Sunday, September 15, 2013

The Denver Snuffer Debacle

Imagine you're on the Board of Directors of a major U.S. corporation -let's say Kentucky Fried Chicken, just for the sake of this analogy. Although yours was once among the fastest growing restaurants in the country, growth is now stagnant. Not only are you failing to attract new business, you're losing your most loyal customers by the tens of thousands every year. So you do what any large corporation would do. You tweak the brand. You add crispy chicken to the menu. Then Hot & Spicy Chicken, and finally Boneless Chicken. You add new desserts and open more stores around the world.

What you find most alarming is that customers who couldn't get enough of your product in the 1950s and 60s have simply stopped showing up at your restaurants. They talk fondly of childhood visits to Kentucky Fried Chicken as having been an important focus of family life growing up, but the magic just isn't there for them anymore. What's worse, quite a number of former customers make a lot of noise about their dissatisfaction with your product, which isn't helping. The company goes into full damage control mode on the internet to try and salvage the brand's image.

In the middle of all this trouble, you hear about one of your employees out of Idaho. He is not a member of top management, just a nobody from the hinterlands; but this guy is saying things that are resonating with your customers. It's true, he tells them, their suspicions are correct.  Kentucky Fried Chicken has been going downhill ever since the death of Colonel Sanders. But his message to your customers is one of optimism: Don't Despair. Stay with the brand.  Management may have made some goofball mistakes over the years, but managers are only human and those mistakes can be corrected. The good news is that Original Recipe Chicken is still available if you look for it.

As a member of the board of directors, what do you about this employee? Well you fire him, of course.

Flubbing The Heavenly Chance
At a time when the information highway has exposed the LDS Church to a great deal of criticism (some of it warranted), God dropped a gift right into the laps of the befuddled leaders which they promptly rejected like it was a hot potato.  That gift came in the form of an unassuming man named Denver Snuffer, whose most salient quality is his testimony of Jesus Christ and the Restoration. Brother Snuffer maintains a blog and has written several books about Mormonism. His writings have persuaded a sizable number of disaffected Mormons to stay in the faith. He reminds his readers that the core fundamentals of this religion are true and valid, and that by repenting God will forgive us of our mistakes.

Naturally a heretic like this had to go.

Last week, exactly forty years to the day since he was baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Denver Snuffer Jr was excommunicated for the charge of "apostasy," a charge that is leaving many people scratching their heads in bewilderment. If Denver Snuffer is an apostate, then everyone of us who embraces the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Book of Mormon, and the revelations of Joseph Smith must be an apostate, too.  That would shrink the membership rolls of the Church considerably.

Snuffer's sin, you see, is that he wrote a book. That may seem incredible to anyone hearing about this for the very first time, but the letter from Brother Snuffer's stake president is very clear about his book indeed being the reason for the action. Snuffer's stake president told him all he has to do to remain in good standing with the Church is to pull the book from publication and disavow its contents. (I wonder if he thinks it's also possible to gather up all existing copies and have them burned in the public square?)

Excommunication is the most severe punishment this Church can inflict on a member, so I'll bet you're thinking this Snuffer character has written a devastating pack of lies regarding corruption and debauchery within the highest echelons of the LDS hierarchy. That must be why they want to silence him.

But no, it's nothing like that at all. In the final chapter of the book, Snuffer comes to the conclusion of his thesis, and here it is: "Joseph Smith was restoring something different than what we have today." That's a conclusion most us would consider self evident and hardly controversial. This is what Snuffer said recently about his motivation and reasons for writing it:
"I wrote Passing the Heavenly Gift as a reconstruction of the events of this dispensation. The framework was primarily the description in the Book of Mormon of the latter-day Gentile behavior. This includes specifically, the prophecies of Christ in Third Nephi. I also used Joseph Smith's prophecies in the Doctrine and Covenants, his sermons and history. Taking this scriptural framework, (not as an historian but as a believer in the prophetic insight about us) I then tracked through our history. I used a lot of primary sources, including journals and diaries of church leaders. 
"What I found was that the events in our history could be viewed as an exact match for the prophetic warnings given us in scripture (Book of Mormon/D&C). The result was not history, but truth. If the book is true (and I am persuaded it is the most correct account of our dispensation written so far) then we need to awaken to our present peril and repent. If it is not true then we have nothing to worry about; the church is entirely intact, has the fullness, and all is entirely well in Zion. It would be very exciting if Passing the Heavenly Gift is wrong. 
"The trouble is that I don't believe it's wrong. We have very serious issues confronting us, and a great deal of work to complete before we attain unto what the Lord expects of us. Joseph Smith was betrayed and killed as a result of steps taken by church members. True enough it was a mob of Carthage Greys who shot him. But he would not have been in a position to be shot if it had not been for the betrayal by church members. When we (meaning church members) caused or contributed to his death, we offended heaven in a way that required three and four generations to pass before we receive another opportunity from the Lord. With the recent passing of Eldred G. Smith, we have a milestone representing the end of those required generational passings. Now is the first time it is possible for the Lord to recommence the restoration.
"But it won't commence again without us knowing what we lack. Conceit and arrogance will never redeem us from our fallen state. But contrition and repentance might. Passing the Heavenly Gift is intended to inspire those who are downfallen in their faith, and to help those who are prepared to hear it, that we (all of us, including me) are in a fallen state from which we must awake and arise."
I think what it was that put Snuffer in the doghouse with Church leadership was his assertion that Joseph Smith's successors sometimes made mistakes. This flies in the face of the image the Magisterium is currently attempting to convey: in the true Church, the leaders are incapable of making mistakes, for if the leaders were ever in error, the Church could not be true.  Snuffer, by declaring that yes, general authorities too have things to repent of, has directly confronted Oz The Great And Powerful. He is become Abinadi before the court of King Noah, speaking truths that mere mortals are not permitted to utter.

Doomed To Repeat
I have never been of the opinion that the entire Quorum of the Twelve was behind the ouster of Denver Snuffer from the church.  Despite what some believe about the the operation of the institution at the highest levels, the Church (TM) is not a monolithic entity where all are in agreement with one another on all matters.  Some time after the notorious 1993 excommunications of the September Six, for example, it was revealed that Boyd Packer had been the instigator behind that unfortunate purge, and that other members of the Twelve had serioius misgivings about Packer's actions. Sadly, they made no attempt to rein him in, just as a decade earlier none of Bruce McConkie's colleagues corrected him when he publicly declared that members should not seek a personal relationship with the Savior. Regarding Packer's rogue action, Steve Benson tells of Dallin Oaks admitting to him with a frustrated shrug, "you can't stage manage a grizzly bear."

The blowback from the September Six excommunications had a very negative effect on the image of the LDS Church after it was picked up by the national media and given wide exposure. Many rank and file Mormons were baffled at the action once they learned that every one of those disciplined had been loyal, believing members whose devotion to their religion had heretofore never been questioned. Their crimes seem to have been that they spoke about teachings that had once been commonly held in the church (such as the doctrine of a mother in heaven), and wondered aloud why the modern leadership insisted on suppressing its history.

