Just by sheer coincidence, I happen to have written a number of posts that have the word “Excommunicated” in the title. It has always amazed me to see the number of hits I get each day on those particular posts. Today, at least five of those posts are in the top ten. It makes me wonder what people really want to know about LDS excommunications.
My friend Russell Anderson of Thoughts From Salem keeps a list of members who have been excommunicated or have resigned. The list is here. Last week he added podcaster and former CES employee Mike Stroud. Mike’s podcasts are at this link. I hope people will be kind to Mike and his family, especially as he goes through this difficult time in his life.
Update 2-20-19: Link to many transcripts of Mike’s podcasts are maintained by Robert Briscoe and located at this link.
Update 2-21-19: Link to an older post from Wheat and Tares describing Mike’s work, as well as a link from about the same time in 2017 found on the LDS Freedom Forum.
Update 2-27-19: MaryAnn added more to the story over at Wheat and Tares. In her most recent post, she addresses the larger story of apostasy and extremism. Worth a look.
And, for what it’s worth, here are the links to the posts highlighted above:
Denver Snuffer – I think most everyone knows the story
Duane Crowther – NOT Excommunicated
Max Skousen – was excommunicated twice
Mel Fish – Mel recently passed away
Brent Larsen – Ex’ed for stating Denver was the only prophet since Joseph
What to Expect When You’re Excommunicated – by Rock Waterman
I’ve thought about this a little more since posting last night. I think the reason so many are so fascinated with stories about excommunication is because they want to do a self-check of their status and standing within the LDS church.
I suppose those outside the LDS faith are looking for ammunition to support their view that the church had advanced further along the path to self-implosion. I’ve never believed the Church would suffer from the pangs of self-destruction.
However, this is a common theme or many who either do not like the Church or are convinced the Lord NEVER had a hand in it’s establishment. I don’t feel that way. I DO believe the Lord was deeply involved in the early days of the rise of the LDS Church. After Joseph, not so much. Sorry, Brigham had no sealing keys.
Having sat on the side of the table providing counsel to local leaders who sit in judgement of members, I know it is not an easy thing to do. It exposes deep feelings that go right to the heart of the gospel – mercy and forgiveness.
As I’ve written elsewhere, every single disciplinary council I ever sat in on was a deeply moving spiritual experience, especially as we witnessed brethren who struggled with having transgressed the LDS Temple law of chastity.
The only case of apostasy I was involved with besides my own was from an older gentleman who wanted to come back into the faith after many years of being on the outside. Sadly, he obviously suffered from some mental affliction.
In other words, I wasn’t so sure he was mentally competent to understand what he had done that got him ex’ed in the first place. I very much doubt that is the case with Mike Stroud. Listen to Mike’s podcasts to determine for yourself.
Because Mike is a podcaster and has a large following, his case is a bit more public. But I wouldn’t compare him to someone like John Dehlin because Mike still expresses his belief in the LDS Church as God’s true church today.
On the other hand, I don’t. To me, it is an institution that grew beyond the original plans of the Lord to establish Zion. It got desperately sidetracked into building a large framework when it should have been focusing on the Book of Mormon.
That’s why Mike’s podcasts are so important. He focuses on the Book of Mormon. While I don’t always agree with his interpretations and commentary, I can sense his deep faith in and belief that God reveals Himself in that book.
And indeed He does. God bless you Mike, and thank you for your contribution.
Tim, you state that Brigham Young did not have sealing keys. As I understand it, Denver claims that he wrested the keys away from the church during President Monson’s time. What keys did he wrest away? I thought he wrested away the sealing keys? If so, how did he wrest away the sealing keys in 2013 if Brigham Young did not have the sealing keys in 1847?
Hi Mark. Good to hear from you again my friend. Always appreciate your candid and straight-forward questions. I’ll address my original statement first about keys to seal on earth and heaven, defined as sealing keys. When I first wrote that comment (before publishing it) I had written keys (only). I immediately felt impressed to go back and clarify it as sealing keys, which I did. I stand by that.
