.

    Daily we create and experience dimensional realities of our own creation. Not trying to be “new-agey” at all, but really. Just experiment. Go to your local park, go to church, go anywhere and spend an hour or two judging others. Label them, put them in the illusionary psychological boxes of your own inner workings. It won’t take long (they say its only 67 days to set a habit), and you will find that your own self imposed psychological boxes will be creating you, and you (or the perception of “you”) becomes those boxes. Their reality, and your attachment to them will SIGNIFICANTLY impact your perceived (created) “reality tunnel”. Somehow, and it is the craziest thing, we truly become the “judgment” we project into the world.

    Does DS really have some “special” VIP Celestial Access Card that allows him extra capacities for cursing and blessing? I don’t know if that matters, or if it is really pertinent to our growth and development.

    My heart (and Moroni 7) says there is a higher road here, and I have plenty of need to exercise that path 🙂 Blessings to you!

    Like

  13. Please pardon me for giving an opinion.

    Let us take Snuffer’s statement at face value – Jesus will curse them that curse Snuffer, and bless them that bless Snuffer.

    If this is true, then if Jesus and Snuffer are friends, and you curse Snuffer – you withdraw the hand of fellowship from him, let’s say, casting him from your society – then you’ve chosen to separate yourself from Jesus.

    Thus shall you be condemned by your own cursing, and every man who is cursed brings upon himself his own condemnation (Alma 3:19).

    To be blessed, at its most fundamental meaning to me, is to have fellowship with God; to be cursed is to be rejected from his fellowship. As God keeps the Golden Rule, whichever one happens is because you ask for it.

    “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.”

    Like

    • Log said: “Let us take Snuffer’s statement at face value – Jesus will curse them that curse Snuffer, and bless them that bless Snuffer.”

      Anyone could make this claim at any time. Would you have to take for granted that any person making that statement was telling the truth and that you had better treat him/her accordingly.

      Now, what if some one had made that statement after healing everyone in a crowd, miraculously providing food for his listeners, and raising someone from the dead? Would you be more inclined to give consideration to his claim. Before you say that this would only be something that sign seekers would expect, I would remind you that Christ done all of these things while claiming authority from the Father. Also, we read that Zion will be redeemed by power, and not by empty claims of such.

      Like

      • I apologize for not being clear enough. Please understand my intended meaning in context as “let us take snuffer’s statement at face value (for the sake of the following discussion).” Sometimes i lack the patience to be sufficiently redundant and pedantic in my language as to escape criticism and censure.

        Like

        • Log, I have prayed to know how to respond.

          I am sorry that I misunderstood the point that you were making in your post. I should have read it more carefully.

          I am sorry to have been critical. This is fault that I am in great need of repentance from, and believe it or not I usually do not realize how I am coming across unless it is pointed out to me, so thank you, my heart is broken and my spirit is contrite because of it.

          Like

        • It’s ok.

          Like

      • Just to be safe, it might be wise to refrain from cursing anyone at any time, unless directed otherwise by God.

        Like

  14. And since I’m opining, the law of witnesses is when two or more firsthand witnesses to an event give a description of it that agrees together. You are then justified in believing the event occurred according to the witnesses (Deut. 19:15, D&C 42:80, D&C 128:3, &c, cf. “two witnesses”).

    Like

  15. Yes, we saw the Law of Witnesses in Mesa, AZ just as you have explained it Log.
    It is indeed a very serious thing to “speak evil of the Lord’s anointed”. We who have been to the temple have made solemn promises regarding the matter. It seems many are confused about just who the Lord’s anointed really are. Read the first sentence above for clarification.
    Tim your posts are growing in Spirit, truth and light. Thank you.
    James Russell Uhl

    Like

  16. I wonder if we should judge Christ on the Inquisition, or the Crusades.

    Like

  17. Interesting discussion.

    There are plenty of doctrinal things that denver snuffer has taught that disagree with the Book of Mormon. Those perhaps could be scrutinized. The problem is that joseph smith taught them first and most denver followers think joseph had the green light to outright contradict the Book of Mormon, and they would follow him without hesitation.
    I have provided blatant contradictions in section 124 from the Book of Mormon, which no one could answer, yet this doesn’t bother people. Why? It is not denver that members of the LDS movement have been deceived by, it is joseph smith. If people will learn the falsehood joseph taught, they will know denver has not got everything that he implies he has, because he still teaches that section 124, and 132 are scripture, and that joseph was basically gold through his whole life.
    An address to all believers in Christ, by David whitmer, is a more accurate witness, from what God has spoken to my soul, of what happened in Mormonism, than any other persons witness in the last 200 years. The problem lies with joseph, not denver. Denver takes Joseph’s teachings and extrapolates, explains, and interprets in a reasoned, and thought out way. It makes sense that what Denver is saying is true, until you learn that many things denver uses to reason with were never given from God in the first place.

    Like

  18. “My dear friend, I am sorry for you.”