Joseph Smith himself had objected to anyone being disciplined over their beliefs, but by 1993 the leadership seems to have forgotten his warning.  The backlash of bad publicity the Church experienced  after the September Six fiasco left a lasting impression, as many loyal members began to look critically at the leadership for the first time in their lives. The Magisterium had learned a valuable lesson. It didn't pay to excommunicate a believing member simply because he dissented from the views of the leadership. Such extreme measures tended to hurt the brand.

But it's now been twenty years since the September Six debacle, and memories are short. As George Santayana famously said, those who refuse to learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. And this Denver Snuffer affair is poised to come back and bite us all on the butt.

Going after Denver Snuffer is the equivalent of the Holland city fathers coming across the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dike and telling him to scram. Our leaders don't like Denver standing there for all to see and hear; he's calling attention to the cracks in the modern structure. But this foolish act of booting him out is just making the situation more obvious. Those who have read Denver's books and heard his testimony will only be more inclined to distance themselves from the corruption they see at the top of the institution. Denver's entire message is that we should be cultivating a testimony of Christ. The Magisterium's mantra appears to be that we should be cultivating a testimony of them. Whether that is their true intent or not, that is the perception. To the outside observer, that is the product they are selling, and the product has some serious, detectable flaws. 

Disobedience Is The First Law Of Church Leadership
For all their preaching to the congregation about obedience, our leaders themselves seem to disobey God whenever it suits them. We know, for instance that when they decided to commit five billion dollars in Church funds toward the building of a lavish shopping center, they deliberately ignored the commandment given in D&C 26:2 and 104:71 where the Lord instructs them that monies placed into His treasury shall “not be used, or taken out of the treasury, only by voice and common consent” of the whole membership.

The leaders seem to have forgotten that church money is held by them in fiduciary trust on behalf of the members to whom that money rightfully belongs. Rather than asking for a simple show of hands, they made an executive decision to spend the money according to their own desires, in violation of God's clear commandments.

In like manner, the leaders of the Church today simply ignore the rules God laid out for them to follow regarding the excommunication of a fellow member. What we do know about the Denver Snuffer debacle is that one member of the Seventy and one member of the Twelve gave the orders to Snuffer's Stake President to move ahead with the decision. This is in violation of the rules initiated by the divine Head of the church in such matters. His law does not permit actions to be initiated from high up in the Church hierarchy.

The scriptures require such actions originate at the local congregation, and only after at least two members of the congregation come forward as witnesses against the accused. In an action involving the stake high council, six members of the council are required to stand as advocates of the accused, and six against. The Stake President is to remain impartial. This almost never happens today as he is usually the guy who brought the action, decides the evidence, prosecutes, judges, and executes the judgement. The scriptures are clear that the Lord designed the procedure precisely to keep all that power out of the hands of one man. Then there's the HUGE problem with the missing Elder's Council which is required, and...

You know what?  There are simply too many violations of God's law taking place in church courts these days today for me to enumerate here. Instead of my laying out the list, I think I'll just recommend you read this recent masterpiece, The Law Against Dissent. Then you can figure out for yourself who the apostates are in this action. The irony is making me too dizzy to continue.

Boogah Boogah!
There is one more aspect of all this that I don't think Church leaders yet realize: Excommunication as a scare tactic just doesn't work anymore. There was a time when the stigma of being excommunicated from the Mormon Church was enough to keep some people from voicing their opinions, but that is no longer true. This is a vestigial consequence of the September Six affair. As people came to realize that these good members had been dealt with unjustly, excommunication came to be seen as a club that was often wielded indiscriminately by bullies, and not necessarily a sign that the excommunicant was wicked, unfaithful, or lacking the spirit. Many of us are acquainted with people who have been ousted from the corporate Church, yet radiate a spirit of godliness far surpassing those holding title and office within the Church who presided over their departures. This difference is noticeable to all.

Since I am not known for showing the proper deference to Church leaders over their pretended "authority," I am often asked if I am afraid of Church discipline. Answer: not one bit.  No one but me has the power to take away my membership in the church of Christ. Jesus himself has removed that authority from the jurisdiction of men (see D&C 10:67-68). If they were to boot me out of their official club, the one organized by corporate charter in 1923 to which none of us are members anyway, I wouldn't even blink.

Let me be clear about something. Although I believe there to be good and just men serving as general authorities in the church today who are doing all in their power to put this ship back on course, the Corporate Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the outfit Denver Snuffer just got booted out of, is not the real church.  That organization is irrelevant to me. It has no effect on my beliefs, and no bearing on my salvation.

If I were excommunicated from that club I would wake up the next morning no different than the day before. I would still have my testimony and my priesthood, my knowledge and my love of the gospel intact. There would be nothing about me that would be different. I would continue to keep this blog as before, writing about what I find to be both pure and impure about modern Mormonism.

By the way, none of this nonsense has had any effect on Denver Snuffer either, as evidenced by what he wrote yesterday regarding these Ten Points.



«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 282 of 282
Anon 23 said...

Because God is not a God of confusion. The Holy Spirit tells everyone the same things about the same issue.

That's why people who are ready for Zion have the same mind and heart. They believe the same things and agree on all vital things. There is no contention or differing opinions among them on serious matters. For they all have the Holy Spirit telling them the same things, just like Christ tells everyone on earth to live the same laws, no matter what their situation may be. The Holy Spirit does the same.

If 2 people are getting 2 different answers to the same question then 1 or both don't really have the right spirit inspiring them. It's so easy to be deceived by the Adversary, who always answers our prayers too. His answers can feel just as right as true answers. Thus why we must compare our inspiration with what the scriptures say.

Even true prophets like Joseph Smith were often deceived by false revelation and false feelings that things were right, when really they weren't.

Thus we must assume we are wrong and deceived about a lot of things that we don't yet realize, and thus study & discuss things with a very open mind and heart. Only then can we find more & more of the truth.

Log said...

"Would you please define revile for us?"

To speak towards someone contemptuously.

Anonymous said...

There are only a very few humble followers of Christ. Keep seeking. You're onto something.

Gary Hunt said...


Your statement above is ambiguous. Please clarify in what way you are sorry.

Your statement...

“Most of the comments around here, even Rock's, are generally pretty caustic towards the GAs.” not truthful. This is a fact, not a belief. The written record is there for all to see. It is also a fact, not a belief, that you use the Straw Man fallacy. Your comments are based upon a false premise. You have have misrepresented what most of the commentors have said by saying..."Most of the comments around here,..." or that they are "railing" against the general authorities. Then you base your argument upon the false premise you set.

Anonymous said...

When on my mission the people who had the least were the most spiritual and Christ like people I ever met. The poor members were very pleasant to be aound and had such faith. All the wealthy members I have dealt with were aloof, holier than thou, etc. Not all wealthy members are snobs. Do not get me wrong. There are members of every stripe who think that certain church callings/positions means being special/favored. I have had so many bad experiences with members I have actually thought of leaving the church.
Muslims think Christians are crazy for believing that Christ came back from the dead. Catholics literally literally believe that their sacrament (wafers and wine) actually turns into Christ's flesh (wafer) and blood (wine) and that they are literally consuming Christ's body. That is cannabalism. So Mormons beliefs are not that crazy if people would actually do research into other faiths/sects/religions.
Now I have to wonder why D. Snuffer get excommunicated and yet John Dehlin still has his membership. I am not criticising either man. It just shows hypocrisy of the leaders. If Dehlin really is protected by high up friends then there needs to be an outcry of unjust dealings against Snuffer. God is no respector of persons. The Apostles/First Presidency also needs to be no respector of persons. If. Snuffer is exed then Dehlin needs to be exed. Otherwise Snuffer needs to be reinstated. IMHO Dehlin has done much more damage than anything Snuffer has done.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

I am indeed following that conversation with enthusiasm, Fusion, and I'm grateful to you for posting those links. (I found it first thing this morning and had intended to comment here, but got distracted with other work.

This discussion between two great minds should prove a lerning experience for all of us. I am currently leaning toward Denver's view regarding the provenance of section 110, but willing to see if the Watcher can persuade me to change my mind.

I took not of your astute comment on that page, as well as those of several other regulars here. If only Sunday School could be this interesting, all participating with informed input. Then maybe church would be a place we could learn something now and then.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Fusion, that should read, "I took NOTE of your astute comment..."

Alan Rock Waterman said...

I don't think either Denver Snuffer or John Dehlin has done any damage to the church. both men have been instrumental in helping others retain their faith.

Log said...

The facts concerning the provenance - "the place of origin or earliest known history of something" - of D&C 110 are as is recounted in PTHG. OWIW posted a link in this thread citing a master's thesis which recounted the same historical facts that Snuffer laid out in PTHG. Therefore, it would be interesting if OWIW were to assert Snuffer has the facts wrong.

In PTHG, all Snuffer did was lay out the facts, without drawing any conclusions.

In fact, I believe OWIW agrees to the facts as Snuffer has laid them out, since he cited approvingly that thesis which said the same thing (only Snuffer did not make the pro forma faith-based claims that D&C 110 is authentic, &c., in PTHG, as the thesis author did), and has nothing to contribute to the issue of the provenance of D&C 110.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Snuffer has convinced me that the current church leaders are just corporate directors with no gifts. If Dr. Snuffer is not good enough for them, then neither am I because I am not as holy as him. Very few are. Excommunication is the narrow righteous path, and few their be that find it.

Anonymous said...

1. So I Married an Axe Murderer
2. ...makes you crave it fortnightly... as in: every two weeks
3. You're welcome

Log said...

I don't believe the statement is ambiguous at all - I am sorry that you believe I have committed fallacies or spoken in any manner less than truthfully.

If you really wish to disprove my statement, comb through the blog, collecting each and every post and every comment which references the GAs or their decisions, even obliquely. Keep two running counters - call one "caustic", and the other "non-caustic" and for each of those comments which criticizes the GAs, their decisions, or uses negative value-laden words to refer to them, add one to the "caustic" counter. Each of these comments which does neither of those, add one to the "non-caustic" counter. At the end of the examination, if the "caustic" counter does not exceed the "non-caustic" counter, I will admit that my impression, that "most of the comments around here, even Rock's, are generally pretty caustic towards the GAs," was mistaken.

But I'm pretty confident in my impression, and I'm not interested in contention.

Thomas said...

Is a critical statement or negative statement regarding a General Authority always a caustic statement?

Is a critical statement or negative statement regarding a non-General Authority always a caustic statement?

Possibly some of the critical or negative statements could be in the "non-caustic" counter.

Log said...

Is a critical statement or negative statement regarding a General Authority always a caustic statement?

Among Mormons, who are forbidden to judge nor revile, I say yes - I cannot imagine a celestial kingdom where there is hardness of heart or backbiting.

I'm sure others would fain disagree.

Alas, it won't be until the Lord shall bring again Zion that the watchmen shall see eye-to-eye.

Thomas said...

Okay thank you. And the same answer regarding a critical statement or negative statement regarding a non-General Authority?

Log said...


me said...

I hope I'm okay quoting Denver Snuffer here, as I think this might address the caustic comment debate.

"[Now, as a complete aside, I want to address the misapplication and overreaching misinterpretation of the idea one is "evil speaking" when a person explains something that concerns them. First, we are dealing with the souls of men. We are addressing salvation itself. If there is an error in doctrine or practice, everyone has an obligation to speak up, from the least to the greatest. (D&C 20: 42, 46-47, 50-51, 59, among other places.) Second, the "truth" cannot ever be "evil." Though the truth may cut with a two edged sword, truth is not and cannot be "evil." Therefore, if someone should say something that is untrue or in error, then correct their doctrine, show the error, but do not claim what is good to be evil, nor support what is evil by calling it good. (2 Ne. 15: 20.) Using a broad generalization to stifle a discussion of the truth is a trick of the devil, who is an enemy to your soul. It is not the way of our Lord. He was always open to questions, always willing to answer questions, ever willing to speak the truth even when it caused those with authority over Him to be pained by His words. We must follow Him, and not men, in that example. Even if we would personally prefer to not endure insults but remain silent. So, rather than condemn something as "evil speaking" that you believe to be wrong, explain the error and bring us all into greater understanding. But if something is true, then even if it disturbs your peace of mind, it cannot be evil.]"

Steve said...

After attending the 1st 3 talks, I appreciate his emphasis on doctrine and his attempts to redirect our attention from him to the Lord and the scriptures. When was the last time you heard substantial (2+ hours) talks on the coming Zion, Faith (with emphasis on the Lectures on Faith) and Repentance (as a function of gaining light and truth not concentrating on what you want to avoid)? Refreshing as a breath of fresh air.

Leonard R said...

The movie was "So I Married an Axe Murderer".

Great article.

LDSDPer said...


Not everyone is supposed to study the same things, learn the same languages, develop the same gifts--

and yet there is very much a herd mentality on these things in the church--

This is what I am meaning--

Not everything applies to everyone. Even the Word of Wisdom makes this clear--

it was written for both the weak and the strong; not everyone has the same issues--and some can handle what others cannot.

Not everyone is intended to serve a mission; not everyone is meant to marry at exactly the same time, and, for those who are still LDS, not everyone will marry in the temple, etc., etc.--

These are the things about which I am writing--

some people should study politics; others should focus more on gardening; it is impossible for any one human being to do it all, and each person has talents and strengths and weaknesses; finding one's own mission is an important thing to do --

LDSDPer said...


some people study music; some people study science; it would be a shame if everyone were 'forced' to do the same things--

a true shame, and yet that often happens, inadvertently, when people get caught up in culture and do not seek personal guidance from the Holy Ghost--

LDSDPer said...

I read part of that--

the one who is watching blog--

Not sure what to think--

I can understand a person who doesn't want to be adamant about the truth or error of a particular 'thing'--

because human beings can only focus on so many things at a time--

I would never travel around and lecture, and I have my questions about the validity of anyone doing that--

but just because someone isn't sure about a doctrine--

doesn't mean he/she is good or bad--

I am undecided about many things--

Ha, I find myself agreeing with Elder Holland on this one thing--

concentrate on what you do believe--

I know what I do believe, and I focus on that--

I find myself running into corners in my mind just trying to get all my prayer needs covered--


I don't want to take 'sides'--

Not sure there are sides--

but I have to agree with what Denver said on his most current blog--

church leaders telling people not to go to Denver are only making things worse, maybe--

unless people are really that obedient--

Goodness; I live in a part of the country that simply doesn't have enough members for anyone to listen to anyone LDS talk about anything!!!


Toni said...

"I'm lacking an example of true servants of the Lord railing against anyone." Elijah, mocking the priests when their god failed to light their offerings on fire.

Toni said...

No. Denver Snuffer is not a nutjob. That's what makes him so different from so many others.

LDSDPer said...

What did Joseph Smith do when he silenced the vulgar and obscene guards in the prison?

Anonymous said...

This post, particularly the paragraph starting with "Let me be clear", are apostasy, pure and simple. Anyone that believes that paragraph AND has a Temple recommend has lied to get in the Temple. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve aren't just board members for a corporation, they are Prophets, Seers, and Revelators in every way, as much as any one else in history has ever been. To believe otherwise and hold a Temple recommend puts you on the high road to apostasy, and either you will remove yourself from the church, or you will be removed when the cleansing occurs.

me said...

To help balance the scale of opinion, I for one, say, "Amen" to that paragraph.
And if that means lying to be able to get a temple recommend then maybe there is something wrong with the licensure of getting 'into' the temple.
Maybe you 'anonymous' ought to look up the definitions of those words, prophets, seers, and revelators, and see if those men really qualify.
And I hope you are right about removing or be removed when the cleansing occurs, cause I wanna be as far away from the cleansing as possible! :)

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't want to be in the Church when the cleansing starts and found supporting all the evils the Church promotes.

LDSDPer said...

@anonymous 1:01--

"high road" and "cleansing"--

you sound elated over the possibility that others may be in error--

and be "removed"--

what is all this talk of "cleansing" anyway (me and 8:58 as well)

in the scriptures "cleanse" or "cleansing" refers to healing or the atonement--
or going from mortality to immortality; it is not being used as a synonym for punishment--

so, where is this coming from? I am afraid those who are using the word in this context are not reading the scriptures--

I am reminded of ethnic cleansing, which is a horrible way of saying "genocide"--

if you remain standing while others are destroyed, are you going to stand on the sideline and cheer?


Log said...

51 ¶And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem,

52 And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.

53 And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.

54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.
And they went to another village.

me said...

My sincerest apologies LDSDPer for my comment about 'cleansing'. It was said tongue-in-cheek. 'If' there is going to be one such cleansing, then I was referring to the fact that it would be within, not kicking out.

And of course, if those who remain, stand and cheer... well, that just doesn't make any sense, does it.

LDSPer said...

Thank you, "me"--


You don't owe *me* an apology, of course; I realize there are people in the church who are very spiritually darwinstic, or, perhaps socially/organizationally darwinistic--

those who say the 'proper' things are 'in'; those who do not are 'out'--

Christlike people will mourn the destruction of even the vilest of sinners, and people who question organizations are not, in doing that, the vilest of sinners--

Thank you--

And, Log--


Greg S said...

The leaders tell us to vote and participate in the political process. They tell us it is our duty. So the scriptures teach me not to steal, lie, covet or murder.
And the government, no matter who is 'voted' in to power, does all those things. And it is based on force which is the opposite of what Jesus taught and modeled.
So the church leaders are telling me I need to vote to be ruled(loss of agency) vote to rob others(taxation) Vote to kill others(war on drugs, terrorism, poverty, etc.) and support lying and coveting.
I don't get it.

Anonymous said...

John Dehlin openly says he no longer believes there is a God, openly questions Joseph Smith being a true Prophet, questions veracity of BofM, and there is so much more he criticizes about the church and past and present leaders. Yet he still has his membership. Not Right! If D. Snuffer gets exed then so should Dehlin. God is no respector of persons and so the Brethren should not be respectors of persons. We should write letters to the COB and complain of their inconsistent policies regarding excommunication. And how it was done wrong to Snuffer at that. Anonymous letters of course.

LDSDPer said...

Who is John Dehlin?

Anonymous said...

If one questions the church leadership enough to write such letters, why would they care to keep following those leaders and stay in the Church?.

The 1st thing prophets have to do is 'prove' they are true prophets by their actions & words.(and love). If they can't prove such, then no one should put any faith or trust in them, let alone to care who they ex & who they don't.

If they are false prophets it all makes no difference anyway, it's a false church with no authority to lead or save or damn anyone.

You either believe God leads this Church and doesn't need anyone's help or advice, OR, the leaders are imposters who make all kinds of constant mistakes & teach all manner of falsehoods. I believe the later.

Log said...


LDSDPer said...

oh. Thanks, Log.

Anonymous said...

Fusion, thanks for the link. I am reading his posts right now.

Fusion said...

haha! Thanks Rock

Fusion said...

No worries.

I enjoy what the Watcher/Onewhoiswatching brings out in his blog- most of it simply cannot be found in one location on any other blog. It's deep but worth it, especially the nuggets of historical documentation that he lines up with scriptures. Enjoy!

LDSDPer said...

I find this spiritual/intellectual/historical 'debate' to be really unique, considering that probably 75% or more of LDS don't even know it is going on--

and that is another debate or non-debate:

the world of Mormon blogs versus the world of Gospel Doctrine classes in which everyone already knows all the answers--

and most class members just read the scriptures (if they read them) that are found in the lesson manual--

two very different worlds--

I, too, find the work of one who is watching to be almost overwhelming in its detail--

Log said...

And, to imagine, if I hadn't said someone who tries to review a book he hasn't read is acting as a fool...

Log said...


Spektator put your comment up at Just and True. I saw nothing to add or detract, so I didn't respond.

There is always a sorting event, I think, going on in any generation. The Mark Hoffman forgeries were one such event. The tempest-in-a-teapot which was the "BoM / DNA" controversy was another.

LDSDPer said...

I never paid much attention to those; they were media events; sure, there was deception, but--

I take the scripture (paraphrasing) about even the very elect being deceived to be literal; we're all deceived, even in little things--the air around us is filled with deception--no human can cover it all--

the important thing is to choose Jesus Christ and to follow Him, and if/when we do that we can find common ground and don't have to get caught up in battles--

so I believe, but I didn't believe that ten years ago, and I had a change of heart, and that is what I now believe; everyone comes to whatever point he/she needs at whatever time he/she is ready--

You are right; I wouldn't try to review Denver Snuffer's book; I've never been interested in reading his books, but I feel very badly about how he was treated; I don't like the black listing--

and yet that is just how I feel; what happened with him is not really my business; I just feel vulnerable (my husband and I and our children), because we're not BYU Education Week/EFY Mormons--

we are very involved in other things--

must get back to work now--

LDSDPer said...

Rock, the 'load more' isn't working, and I hope you and Connie are all right--

sometimes I think that the people who read your blog are too demanding; *we* don't expect you to write all the time--

*we* just enjoy what you have to say, but the welfare of your family is more important to us than whether or not this site 'works'--

I hope all is well--

you are being prayed for; please give Connie some cyber hugs--

LDSDPer said...

it's working now--


don't worry--

Alan Rock Waterman said...

The Load More function always gives me fits. Sometimes it helps to reboot, then use a different browser.

If anyone has asked me a specific question and doesn't get an answer, most likely it's cause I couldn't get in because the page wouldn't load.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Cyberhugs delivered. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Those in the Mormon church need to realize that Brighan young had no authority He lost his authority and was in apostacy at the time they murdered Joseph Smith Jr. Joseph Smith Jr. Was in the process of filing slander suits on all that said he practiced polygamy. He said he didnt believe in polygamy. He said it was aduldrey.yet Mormons call him a liar. Joseph Smith III WROTE HIS AUTOBIO. READ IT. THE III

Anonymous said...

Before assessing Mr. Snuffer, I would recommend reading Gregory Smith on the Interpreter website, who has has just completed a two part commentary on Passing the Heavenly Gift, and Mr. Snuffer does not fair well. A good attorney should always try to understand the position he is arguing against, and if Greg is correct, Denver has failed to do this or argue persuasively. Embarrassing himself might be putting it too mildly. Denver is a caricature of a true martyr and not the prophet crying in the wilderness that he and some others might suppose. Fred

kj said...

There are still many fourth generations still living though,and a couple of third. My father is a great grandson of Joseph and Emma And I know of several others. Were you speaking primarily of those on leadership who are third or fourth generation?

SEO Moz said..., India's leading matrimonial portal site strive hard to provide you the perfect match with a touch of tradition from a wide array of community, caste, city and much more for the global Indian community you can find your life partner with help of makemylove
matrimonials sites indiaUS Matrimony Sites

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Anybody interested in finding a bride in India?

Yeah, me neither. Take a hike, Spammer!

Arch Stanton said...

I've never read any of Snuffer's stuff and honestly hadn't even heard of him until news of his excommunication hit the presses. Now that I've heard of him I really can't find much to disagree with. And his excommunication seems to do nothing bur prove his words. I may have to get a copy of his book (or books) and give them a read. From what people are saying though, and from what little I've been able to gather from Nuffer's web site, Rock seems to have hit the nail on the head. I do not in any way see how Snuffer was engaged in apostasy or otherwise usurping the priesthood organization and leading members astray. From what I can tell Snuffer only said the same things lots of other members, including myself, have been saying for a while, except he did it a little more eloquently and drew attention to himself, too much attention. What I really don't understand though is how this action is to be reconciled with the recent essay that the church released on Blacks and the Priesthood. Is the church not now openly acknowledging the fallibility of the leadership? Or are they only acknowledging the fallibility of Brigham Young? LOL. The essay isn't very direct, but if they are disavowing the theories and policies put forth by these past leaders, that sure seems like a tacit acknowledgement of fallibility to me. And if they were fallible then, what has changed that they aren't just as fallible now? In which case, what did Snuffer say that is even wrong?

Alan Rock Waterman said...

It is indeed a puzzle, Arch, that not long after ex-ing Denver for calling into question the infallibility of the leadership, the Church's official website would do just that.

I think what really got under the Magisteriums's skin, and the reason they ordered him to recall his book, "Passing the Heavenly Gift," was that the book called into question whether the Brethren actually had the keys of authority they claim.

Somewhere around page 76 or thereabout, I recall Denver quoting Wilford Woodruff saying at the time of the succession crisis that most of the Twleve had no idea what keys they held or what they were for. That's a bombshell, considering the current claim to authority is all Magisterium has to hold onto.

That's why, I think, Denver's testimony of Christ and the restored gospel meant nothing to those who opposed him. What is most important to LDS, Inc today is that all members in good standing have a testimony of the authority of those over them.

Denver Snuffer didn't have that testimony (neither do I) and though he remains a member in good standing of the Church of Jesus Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Incorporated found him a liability.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, haven't read all your stuff, but just looking over them, looks like you need to go to

Desertson said...

Obviously none of you, not Rock or Snuffer or any of the commentators have read or understand the Book of Isaiah or the Testament of Levi. Who are you to judge and critisize Gods work? "All tables are full of vomit. None doeth good no not one!" That means you, me, everyone. And all you Brigham, Heber and Taylor haters will be judged and found guilty of what you've judged them for. They sacrificed and did more good for Gods kingdom in ONE day of their lives than you pro Snuffers have done all your life! If they (Brigham, Heber, Taylor) hadn't of been instrumental in converting thousands of people to the church, you probably wouldn't even be associated with the B of M much less here criticizing and condemning those who gave their lives to bring it to the world. Out of one corner of your mouth you spew syrupy words of self righteous indignation and out of the other, you damn to hell some of the greatest stalwarts of our time!
I don't hold to the currant LDS leaders, but let God run the show and quit trying to tell him how you think it should be run. This great end time winding up scene as prophesied by all of God's prophets since Adam (mainly Isaiah) still lies with the LDS church which was prophesied to be SET IN ORDER in the last days.
Shame on you, repent and WAIT UPON THE LORD.

Jo said...


We obviously disagree and only time will tell who is right, but I firmly believe me and my family & relatives would have been far far better off if our ancestors had never heard of or joined the Church, even in Joseph's day, when it still may have been partially true, for I have seen the fruits of the teachings of Brigham Young and they destroy families and all who follow him.

For my ancestors were deceived into following Brigham Young and his whoredoms. His devilish doctrines were past down to my own parents, siblings & children, who are so blinded & deceived by them they may never come to know the real truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in this life.

Almost any Christian Church would have been better for my ancestors to join then the LDS Church, for most other Churches don't teach and encourage such whoredoms as the LDS Church did and does even today.

And true or not, no one needs the Book of Mormon to learn and live the Gospel of Jesus Christ, it's all in the New Testament and most Christian Churches preach and practice far closer to the truth then Brigham ever did or the LDS Church does since him.

Brigham did not even believe in Christ, let alone understand or live his Gospel, he even said it would be hell to have done to him what he does to his wives and others. (The Golden Rule reveals false prophets, they never want done to them what they do to others (especially women).)

You can believe and follow who you want, but if the likes of Brigham Young are in heaven, it would still be a hell.

Desertson said...

No offense but your comments show just how educated you are about the life of Brigham Young and what he taught. Prove to me he taught anything contrary to what Christ taught. Just because mortal men make a mockery of true principles doesn't mean they are untrue. All of what Christ taught, mankind has at one time or other made a mockery of it, so what does that tell you about Christ?

Jo said...


You asked where did BY teach contrary to Christ?

Christ taught that if a married man married another wife while their 1st wife was still living, then it's adultery, even if he divorced the 1st wife 1st, for he is still married to her, for the divorce is not valid to God.

Thus Christ taught polygamy is adultery and Brigham Young preached & practiced just the opposite what Christ taught in regards to polygamy, among numerous other things.

Not to mention that Joseph Smith also constantly taught that polygamy was always adultery and so did the Book of Mormon prophets. Polygamy has never been allowed by God ever in the history of the world.

And I am very familiar with Brigham Young's life and his many abominations, including how he continually abused his wives and the women of the Church.

Dale B said...

Can you explain how Jacob marrying Rachel was not approved of by God? Why would the Lord choose to put his stamp of approval on that set of polygamous marriages if they were so wrong? While I don't believe that polygamy is a particularly righteous practice, per se, I think it is hard to get around the fact that there are several important polygamous marriages that seem to have been blessed by God in the Old Testament.

My view is that polygamy was primarily a cultural phenomenon, not a theological one. The Lord did not object when that was the cultural norm. However, when Solomon was just running up the numbers, the Lord seemed to feel that was excessive.

I think where the polygamists go wrong is that they have made it into a theological teaching. BY or Joseph Smith, (whoever it really was) that taught that God commanded him to take additional wives or be damned seems to have taken a wrong turn somewhere. My guess is that they came to believe it was a part of the 'Restoration of All Things' and then jumped into it with both feet.

Today I question both the idea of polygamy and temple work. While I find the idea of being sealed for time and all eternity a beautiful teaching, I'm not sure that it is really a true doctrine of Christ. There is nothing in the Book of Mormon or Bible that would suggest that it was necessary (or that it even existed). Still, I find that in the context in which it is found today in the LDS church, it probably helps people achieve a unity of purpose and sets a noble goal for a married couple to aspire to, which is probably, on balance, a good thing. On the other hand, the over-emphasis of Temple Recommends as the 'golden ticket' for admittance to certain callings, employment and a subtle signal that an individual is no longer to be considered a true Christian is problematic, to say the least.

Jo said...


I'm glad you are questioning at least polygamy and temple work, those are vital things to see how Brigham instigated them and not Joseph, let alone Christ.

Only those who are brave enough to question things will ever come to know the truth and not stay deceived.

And I agree that 'sealings' might be a nice concept, but it is not a true principle or a doctrine of Christ, or Joseph Smith. They both taught that all 1st marriages & families are eternal and thus Brigham's 'sealings' are not only false doctrine but totally unnecessary and were just something to make his whoredoms appear more legit.

No one needs to be sealed to still be 'family' in the next life. We will continue to know, love and mingle with our family members throughout eternity, no matter how good or bad we or they were on earth. We may not all have received the same glory or reward in heaven, but we will continually know, love & visit each other. Some family members might become 'Gods' and some might remain be in hell forever. But family and marriage is eternal and not even God has the power to change that fact. Study Christ's teachings and you will see he taught that nothing can break up a marriage, not divorce or even death. He said there is no marriage in heaven, because all marriage takes place here on this earth 'before' one goes to heaven. In the millenium all those who didn't have a chance to marry will get to return to earth and marry and raise a family, before they go on in eternity.

Which brings us back to your polygamy question. I do not believe God or Christ ever sanctioned polygamy ever in the history of the world, it has always been and will always be adulterous abomination, as all true prophets and Christ have taught.

You are assuming that the Bible is translated correctly or that the stories in it are truthfully told. Yet we know that God does not change, his laws are eternal and Adam had to live the same laws as we do today to be righteous and gain the Spirit and eternal life.

When we know this we easily see how many stories, teachings or cultural practices or behaviors by even prophets (polygamy) in the Bible are totally contrary to Christ's laws. Thus such things are false if they say 'God commanded or condoned' such things. And such prophets who lived polygamy just fell for adultery, even though they claimed, or men a thousand years later wrote, that it was God who commanded it.

Of course prophets who fell for adultery would say God condoned it. Most all of the people I personally know in and out of the Church who are committing adultery have said that God condones it, they never think they are doing wrong, but that they are very righteous.

And of course most men throughout history (since a truly righteous man is very rare) would translate history to make such evils appear ok with God. For they probably wanted to be able to live such things themselves or have the people like their writings. For who would follow a church or leader who condemned polygamy or divorce and remarriage? Hardly no one, as we saw in Christ's and Joseph's day. Most people like the idea of polygamy and divorce & remarriage, just look at all the people in the Church and other churches who support or condone such things, if not today, they still worship past leaders who lived polygamy and think it was ok.

To see how easy and common it is for scriptures, history and stories of prophets and ancient people to be written incorrectly and evil appeared to be sanctioned by God, just look at how Brigham in just the last 150 years totally changed the truth in his history books about Joseph and polygamy and so many other issues in the Church, from divorce to women & blacks can't have Priesthood to tithing. Brigham's history books are completely different then the RLDS history books or what Joseph will probably say when he returns someday.

Jo said...

Dale, Continued -

We can't trust that much of the Bible is even true, we must compare everything it says to what Christ taught, to know if a story or prophet or principle is true or right or not.

God would cease to be God if he told men to destroy a city and everyone in it except keep the virgins for themselves. For such is totally against his commandments.

And God would never tell or want a young woman to suffer and commit adultery by marrying an abusive man who threw his 1st wife out, just so she can save her people.

God would never tell a husband, let alone a prophet, to abuse his wife (even if she asked for it) by taking on other wives, even if it mean't he would be childless or she would have to have all 12 children by herself.

Above all, God commands prophets, leaders, men and husbands to protect and respect their wife and all women, not abuse, control or ever rule over them or withhold Priesthood authority or position from them.

For God knows that whoever has the most Charity has the most power, and wisdom and thus should have the most 'say' over any decision making and be the leader, whether in the home, church or government. And God has declared, as history has proved, that women naturally have more charity then men (though there definitely are exceptions), thus why God gives the babies to women.

Thus, we must realize that in a true church with true prophets there would be at least as many if not more 'female' prophets and apostles and church leaders on down the line, as there are 'male' ones.

As some ancient writings suggest, I believe Christ's (only) wife 'Mary' was the highest Apostle, the Apostle to the Apostle, and the other Apostles had a problem with that for it was contrary to their customs.

I believe if Christ had lived longer or Joseph had lived longer then they would have brought in more female apostles and prophets.

True prophets and true scriptures include writings from and talk about 'prophetesses' as much as they do prophets.

So no, I don't believe God approved of Abraham's or Jacob's polygamy, it appears they fell for it because of pressure from wives and a dishonest father in law. Polygamy was the norm of the day back then and so under pressure they fell for it, but they were hardly the 1st prophets to fall from grace by things like polygamy.

Moses allowed adultery by polygamy and divorce to go on because he had no choice, the people would not repent, they refused to live righteously and live Christ's laws, though Moses tried to get them to. So Moses just tried to at least regulate their evil somewhat to protect women as best he could. But just because Moses made a law about divorce or polygamy doesn't mean that God approved of such things, they were still totally contrary to God's & Christ's laws.

You can't believe in both the Book of Mormon and most of the Old Testament, for they totally contradict each other. One or both must be wrong, they can't both be right.

God's laws don't change, if they did then it would be impossible to tell true doctrine or true prophets from false ones. God's laws are eternal, not even God can change things, he must obey eternal laws just like we do. Not even God has the power to make polygamy or divorce or stealing ok or any other evil.

Same with Joseph & Brigham, they can't both be right. One was living adultery and was a false or fallen prophet, 'both' if Joseph really fell for it too, but I give him the benefit of a doubt that he told the truth and didn't fall for it.

Jo said...

Dale, continued -

According to the Bible, God even told Abraham to stop living polygamy and send Hagar away, which he did. That is in line with Christ's teachings. But the way Abraham sent Hagar away was not righteous, thus giving us more insight into his character at that point in time, even if he had earlier in his life been highly favored of God.

A righteous man who was repenting from polygamy would have sent Hagar and her son away with enough of everything to be comfortable for the rest of her life.

I also don't believe God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Issac. I believe that either the story isn't true and didn't happen or that Abraham received false revelation from the Adversary, who of course would have inspired him to do such a thing that was totally contrary to the laws of God.

But God cannot and does not tempt anyone to do wrong, even to test them, it is contrary to his nature and eternal laws to do so.

But if Abraham fell for polygamy it is easy to see how he could fall for Satan's whisperings to sacrifice his son. And Joseph Smith appeared to agree with that.

It doesn't appear that Abraham ever completely repented and regained the Spirit after his polygamy with Hagar, for he just continued to live polygamy even more later on, if the Bible is correct, which of course is a big 'if'.

Christ's laws and teachings trump and reveal the truth or error about everything and everyone throughout history, no matter what any history books or ancient writings say.

That's why it's easy to see how false and corrupt and anti-Christ the Church is today and how all it's leaders since Joseph died have been false prophets deceiving the people into giving them their obedience, money and support.

Very few members seem to bother to study and compare Christ's words to what the Church leaders are doing and teaching and thus they don't see the errors and false doctrines and evil.

Even if Pres. Monson was a true prophet, righteous people would know how easy it was for even prophets to fall or be wrong, and thus they would question and test his every word and action, to make sure he wasn't teaching error or leading them astray.

But instead most everyone prefers blind obedience and to buy into the false teaching that Prophets can't fall or lead us astray or be wrong, for it's so much easier and more appealing then having to do your own homework and be righteous enough yourself to receive all your own revelation and discernment on everything.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

What I find a bit troubling about your comment is encapsulated in these statements:

"They sacrificed and did more good for Gods kingdom in ONE day of their lives..."

"If they (Brigham, Heber, Taylor) hadn't of been instrumental in converting thousands of people to the church..."

What's so heroic about converting thousands of people to the Church? That's not what Brigham, Heber, or Taylor were charged with doing.

But that's the same mistake I made on my mission. I thought my job was to get people to join my church. But that wasn't what I was charged with at all. I was charged with the duty of helping to bring people to Christ. The irony of it all was that I often met good people who had already come to Christ (many who knew Him better than I did), and ended up quarreling with them over why they were not really followers of Christ until they became members of my church.

The primary tool I was given to bring people to Christ was the Book of Mormon, which has been instrumental in bringing many souls to Christ. But I unwittingly pulled a bait & switch, for no sooner had those I taught received a witness of the Book of Mormon than I convinced them that what logically followed was baptism.

Which was correct of course. But I saw the purpose of baptism as entry into the LDS church, which it is not. Baptism is necessary for entry into the Kingdom, of which the Church is only preparatory.

Like you, I also confused the Church with the Kingdom of God, which you credit the early leaders with building up. They built up the Church, yes. And they built up an intermountain empire. But were they really engaged in building up the Kingdom of God?

Search the scriptures and you'll see that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is an entirely different entity from the Kingdom of God. They are not one in the same.

As for those who see problems in the modern LDS Church, rather than allowing those problems to be brought to light so that we can repent, you insist we should keep silent "wait upon the Lord."

Yet in every instance in scripture that refers to waiting on the Lord, it's obvious that term does not mean to sit back and wait for the Lord to take care of business. Such an interpretation would contradict hundreds of scriptures that encourage us to action and being anxiously engaged.

"Waiting on the Lord" in scripture refers to the individual not giving up when life throws him problems that seem difficult. Wait upon the Lord, and he will bring you comfort. It has nothing to do with standing aside and waiting for the Lord to do those things we should be doing within the church.

He put us here so that we would be HIS his hands and eyes. We are expected to roll up our sleeves and put our shoulders to the wheel, not wait for the second coming so God can do what we should have been doing all along.

The reason we don't yet have a Zion society is not because God doesn't desire it for us. It's because we are waiting for Him to give us those orders again, or for someone in leadership to get it started. It won't happen that way.

Finally, you insist that I should be ashamed because "the LDS church was prophesied to be SET IN ORDER in the last days."

I can find no such prophecy. I am aware of D&C 85 where the Lord promises that he would set his HOUSE in order. But I'll give you a pass on that, because for some years I also thought when he said "house" he meant this "church."

We tend to bend the scriptures to match our personal views, and I've been as guilty of that as you or anyone else.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Regarding your comment, "To see how easy and common it is for scriptures, history and stories of prophets and ancient people to be written incorrectly and evil appeared to be sanctioned by God, just look at how Brigham in just the last 150 years totally changed the truth in his history books about Joseph and polygamy and so many other issues in the Church":

I wonder how few members are even aware that the Documentary History of the Church was doctored prior to publication under the direction of Brigham Young. One of those scribes refused to do obey Brigham and ended up leaving the church under the pressure to conform.

These volumes are the histories most of us depend upon for the words of Joseph Smith, yet those who compiled the records left out much of what Joseph said when he preached against polygamy, and then added words that he never said that would appear to promote the practice.

Chief among these willing lackeys was Willard Richards, who knew better because he had been present on some occasions and recorded the actual words Joseph said, which he later bowlderized after the prophet was dead.

Thankfully, we still have many of the original documents, so we can read what Joseph actually said. Sadly, most members will not see the originals but only believe what they read in the DHC as published.

Anonymous said...

I don't think I'd say "all is well in Zion speaking of the church. I also agree that many of our leaders do serve with their whole hearts and do so diligently, The power of the devil is still evident in many aspects. We are a rich nation but this didn't fare well for the rich people in the book of Mormon days. The greater portion of the spirit of God is still withdrawn from us because we still have failed our God's intent to establish the law of consecration. I think the purity of the milk of the gospel of Christ found in the church is great for the majority of us sheep who are still enslaved in Babylon. We don't really share our things with others. Instead of us buying one lawn mower to share between a few houses, we each buy our own. This type of financial purchasing extends exponentially in many other things. This coupled with government taxation that continues to escalate unchallenged will lead to many people falling into captivity. The poor suffering the most. But the holy ghost is busy teaching his elect the truth. The lord does make himself known to whomsoever he chooses. There continues to be rich temple going saints who take their poor renters to court if they fall behind in their rent payments. The banks continue to offer low interest to the rich and high interest to the poor. The Judges of Israel have not the wisdom (or the time), but have become accustomed to not judge the matters of the people but say take it to court in spite of the scriptures saying, do not take it to court, know ye not that ye shall judge angels? There has been a sort of brainwashing on the minds of the people dumbing them down as they continue to vote for leaders with voting machines that lack check and balance, and transparency to the people. And the government is controlled by elitists making our government an oligarchy. There will be a blood bath in the name of religion one day, foretold in 1 nephi, and the Lord will restore this land to the true heirs. Jesus said this in 3rd Nephi 20-22 probably when the one mighty and strong comes.

BK said...

Anonymous 11:07,

Where did Christ or God ever teach the 'Law of Consecration" ? Or the 'Second Comforter'? Or 'having one's calling and election made sure'? Or that there will be 'one might & strong' who will come, other then Christ himself?

These things appear to be false concepts taught by false mormon prophets, who's fruits fail to prove them to be true prophets and true followers of Christ.

I think it's best to prove someone like Joseph Smith or Brigham Young is a true prophet 1st before going around teaching their doctrines.

And we can't prove anything by warm fuzzies, Christ said we prove all things and persons by looking at their fruits, whether or not they preach and practice his commandments and have pure Christlike love.

I'm not seeing any Mormon prophets who proved that, despite all the good they did, but all false prophets do and teach much good in order to try to convince the people they 'are' good.

False prophets will teach 99 truths and sneak in just 1 good lie that will lead people astray. So Christ said to watch & be careful about falling for them and use 'love' to discern their them and their errors, for no one can fake 'pure christlike love', IF, you know what it looks like.

MrHFMetz said...

I read the article, great stuff, thanks for the tip, it shows how far the church has gone down the line.
Amazing how this Brother Snuffer was excommunicated. That is a great sin that is on their head, and has to be answered in the day of judgement. I would not want be a member of the court that dealt with this case, not for the world. It is a terrible thing to fall in the hands of the living God, did'nt Paul say that?

MrHFMetz said...

I read it again. It reminds me of a fairy tale by Hans Chr. Andersen called The new clothes of the emperor.
But seriously, are these authorities not afraid of the warning in D&C 85 vers 8? This is real and the Lord has a long memory.
I am going to buy that book.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand why Denver believes that Joseph Smith wrote D&C 132, yet discards virtually all the other claims regarding his involvement with polygamy.

MrHFMetz said...

I am also puzzled with this section. The following quote might be helpful. It is from "An adress to all believers in Christ" by David Whitmer (1887), chapter 4 page 30.
There is a link to wikisource to find it:
It starts with: "Brother Hyrum said it had been suggested to him that some of the brethren might go to Toronto, Canada, and sell the copy-right of the Book of Mormon for considerable money: and he persuaded Joseph to inquire of the Lord about it. Joseph concluded to do so". . .
And continuing; good luck, regards.

Neil Hudspeth said...

Well,as a former member I have to say it's all pretty crazy.I mean religion as a whole.

MrHFMetz said...

Excommunication from the Church is a very serious matter. The only cause for disfellowship should be a real and serious breach of the law of God. Those who are entrusted with this power must act in truth and righteousness in the excercise of their official duties; those who cut people off the church for private pique, or in the exercise of undue dominion, will be held accountable before the Lord.
At any degree of unrighteousness the Heavens withdraw themselves, and . . . Amen to the Priesthood. This excommunication looks like priestcraft to me. Though personally I don't consider D. Snuffer as a prophet in the real meaning of the word, but he is a “voice crying in the wilderness” that cannot be ignored. A voice that was stigmatised though, through censorship and excommunication; and for what?
Joseph Smith has said that “it is necessary to know who holds the keys of the power (= priesthood) and who does not, or we may be likely to be deceived” (TPJS 336). History, scripture, prophesy and common sense say that this church would eventually apostatize, and that the keys of the priesthood would go into the shade. What we see today indicates that we are somewhere at the end of the process. Just a little research makes that clear, and that is what D. Snuffer did, effectively. Something had to be done, apparently.
“to be deceived . . . “ reminds me of what is said in the 75th vers in D&C 76, describing the “honorable men (and women) of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men” and their future state. That's the Terrestrial Kingdom.
I just wonder what is meant by being “blinded by the craftiness of men”; and to whom it would possibly apply today.

I'm Dence said...

With the benefit of hindsight, re-reading the comments in this thread regarding the ex-communication of DS, and not John Dehlin or Rock is very telling of those who had certain views on the matter.
I am curious as to whether they still think the same today, or if they have experienced any growth.

The Mormon Curse of Cain Doctrine said...

Hi, this is Darrick Evenson. Someone "Anonymous" just wrote the following about me:

Anonymous said...
The person who commented under the title "the Mormon curse of Cain doctrine" is Darrick Evanson. Anyone who knows anything about this man will know that he did not leave the church because of Denver Snuffer, as he has just claimed.
He's been in and out of the church at various times over the years. Once to become a born-again ex-Mormon for Jesus type, then he came back and wrote a book denouncing anti-Mormons and "exposing" their methods, then left again in order to become a Ba'hi, then flirted with the church again, then got kicked out of the Ba'hi movement and after a while tried to get back in but they wouldn't let him and told him they would never have him back........... the list goes on.
Bro. Snuffer, for all his faults, needs the support of this man like a hole in the head!

1) I was NEVER "kicked out" of the Baha'i Faith. I resigned from it. Mainly, because of the Baha'i belief that Jesus was never raised from the dead, and the Gospel accounts are "parables" after He was buried. Other things, but I RESIGNED. I NEVER was "kicked out". I also resigned from the LDS Church in 1996. I was never excommunicated. Some Mormons have said over the years that I was "exed for adultery" (I'm still a virgin today...which is hard to be if one commits adultery), or that I was exed for being gay, or a pedophile, etc. ALL LIES! I resigned. You can check with Church Records. My birthdate is 11/17/60. Ask Church Records office is Darrick Troy Evenson" was exed, or he resigned. I did "flirt" with the idea of returning to the Church in 2003, but that never stuck. I resigned from the LDS Church because of many reasons: MAINLY (at the time) because I knew that Church leaders were NOT inspired of God. I knew they lied. I knew they covered things up. I knew they did not speak to God outside of normal prayer. My point: I was NEVER "tossed out" of the Baha'i Faith. That is a LIE, and lies are not of God.

2) I am NOT a follower of Denver Snuffer, or his movement, but I DO think he is a very spiritual man. I have "recommended" his books to others, because I think they have a deep spiritual depth to them. I think Mr. Snuffer is wrong about the BOM being historical. I agree with Mr. Snuffer on his criticisms of Church leaders. I think he is being far too lenient on them.

3) I was NEVER a member of Ex-Mormons for Jesus. Never claimed to be. I did "research" them for many months. Attended meetings. Spoke to many of them, and their leaders At no time was I "among" them. At no time did I "join" them. I went full inactive from the LDS Church in 1989, and I did not affiliate with any church or religion until I became a Baha'i in 1994. The Baha'is told me that under Baha'i Law I "had to resign" from any other religion or church, so I resigned from the LDS Church in 1996.

4) I once knew a Mormon bishop who was born and raised Catholic, then joined the Methodist Church, then joined the LDS Church. Was that Mormon Bishop "mentally unstable" for quitting two religions and joining a third? I think Mormons would say he was a "Seeker of Truth" going to the greatest "Light" he could find. Yet, if "I" do the same, that makes me somehow "unstable". ABSURD!!!

Get your FACTS STRAIGHT before you start spreading RUMORS. Thank you. Darrick Evenson

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Duly noted, Darrick.
I hope your accuser comes back on here and sees your denouncement.

The Mormon Curse of Cain Doctrine said...

Someone "Anonymous" said that I was kicked out of the "Bha'i" movement. This is NOT the truth. I resigned from the Baha'i Faith, just like I resigned from the LDS Church.
I was never exed from either. Get your facts straight before you start spreading false information. Darrick Evenson

The Mormon Curse of Cain Doctrine said...


Very spiritual man. Very good man. Sincere man. His non-church "Doctrine of Christ" movement contains many pure-in-heart. The LDS Church contains mostly NOT pure-in-heart. Denver's "non-organization" cannot do anything but meet in each other's homes and meet for Boise-like conferences: to talk about "Zion" but not define it or built it. But, he's a good man. AS FOR ME, I follow a miracle-working Prophet from Lebanon. You can read more about that here:

Burk said...

Robin Hood says in his first comment: "...the book itself is full of very dubious assumptions, relies on diaries and journals where the scriptures are silent (always a questionable practice)..."

How can anybody take seriously a comment such as this? Relying on historical documentation instead of relying on lack of input? What?

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Yeah well, that's Robin Hood, Burk. He just likes to be contrary. Doesn't always put a lot of thought into it.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 282 of 282   Newer› Newest»