Let’s consider this together: “The keys of this Kingdom shall never be taken from you while you are in the world, neither in the world to come.” (D&C 90:3) Do we not sing, “…ever and ever the keys he will hold…”? Yet, we know that the sealing power was taken from Joseph because the Lord stated He needed a house to be built unto Him so he could come and restore it (D&C 124:28). Sealing power is not the same as keys of the kingdom.
On the other hand, Brigham, who claimed to have these keys, took women who were already married to other men and not divorced, sealed them to himself with his purported keys, and then proceeded to father children with them. I’ll say it again: Brigham had no keys, no authority from God to do what he did in such matters. He did not have the sealing power. Only one man had that: Joseph, and even he lost it a few years after he had received it.
I’m sure you know that any man who is or was a member of a High Council also holds the keys of the kingdom. Each quorum: the First Presidency, The Twelve and the High Council were equal in authority in the original revelations or organization of the church in Joseph’s day (D&C 107:36-37). So if it comes down to it, I suppose I held the keys of the Kingdom when I was a member of the Stake High Council. But I digress…
So to answer your question, no, it was not sealing keys that the Lord wrested away from the church in April 2014. It was the right to exercise authority, lost because of unrighteous dominion. As I stated at the beginning of my response, Joseph holds the keys of his dispensation. Still does. However, we are now in a new dispensation. The old has forfeited the right to administer in the priesthood. The keys the Lord wrested were the keys to prepare for and establish Zion.
Does Denver claim to have the sealing keys?
Tim, I just feel I need to write about what I know. On the Internet the church cannot defend the its actions as it will never comment online on regarding personal, confidential proceedings such as disciplinary courts. On two of these people, both of whom have passed away, Max Skousen and Mel Fish, I wanted to share what I know about them and their excommunications.
Anyone could call and talk to these individuals. I followed Max Skousen back in 2002-2003 timeframe. I used to call him somewhat regularly. He had an 800 number anyone could call. He was not shy or bashful about his beliefs. Max was into Enlightenment. I do not want to get into the details about what this philosophy entails, but I can if you need me to. Essentially, it focuses on you – that you have God within you and there is essentially no need for a Savior. I believe Lucifer, the light bearer, promotes this doctrine of enlightenment, which takes away the necessity of Jesus Christ, our Savior.
I spoke with an individual who followed him after Max had passed away. He had heard that Max had come to an individual who had followed him (in a dream, perhaps) and told him to not follow what he had been espousing, that our only focus should be on Jesus Christ, nothing else. This is a third-hand account, so it wouldn’t stand up in court, but that’s what this person told me.
The fact is Brother Max should have been excommunicated from the church. His brother Cleon agreed and was upset with Max for openly teaching false doctrine, leading people away from the Savior.
I also used to call Mel Fish. Mel was another who was open. He was completely unabashed and would tell you anything whatsoever. Mel was NOT excommunicated for priest craft. I asked him point blank and he told that he was not excommunicated for priest craft. He was excommunicated because he believed that evil spirits, the third part who followed Satan, could repent and return to the light. I don’t know if that point of doctrine is true or not. He related a story where he was told by the Spirit when he was in the middle of an exorcism – a long and tough one – where he prayed to the Lord to know what to do and the Spirit told him to tell the spirits to look up and follow the light who are angels will take them out of that place. He did and the spirits left. If anyone talked to Mel, this was his most basic tenet – that evil spirits could repent. He claims he helped to save over a billion evil spirits repent. He could have chosen to keep that revelation personal, but he chose to openly teach it. I don’t know if this is true or not. I do know, however, that it is not church doctrine. He was told to quit teaching it, he refused to, and was excommunicated.
I know Mel also believed in reincarnation. He told me a story about how he knew this to be true. Again, this is what he believed. However, as you know, the church does not believe in reincarnation. He could have kept it to himself as a personal revelation. There might have been other beliefs he held and openly taught that were contrary to the church’s teachings.
If you are a bishop or a stake president and you know this is happening and that he is openly teaching it and you ask him to stop and they refuse to do it, what are you to do?
As for Mike Stroud, I have heard about him, but I haven’t listened to his podcasts. Even though I do not know, I will venture a guess that he was teaching points of doctrine beyond what has been revealed or false doctrine. He was asked to stop and, for what ever reason, he feels it important enough to be taught even when asked not to be taught. This is probably why he is getting excommunicated. I don’t know about his particular case, but again, I do know about the ones I discussed here.
I just felt that this other side needed to be addressed.
I am saddened, particularly after reading what Mike Stroud wrote in the pdf you linked to. Based on what he shared I do not understand why he was cast out…Apostasy? I am not familiar with his podcasts, but still…his heart is for Christ and His church…
I will be mindful of he and his family in my prayers. I cannot imagine the pain of being cast out from the people one still loves and desires to serve. This feels tragic and unnecessary.
Mark: In response to your question, “Does Denver claim to have the sealing keys?” I’ve never asked him that question, and if anyone else has, I haven’t read his answer anywhere. But are sealing keys and sealing power the same thing?
When one enters into the presence of the Lord and embraces him, do we not say he has had his calling and election made sure? And those who have their calling and election sure, do they not also obtain sealing power for their family?
Yet there can only be one person on the earth at a time who can exercise that power, correct? So this is always a big test question for groups that have split off in the restoration movement – who has the keys to exercise the sealing power?
What are your thoughts?
Tim, before I give my thoughts to you on this matter, I need to backtrack a bit to understand your position. You believe that Joseph Smith lost the sealing power and thus the church has not had the sealing power since then. My question: What does the sealing power entail? Do you consider that all of the temple work we have completed over the years is essentially invalid – unacceptable to the Lord? Wouldn’t the sealing power include baptisms? Initiatories? Endowments? Sealings? – All for the dead we do in temples?
Hi Mark. Love your questions. You’ve hit the crux of the matter. When I was first introduced to Denver’s writings in 2012, I wrote a post that focused on that very question about the sealing power. I also asked that very same question. Has all our work in the temple been for naught? Was the church really rejected along with all our dead as we read in D&C 124:32? Here’s the post:
https://www.latterdaycommentary.com/2012/02/26/loss-of-the-sealing-power/
Hard to believe it was seven years ago this month. I’ve read a lot of Denver’s stuff since then, met with him, asked him questions, published his answers and yet, I can’t point you to a definitive answer from Denver that claims the LDS Church does NOT have the sealing power. In fact, in 2012, he wrote, “I have never said the church does not have the sealing power.”
Now that was 2012. This is 2019. A lot has happened since then. Denver has been excommunicated. I resigned rather than accept imposed discipline for apostasy. Denver has received, published and officiated in offering a covenant from the Lord, preparatory to establishing Zion along with a future temple. By what authority will ordinances be performed in that temple yet to be built?
In that first post from 2012 I shared that my family and I had invested forty years in performing ordinances in the temple. To this day I still actively work on my family history, putting thousands of photos and documents up on ancestry.com of my ancestors and kinfolk for whom I or other family members have performed baptisms, ordinations, initiatories, endowments and sealings.
The sealing power is simply the right to perform ordinances in the name of the Lord and have those ordinances recognized and accepted by the Lord in the heavens above and in the life to come. Is that the power that Denver wrested from the LDS Church in April of 2014? Or was that sealing power lost sometime after 1832 when the Lord said the church was under condemnation? (D&C 84:54-57) And did Joseph have the sealing power before that time?
I believe the church has conflated the sealing power that Joseph had with what the modified section 110 was supposed to have conferred through the visit of Elijah. Yet, as you know, section 110, section 132 and section 20 have all been replaced in the restoration edition of the scriptures. I am convinced both of those key sections were modified by Brigham to make it appear the church had the sealing power and that it was conferred by Elijah. I don’t believe that.
Hopefully I’ve answered your question. I’ve stated what I believe the sealing power entails and that all the ordinances we have performed in the temples are not acceptable to the Lord. He rejected the church along with all her dead. This is a hard, even impossible position for any faithful Latter-day Saint to accept. In fact, you cannot be faithful LDS and believe that the church was rejected. Yet, based on D&C 124:32, it was rejected. For this reason I am no longer LDS.
Mark, you shouldn’t listen to me. I am an apostate. A hardened apostate. I have turned my back on the LDS Church. As much as I love and respect the good people in the church, with whom I still associate on a regular basis, I will never be LDS again. I am grateful they still allow me to attend Sacrament meetings each week with my wife. I hope the day never comes that I am asked to not attend. It means so much to Carol, whose ancestors came from Nauvoo.
But what if Denver is right? What if the church really was rejected? What if the sealing power really was lost? Do we really believe that only one man can have and exercise the sealing power at one time upon the earth? How much am I willing to stake my eternal salvation on Russell M Nelson? I’m not. I’m also not staking my salvation on Denver Snuffer. Everything I do in preparing myself for the life to come is based on my conversations with the Lord through the veil.
God bless you, my friend.
Tim, thank you for that direct response. So, here are some things to consider if that be the case. The following are just three examples that came to my mind. As you know there are many, many more experiences similar to these – many in verbal form, some written down:
1) Two weeks before I left St. George, the spirits of the dead gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. Said they, “You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet nothing has ever been done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God. Everyone of those men that signed the Declaration of Independence, with General Washington, called upon me as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the Temple at St. George, two consecutive nights, and demanded at my hands that I should go forth and attend to the ordinances of the House of God for them. I straightway went into the baptismal font and called upon Brother McCallister to baptize me for the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and fifty other eminent men, making one hundred in all, including John Wesley, Columbus, and others. When Brother McAllister had baptized me for the 100 names I baptized him for 21, including General Washington and his forefathers and all the Presidents of the United States–except three. Sister Lucy Bigelow Young went forth into the font and was baptized for Martha Washington and her family and 70 of the ’eminent women’ of the world. 1 In the April 1898 General Conference, President Woodruff again recalled this sacred experience: ““I am going to bear my testimony to this assembly, if I never do it again in my life, that those men who laid the foundation of this American government and signed the Declaration of Independence were the best spirits the God of heaven could find on the face of the earth. They were choice spirits, not wicked men. General Washington and all the men that labored for the purpose were inspired of the Lord. Another thing I am going to say here, because I have a right to say it. Everyone of those men that signed the Declaration of Independence, with General Washington, called upon me, as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the Temple at St. George, two consecutive nights, and demanded at my hands that I should go forth and attend to the ordinances of the House of God for them. Men are here, I believe, that know of this, Brother J. D. T. McAllister, David H. Cannon and James S. Bleak. Brother McAllister baptized me for all those men, and then I told these brethren that it was their duty to go into the Temple and labor until they had got endowments for all of them. They did it. Would those spirits have called up on me, as an Elder in Israel to perform that work if they had not been noble spirits before God? They would not.” 2 On the night of March 19th, 1894, he [Wilford Woodruff] had a dream which followed his meditations upon the future life and the work that he had done for the dead. In his dream there appeared to him Benjamin Franklin for whom he had performed important ceremonies in the House of God. This distinguished patriot, according to his dream, sought further blessings in the Temple of God at the hands of his benefactor. President Woodruff wrote: ‘I spent some time with him and we talked over our Temple ordinances which had been administered for Franklin and others. He wanted more work done for him than had already been done. I promised him it should be done. I awoke and then made up my mind to receive further blessings for Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.’ The appearance, therefore, in his dream of Franklin was to him a satisfying conclusion that he had at least received joyfully the blessings that came to him from the ordinances of the Lord’s House. 3
https://josephsmithfoundation.org/wiki/eminent-spirits-appear-to-wilford-woodruff/
2) My wife and I went to the temple and did sealings. The sealer, a good-natured Polynesian man, told us a story to illustrate the importance of recording everything correctly and accurately. He said that he had marked that a sealing ordinance had been completed, even though he was not completely sure. He went home and went to sleep. That night he was awakened by a little girl who told him that he had marked her ordinance completed, yet it had not yet been performed. She asked him to please fix the error and ensure she receives the ordinance. He did so. He then explained that’s why he is so meticulous. He doesn’t want to be awakened at night by little girls asking him to fix errors he made.
3) I took the first 11 names of my male ancestors to the South Jordan Temple on August 30, 2000. No one other than myself, in all prior generations of my family, had been a member of the Church. This was the day on which the work for my ancestors began. The restoration to my kindred dead commenced! I took 11 names with me that day. I did the baptisms and confirmations, and then went to my truck to put my towel and extra garments away. Since I had never done the ordinances before, I hadn’t known the Temple supplied these things for you. As I left the Temple, I was accompanied by the spirits of these 11 brothers who had been permitted to come on the occasion of their baptism to witness their work being done. One of them spoke to me saying: “But we have not yet been clothed.” I replied: “Don’t worry, I’m just putting my things in the truck. I intend to return to take care of that.” They then said: “We form a quorum.” I thought about it for a moment and replied: “What do you mean you form a ‘quorum’? There are only 11 of you.” Came the reply: “But with you we are twelve.” The smallest and first priesthood quorum you join in the Church is the Deacon’s quorum, which consists of 12 members. If these brothers regarded me as one of them, then we were 12. I was touched by their rejoinder. I returned and completed the washings and anointings for these 11 ancestors. As I was preparing to leave the Temple they confronted me and petitioned again: “But we have not yet received the robes of righteousness.” I replied: “I’ve been here all day, and can’t stay longer. I’ll take care of it, but can’t do so now.” They were unhappy, but I could not remain longer that day. When I got home later my wife asked me how it was. I replied: “They are just like my kids.” She didn’t ask me what I meant by that, but I meant that they, like my children, were always asking for more and rarely content with what I had already done for them. I didn’t explain that to her, but that was what I meant. I saw in this a distinct family trait.
-Denver Snuffer
Now, from these experiences you can draw these conclusions. 1) Wilford Woodruff, Polynesian Sealer, Denver Snuffer lied 2) All three were deceived 3) These people on the other side of the veil asking for their work to be completed had not been informed that that church does not in fact have the sealing power any more or 3) These same people on the other side of the veil were deceived into believing the sealing power was in the church, but it wasn’t 5) these stories are all true and the church does in fact have the sealing power to bind in heaven what has been bound on the earth
Did I miss any obvious other conclusions that could be made?
I leave it to you to decide.
I choose the #5. It seems the most plausible.
And Tim, I would never give up on you that easily. God bless you too my friend.
Hi Mark. In response to item one, I refer you to Rock Waterman. Try to look past Rock’s sometimes-in-your-face approach to sharing what he has diligently researched and documented.
http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2013/04/wilford-woodruffs-pants-are-on-fire.html
In response to point two, I refer you to a couple of my early posts on the temple. These were written before I had ever heard of Denver Snuffer. My point in sharing them is that in almost forty years of attending the temple, I never once experienced what might be described as a spiritual manifestation or communications from the other side of the veil. I fully attribute that to a failing on my part, not comprehending that such communications require greater preparation on my part.
Also note that there are multiple levels of the sealing power – at least three – and no one ever claimed the church did not have at least one of those levels.
https://www.latterdaycommentary.com/2008/06/13/my-experience-with-the-temple/
https://www.latterdaycommentary.com/2009/07/12/divine-manifestations-must-have-a-purpose/
In response to point three about Denver’s experience with the temple, I note the shared quote comes from the introductory vignette to chapter twelve of Denver’s first book, The Second Comforter: Conversing with The Lord Through the Veil, first published in 2006. Denver addressed this on his blog on 4 May 2012 at this link:
https://denversnuffer.com/2012/05/responses-to-various-comments/
But I’ll also provide the response here: “To the one asking how to reconcile my ancestors contacting me while I did ordinances in the Jordan River Temple for them and the possibility we were rejected, I would respond as follows: Rejection of the church is not rejection of the individual. IF (and I have always left that tentative and for each person to decide for themselves) there has been a rejection, that does not mean anything other than the organized efforts were unacceptable. Each individual is accountable for their own conduct. There was a Temple rebuilt by Herod, presided over by wicked men who would kill the Lord, and yet He called it His “Father’s house.” In that Temple a publican came in and offered a great offering, and was rejected. A widow, however, entered and gave but a farthing, and she was accepted. The difference was not the building, nor the act of paying, but the intent of the individual. In the same Temple there can be acceptable work and unacceptable work proceeding simultaneously.”
If you are interested, Mark, perhaps we can circle back to the multiple levels of the sealing power. There have been papers and lectures delivered about this very subject over the years. we can dig into them if you like.
God bless
Hello Tim, thanks for the links.
I actually liked Waterman’s article. Well written. I believe there is much truth there and we can benefit from his perspective and research. I generally agree with his overall take in that article.
So, it could be that Wilford Woodruff lied. I am open to that possibility.
It could also be that the founding fathers did come as he said. James G. Bleak was a witness to the event. This is his account:
“I was also present in the St. George Temple and witnessed the appearance of the Spirits of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence. And also the spirits of the Presidents of the U.S. up to that time. And also others, such as Martin Luther and John Wesley, who came to Wilford Woodruff and demanded that their baptism and endowments be done. Wilford Woodruff was baptized for all of them. While I and Brothers J.D.T. McAllister and David H. Cannon (who were witnesses to the request) were endowed for them. These men that we did work for, were choice Spirits, not wicked men. They laid the foundation of this American Gov., and signed the Declaration of Independence and were the best spirits that the God of Heaven could find on the face of the Earth to perform this work. Martin Luther and John Wesley helped to release the people from religious bondage that held them during the dark ages. They also prepared the people’s hearts so long as they would be ready to receive the restored gospel when the Lord sent it again to men on Earth.” 7
The other thing I would bring up is that yes, baptisms may have been performed for these men, but not their endowments. Perhaps they didn’t want to individually parse out which have received their baptisms and which had not, so they simply had them re-do all of their baptisms, and then perform their endowments and sealing work for them.
As for you not personally having an experience. Well, you can join, I would assume , the majority of members who have not had such experiences. This doesn’t mean that the ordinances are not valid in the spirit world. You know there is a reason why one of the gifts of the spirit is to believe on other’s testimony.
As for Denver, well, he didn’t deny it or retract the story. Think about it though – eleven of his ancestors came to him as he was doing their work. There is something to that.
Denver stated once that Spirits can still use even tattered ruins, or what is left, because of the personal righteousness and devotion of the person going in a temple to do work. Seems to coincide with what Tim was quoting from Snuffer above. Even though the church lost the seals (Joseph and Hyrum) early, as part of their rejection, and things were in complete confusion for like 3 years after that, with the church not even having any one person presiding (see Andrew Ehat BYU thesis), and the fact that the line of Patriarch’s through the Smith’s has not remained in tact or has had many times where there was no Presiding Patriarch (which the sealing keys to use sealing power was originally intended to be passed on since Nauvoo Father to Son in a Patriarchal fashion, while the Church 12 and Presidency where to direct the church org), sealing keys to bless the church org, where lost with Joseph and Hyrum even before all that. Joseph and Hyrum held that authority. But the right to use those keys in the church to bless them, needed to wait until the completion of the Temple, which never happened. Hyrum was given the Presiding Patriarchal office, in preparation of finishing the temple to use those keys within it for church use. When the Lord rejected the church for many failures and not working hard enough to finish the temple in Nauvoo, He in fact said he would reject the church in some way and their work for the dead. Failure continued among members and leaders. The church lost those who held the sealing power, and neither Joseph or Hyrum blessed someone to continue the right to hold and pass on that Sealing keys for use to bless the church members (think of Abraham, giving that to Isaac, then to Jacob, etc for a time – that Patriarchal authority did continue, as long as the sons where obeying the terms of the covenant of the dispensation head-Abraham and righteous enough to maintain that office and right).