    Like

    • Well if you are sorry for me because of love you have, even though you have no reason to be sorry for me, considering I have as much or more joy than anyone on earth, than thank you for your love and concern.
      I am happy to see you commenting again. All people are in whatever respective religion they are in because of their life plans, goals, and missions. Some people are at a point where their life involves moving out of the confines of a particular religion. They have learned and observed whatever they were supposed to in that system. Some others are to remain in that system because they are to learn, or assist others within it. It is false that any mormons have a stronger “testimony” of their religion than some Buddhists, Muslims, Catholics do of theirs. They all have spiritual experiences of equal power and validity, all from the same Source, and yet the ego would have us believe that other people’s experience was from an evil source or was not as valid or they just simply don’t know like we do. Yet why are people all over the world speaking of spiritual experiences in the same way, if not more powerfully than in the snuffer camps or LDS camps? Why should david whitmers claim that God told him to separate himself from the saints, and his visions of the redeemer before his death, hold less weight than Joseph’s supposed revelations? Especially when Joseph’s mind became frenzied and he boasted that he did something Jesus couldn’t do in keeping a church together and that he had more to boast of than any man on earth. Why don’t we simply look at the doctrine people preach and pray about each doctrine individually, and forget about the person who taught it? We see in this thread the arguments about snuffer. Who cares about snuffer he is just another dude. People get too caught up with a person and how awesome a person is. Look at the doctrine and covenants and the many falsehoods taught therein, and the clear contradictions to previous scripture. How can we gloss over them? Well people don’t even notice contradictions because they are so caught up with the guy who wrote or “received” the scripture they don’t even check it against previous scripture, or the spirit at times. Let’s say some blogger wrote something that completely contradicted things nephi taught, well they would be torn to shreds by the LDS people on the blog, yet joseph smith did it blatantly and where is the criticism? Where is log pointing out that what the man taught clearly contradicts the Book of Mormon? That is what log would do under normal circumstances from what I have observed.

      Like

  19. Are you not sorry for the poor, benighted, and deceived souls who have been taken in by Joseph in the first place, and Snuffer most lately? I could have sworn it was in apparent care for those lost souls that you were decrying them.

    I normally elect not to participate in commenting because it is almost always entirely contention.

    I broke my silence because I did not see anyone who could explain, if it were true that Jesus told Snuffer that whomsoever cursed Snuffer would be cursed of Jesus, and whomsoever blessed Snuffer would be blessed of Jesus, why that could be so, and how that could be reasonable, so I decided to help.

    Of course, the price for helping is contention, for there must be opposition in all things. So back to silence I go.

    Rest assured, I read all the comments. It’s good practice for me to read and remain silent in the face of things that I disagree with, rather than contend, argue, or dispute. I learn interesting things about the commenters.

    The reason Log doesn’t do what you would do is because Log knows more than Log speaks publicly. Also Log has in the past attempted to explain to you why Log follows the policies he does, but you either did not listen, or did not understand, what Log was saying. Log perceived you and Log do not share a common ideology, and disagree on values. Log does not agree with your assessment of Joseph’s teachings, and understands why Snuffer does what he does. Log would rather be silent than argue. So Log gave up trying to explain.

    Like

    • I understand logs position. I am just saying there are passages in the doctrine and covenants that cannot be true if you accept the Book of Mormon as truth. Parts of the Book of Mormon, or the doctrine and covenants have to be discarded if you accept one as truth. I have pointed these out plainly as I am sure you have read. So you said joseph was not deceived. That is a fine position. So if you believe that, is it safe to say you believe jacob (in jacob 2 particularly about Solomon and David and their abominations) was deceived or wrong, or that nephi in his teachings that clearly contradict section 124 was deceived or wrong? If that is the position that is fine but to say that both joseph and nephi and jacob were correct in the things they taught that were absolute contradictions is where I scratch my head and why I even ask these questions in the first place. It is like having cake and eating it too in my opinion.

      Like

    • Log likes Elaine…Log likes his chicken spicy.

      Like

  20. Thank you for realigning the discussion from Denver to Joseph. I appreciate the candor and concern of others for we all are traveling a path designed specifically for our own eternal progression. Sometimes these paths intersect and other times they are wide apart. I believe anyone that is in any religion will at some point realize that they had partial truths, but not all. It is when we think we know it all that we get in trouble and so I apologize if I have come across that way.

    I see the glaring contradictions in D&C and BOM and bible. Some believe the bible cannot be trusted so they only concentrate on the LDS scriptures and therefore they cut themselves off from amazing patterns. There are a few pastors/preachers, of other churches I listen to and they seem to all be receiving the same things … that the holy days are incredibly important, that God reveals himself through numbers, and that astronomy verifies God’s plan for us. Yet who is teaching this in the LDS culture? No prophet, no Denver … Unless we are willing to tread outside of our own LDS sources, we limit the spirit and the knowledge and the wisdom that God so wants to impart to us. For we are all his children and he will not confine his love nor his knowledge to just a very select LDS audience.