Joseph did try to give second anointings in his red brick store while the temple was being worked on, but these are individual blessings for those people. Like Heber, Brigham and others. They received the same ordinances, but Joseph was not blessing them all with the one Presiding Patriarch office to continue the sealing keys for using sealing power in the church temples. The Lord did direct Joseph to wait for the temple to be completed to do things. But I think some things can be done for family, without an accepted temple, and that is why he was first spiritually sealing women to him and later adopting people as sons and daughters (law of adoption that is greatly confused in the church). But BY or HK or others who had their individual second anointing and adopted to Joseph as spiritual sons, that does not give them the right to pass Presiding sealing keys/authority on to their sons or the next church president, for use to bless the church org. The Presiding Patriarchal blessing was given to Hyrum. He did not bless anyone to continue that office in the Smith family, for use in the Church. Him and Joseph where allowed to pass on at the same time. Even if Hyrum did, there have been so many breaks in the line of Presiding Patriarchs over the years, and the Church leaders wanting more power and authority for themselves, completey removed the Presiding Patriarchal Office in the Smith line entirely from the Church with Eldridge G Smith! If the Patriarchal rights and office were given by Hyrum before he was taken (and people with that are only taken if God allows for some failure), it’s been in ruins for breaks in the Smith line and completely removed in our day anyway by un-authorized works of church leaders doing things they don’t even understand, and if they do comprehend a little, then they were purposely operating outside the bounds they do not have an rights to do in order to put all power and control into the Q of 12 and Presidency. Today, all assets of the church are only held by one man. The President. All assets, power and control are all combined into one man today. This is not according to the revelations left by our dispensation head, and contrary to the entire Patriarchal Office and Order.
The Lord was hoping the church would repent when He sent His Prophet and Servant to write books teaching the truth about true LDS standing before God and explaining exactly why it happened, betting more bold as the years went by. They could have listened. But didn’t. They rejected and cast out the only prophet I have seen in all of Mormonism since Joseph Smith. The only guy I have ever heard of who had actually done what our temple rituals teach us all to do! I had been searching for such a thing for years. Sifted through the false polygamist claimants, and found Denver to be teaching right and explaining what happened clearly like he was taught from the Lord to explain to us, and then the Lord personally told me in 2010 that Snuffer is in fact His great servant being used to do a great work. Then I saw it all unfold over the years and it all made perfect sense. The Church heads usurped authority that wasn’t theirs to use and removed the Presiding Patriarch and Office completely, which was the last straw. Things could have been cleaned up in the church, someone inside the church leadership would have been personally approached by the Lord and directed exactly on how to get the entire church out from under condemnation and being lost in the “wilderness” for so long, and a Smith descendent could have been given the Patriarchal Office and rights to use sealing power to bless church members in a group setting by reviving and using the last covenant given through the last dispensation head.
The Lord then prepared and used Snuffer to begin a new Covenant and Covenant group in our day. Things are beginning anew. The Heavens are again open. A new Covenant people where born, in preparation for the coming of Zion and the 2nd Coming. Failure in church history is understood by us now, so that we don’t repeat the same mistakes when the Lord directs and accepts a new Temple built by sacrifice of the new Covenant people. So the truth can go forth. So people can use their intellect, and then go to God for their own confirmation. It all makes perfect sense. It’s cool to see how it all unfolded over the years.
This stuff is sooo serious. It’s definately worth every LDS persons time to take a look and consider and ponder deeply the message that the Lord Himself gave to a man who was prepared for 40 years to perform. A man who didn’t even know what the Lord was planning with him until after the St George talk given to the LDS in the rockies. A man who actually doesn’t even want to be that man.
My excommunication was initiated because I wrote a paper proving that there was progression from a lower kingdom into a higher. This really indicates the insecurity of the church authorities, even over doctrine substantiated in the scriptures. Here is a link to the article.
http://www.freeread.com/eternal-progression/
Hi J.J. – For those who don’t know, Rock serialized J.J.’s series on Infallible Authority a few years back. Here’s a link to chapter seven that I like:
http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2011/12/infallible-authority-chapter-seven.html
It’s a good place to start if you’re not familiar with J.J’s writings. I remember reading it way back when and thinking, this guy has guts to write this way.
Oh, how I wish I had time to read more of your stuff. I could spend hours on your site. While I may not agree with everything, I am entertained and enlightened.
Thanks for stopping by. God bless.
Pingback: A Time of Reflection, Part Eight – Latter-day Commentary – Last Days – Signs of the Times
And for those who are interested in a continuation of the discussion between me and Mark Hiatt, or at least my hopefully thoughtful response to his excellent questions, I refer you to my concluding post of my preparations for the upcoming general conference in Colorado on 19-21 April 2019. In that post I have outlined the three kinds of sealing power to which I referred in my comments above:
https://www.latterdaycommentary.com/2019/03/16/a-time-of-reflection-part-eight/
In summary, Mark is right. There is, or at least was, depending on what you believe about the ordinances being changed, power in the sealing authority as administered by the LDS Church in the LDS temples. I was sealed to my parents in the Los Angeles temple in 1963, endowed there in 1976, married to Carol there in 1982. I believe those sealings and promised blessings can be assured according to my faithfulness and their ratification by the Holy Spirit of Promise. I don’t think anyone in the LDS Church who has received these same ordinances and promises should be concerned about their validity as being authorized or recognized by the Lord.
Or at least, unless you believe the ordinance was changed, which I do, both in 1990 and especially on 1 January 2019. Therefore, I believe any ordinances administered after those dates are in question, especially any new sealings performed starting 2019. I say that was the death nail in the coffin of the right of the LDS Church to claim it has any authority to be the sole administrator of the sealing authority or power on the earth today. That is no longer true. It simply can’t be because they have changed the ordinance, and one of the requirements for efficacy is that the ordinance established by the Lord through Joseph remain unchanged.
I’m open to being persuaded otherwise…
Hi Tim,
In an effort to be clear: In your latest blog post, Time of Reflection, Part Eight, referenced above that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does has the “2nd kind of sealing power,” embodied within authoritative ordinances. Elder Eyring referred to it in his 2012 talk, Families Under Covenant.
Do you believe that presently the Church still actively has this particular sealing authority? If not, when was it lost and why was it lost?
Tim, I apologize in that you basically answered this question in the last paragraph in your post above. It is not definitive, but you answer it conditionally – depending on if the “ordinance has been changed” or not.
You say that you believe it was changed; however, you are not sure if it was changed in 1990 or 2019, but it appears you definitely feel it was changed in 2019.
Questions
1) What do you feel is required to “change the ordinance”? There have been numerous changes to the endowment since its inception in the red brick store in 1842. What constitutes “the ordinance has been changed”?
2) According to you, Denver claims to have wrested the keys of the “Right to Exercise Authority” or the “Right to Administer the Priesthood” from the Church in 2014. If that is the case, wouldn’t the Church have lost the sealing power then too? I mean if the Church no longer had the right to administer the priesthood, it could not still have the sealing power being effective within its temples, correct?
3) If the Church did in fact have the sealing power up and until (at least) the 1980s as you claim it had, then what was the reason Denver wrote an entire book dedicated to the premise that the Nauvoo temple was not finished and that the Church, even while Joseph Smith was on the earth, had lost priesthood authority? What exact type of priesthood did the Church lose then, if the Church still has had effective sealing power in its temples up and until recently? Could it have been the 1st Sealing power you speak of? Could you still have the second sealing power if the first was lost?
Or could it be that D&C 124:28 refers to the Christian Church losing the authority to perform baptisms of the dead, since that’s what D&C 124:29-40 is talking about? From reading the entire context (D&C 124: 27-29), that seems more plausible, don’t you think?
Pingback: The Ordinance Has Been Changed – Latter-day Commentary – Last Days – Signs of the Times
Mark: I didn’t answer right away because I wanted to talk to the Lord about your questions. As I’ve always said, you ask the best questions. I know you are sincere. Thanks for your continued readership after all these years.
I tried to respond to the first of your questions in my latest post. I hope to answer the other questions in the next few weeks. Comments here close after sixty days. We can continue the dialog here or on the new post:
https://www.latterdaycommentary.com/2019/03/26/the-ordinance-has-been-changed/
God bless and thanks for the ongoing dialog.