    Though I agree with much of what Minority writes, I contend that Denver is continuing deceptions and therefore I am troubled … and I absolutely disagree that God will condemn me for not believing Denver or will cut me off from fellowship with Him, etc etc. To me that is ludicrous … It is like the active LDS people saying that we have to follow the prophet, he will never lead us stray and then condemning those of us who know it is false.

    Nathan, I do agree with you about “karma” … what you send out will return to you. However, there is also the watchman on the tower, the neighbor warning, etc. I am not the watchman on the tower but I do believe I am a neighbor and I do feel the necessity to break the confines of the box, because I was it in for so long and it is so limiting.

    I have no problems with rebaptisms … in fact I’ve been rebaptized several times and they were wonderful experiences. I have been to tithing groups and communities and the people are wonderful. I want to leave this discussion with the following. According to Prof. John Hall “If ye love me, keep my commandments” is a misinterpretation from the original Greek translation. It should read – if you love him, stand watch as a sentry awaiting his every instruction.” (For a detailed understanding go to http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2007-fair-conference/2007-as-far-as-it-is-translated-correctly-the-problem-of-tampering-with-the-word-of-god-in-the-transmission-and-translation-of-the-new-testament

    This statement therefore promotes the idea of love and patience – no condemnation of the law. It means that we should be waiting upon the Lord to give us further instruction, training, teaching – from Him and no other. We clamor to anyone claiming to have had spiritual experiences or spiritual gifts as if we think we can somehow receive spiritual gifts by association and we commit the transgression of “going hither and thither”. Is it not time for us to stand, wait and receive instruction from the Lord himself? One of the most important fasts I did was the discontinuance of media and concentrated on the Word – Jesus’ word and I concentrated mostly on the Bible.

    I have not cursed Denver nor Joseph … I just find too many red flags and contradictions and even if I have cursed them, I do not believe God would curse me. The reality is we are all trying to figure out truth and it is a process and I don’t think God will condemn me for being in the process of discerning.

    Like

  21. Thankfulness for the discussion. There have been many realizations to me, along my own path, recently around discernment, deception, judgment and truth.

    Log — it is curiously interesting that you are using the words criticism, contention, etc. Is this “your” experience? Is this what you are finding within yourself as you type, as you read? You are choosing to withdrawal, and to hide your light. To what benefit? Your expression of “truth” of “Christ” is powerful. Why not share your priesthood, your capacity for charity, NOT as a “sign,” but as an act of compassion?

    Where are the “I”- witnesses of Christ? Where are those, INCLUDING myself, who can boldly speak truth, and truth of Christ? Not with quotes, not with scriptures, but with truth, knowledge and understanding. Where are those, INCLUDING myself, who are directly connected with Heaven?

    Yes, we can be “neighbors.” Yes, we can be “watchmen.” But does truth necessitate a story-mony? Does “truth,” does “Christ” need to be introduced, at the invitation of revealing all or any of an individual’s or organization’s “darkness” … I thought that is what truth and love did? Dispelled all darkness, casteth out all fear? We can not dispel darkness with darkness.

    There is no doubt that Denver WILL prove to be a DECEIVER (if not already, at some point) … AT THE CHOICE OF SOME INDIVIDUALS. It has ALWAYS been the case. Isn’t all deception, self-deception. It only takes an individual choosing to be deceived. Choosing to turn from Christ and following a man, any man.

    This is such a razor’s edge we are walking, very much a straight and narrow path. Even Denver knows this fact! Which is why he is so adamant about turning people away from him, or removing the spotlight from himself. He knows how easily that role and position (of deceiver) is obtained. I know how easy both the role of deceiving and being deceived is obtained. And who knows, how God will use Denver now? The pattern is set. We are each responsible (or have the ability-to-respond) to the beckoning calls of Christ, of Heaven. This responsibility can not be displaced. If anyone believes they can walk the very footsteps of Denver into Zion, they will be sorely mistaken. Without deviation there will absolutely be solitary steps for all of us.

    I truly offer no judgment to any of these comments. Our role and responsibility is to lift, love, serve, show compassion and point (even cheer) each individual, all of us, on to Christ. Overcoming this world is hard enough, if not impossible, let alone trudging through the veil to discern, navigate and journey through the remaining spiritual topography which seems to be even more difficult.

    We use a fallen, corrupt language (and the internet / blogging seems to only complicate things). That said, we long for “fellowship,” long for companionship and seek fellow sojourners, if even temporary (mortally speaking). Certainly, we can deepen our capacity for charity. I seek to deepen my capacity for charity.

    I have nothing but respect for individuals who are even attempting to sort out, work out, walk out any of this. Sometimes, the internal stirrings and longings are so powerful, and this world seems so incongruent to what our hearts and spirits scream should be reality!

    Anyway, truth, even Christ, above all else.

    Like

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: