Sunday, October 5, 2014

The Problem With Denver Snuffer

Previously: Farewell, Sweet Soul

I'm willing to bet there's no one in Mormondom more misrepresented than Denver Snuffer has been these past few weeks. You'll find no shortage of people willing to tell you all about what Denver Snuffer believes in, or denounce him and warn you away from him based on extensive research they gleaned from hours of vigorous guessing.

If there's a problem with Denver Snuffer, it's that there is a veritable glut of wild speculation about him from people who have no idea what they're talking about. Much of what I’ve heard others say about the mysterious Brother Snuffer is wildly inaccurate, yet declared with an air of testimonial certainty by people who have never heard him speak or bothered to read a word he has written. Normally I'd find such ignorance oddly endearing; maybe even a bit entertaining. But right now I just find it...well, odd.

The man does have a website, after all. So anyone can just go over there and have a peek at this mystery man's writings. He has authored ten books, some of which had been available through Deseret Book before he was declared persona non grata from that fine establishment. Those books can still be purchased through Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble. His recent series of lectures, the source of most of the current controversy, can be read online for free. So I'd think it shouldn't be too much trouble to learn something about the man's beliefs by going to the source himself instead of lazily sitting around making up Boogeyman stories. Denver Snuffer is a lot less scary than some would make him out to be.

Boogah-Boogah!
Denver Snuffer was a devout member of the LDS church for 40 years, all the way up until the day they excommunicated him for writing a book. I reported on that incident in my post The Denver Snuffer Debacle. If you are unfamiliar with who Denver is, you may want to read that piece first. Click here.

This particular book of Denver's was titled Passing The Heavenly Gift. It is a history of LDS Church leadership. And it is a very good one. No one in the Church hierarchy ever claimed anything in the book was inaccurate.

Nevertheless, Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles took it upon himself to pressure Brother Snuffer's stake president to excommunicate Denver from the church unless he pulled the book from publication.[1]  Nelson leaned on Snuffer's stake president for a year and a half until finally Denver got the boot. Overnight an active, believing, devout stake high councilman who always kept his covenants and whose testimony never wavered was suddenly labeled an apostate. Over a book he wrote. A book no one challenged as being in error.

This move on the part of Elder Nelson was a serious violation of church law, as members of the Twelve are forbidden to interfere in such matters within the stakes of the church. The scriptures say so, and so did Joseph Smith. But today’s leaders rarely consult the scriptures anymore, and Joseph Smith is dead, so members of the Twelve disobey that instruction all the time.[2]
_________________

[1]Denver Snuffer, Letter of Appeal to the First Presidency, included as an appendix to the Phoenix Transcript, pg 41-42. https://www.scribd.com/doc/239760895/10-Phoenix-Transcript-Preserving-the-Restoration.

[2] "The Twelve will have no right to go into Zion or any of its stakes and there undertake to regulate the affairs thereof where there is a standing High Council. But it is their duty to go abroad and regulate all matters relative to the different branches of the church.” -Joseph Smith to the Twelve, Kirtland Council Minute Book as quoted in Shephard and Marquardt, Lost Apostles: Forgotten Members of Mormonism's Original Quorum of the Twelve pg 85-86. See also D&C Sections 102 and 107.

To my knowledge, Russell Nelson has never denied the key part he played in the ouster of Brother Snuffer. If he did he would be lying. Someone has, however, managed to arrange for several members of the Church PR department to lie for him. This keeps Russell Nelson's hands clean and allows him plausible deniability.[3]

Despite being excommunicated for “apostasy” (which nowadays means anything the leaders want it to mean), Denver remains a devout believer in the gospel of the Restoration. So he went ahead with his plans for a year-long series of speaking engagements, the overall theme being, as the late Hugh Nibley aptly titled his own book, Approaching Zion.

In that book, compiled from speeches and articles written as far back as 40 years ago, Nibley lamented how far we have come from attaining a Zion society, which was supposed to be our principal goal from the moment this church was founded. Nibley asserted that rather than getting closer to Zion, the Church seemed be running lickety-split in the other direction. He noted that the Church in our day has more in common with Babylon than with Zion. He reminded us that Church leaders named Babylonian institutions like the local Federal Reserve branch “Zion's Bank,” which is as close to a slap in the face as you can give to God without hurting your own hand. Nibley made some very pointed barbs toward those in Church leadership, yet no one in the Church hierarchy moved to excommunicate him for his criticisms as they later did Denver Snuffer. Nibley was a beloved and respected Church scholar all the way up until his death at age 95.

Nibley's book was published at a time when there weren't that many overt indications that the Church was veering dangerously off track, so back then, Nibley did not succeed in rousing the Saints to their awful situation. Today it's a different story. There is widespread disillusionment among the rank and file. Hugh Nibley is dead, but Denver Snuffer's similar concerns are now resonating with a great many church members.

I have not seen Denver Snuffer say anything that a number of renowned LDS thinkers like Hugh Nibley would not have said also. What Denver mostly does is encourage his listeners to return to the scriptures. As Nibley also pointed out, a good many of our scriptures tend to indict those in positions of power who would lead the Lord’s people in a direction other than that which the Lord has commanded -all while assuring us they are incapable of error.[4]  A growing number of Saints have awakened in recent years to the reality that the prophecies foretold in the book of Mormon are being fulfilled in our very day.

Not Knowing Our Religion
In reading and listening to Denver's lectures, I was reminded of how during my teen and Young Adult years I attended the Church sponsored “Know Your Religion” series wherein various gospel scholars would travel to outlying stakes like mine, where they would present fascinating talks on church history and theology. The things Denver Snuffer teaches in his presentations remind me of things I learned listening to scholars like Truman Madsen and Sidney B. Sperry. Like Brothers Madsen and Sperry, Denver reminded his listeners that we have not been living up to the ideals of the Restoration, and he shows us how we can do better. Nothing very controversial here. Unless you consider the standard works to be controversial.
__________________

[3]For documentation on the recent assurances from the Church public relations department to various media outlets denying interference in local disciplinary matters, along with evidence that those assurances are patently untrue, see chapter 5 of my book, What To Expect When You're Excommunicated: The Believing Mormon's Guide to the Coming Purge. (You didn't think I would miss a chance to plug my own book here, did you? It's available from Benchmark Books in Salt Lake City, and also from Amazon.com.)

[4]Russell Ballard declared, “Keep your eyes riveted on the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. We will not lead you astray. We cannot.”  That's quite a promise of infallibility. Too bad Ballard wasn't able to back it up by quoting the Lord in a direct revelation. All we have for now is Ballard's word on it.

Unrighteous Judgment
Recently I’ve heard from several devout members of the church, most of them women, telling me they have been interrogated by their bishops and stake presidents merely because they were known to have attended one of Denver Snuffer's lectures. Four of them immediately had their temple recommends revoked, their church callings rescinded, and told they were prohibited from taking the sacrament. Others I know have been disfellowshiped, and some were excommunicated. On what grounds? “Associating with a known apostate” is the reason most frequently given.

So now any active, believing member of the church can be disciplined for befriending a non-member.

Many of these attendees were asked “Do you believe Denver Snuffer is a prophet?”

Well, the answer to that should be obvious to anyone who’s familiar with Snuffer. Of course he’s a prophet. The proper response to any bishop who asks such a question is “Aren't you? Aren't we all supposed to be prophets?”

Take a look in the Bible Dictionary at the back of your set of LDS scriptures and you'll find this definition: “In a general sense a prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost.”

Denver Snuffer clearly has such a testimony, and he bears it frequently. But because he is a non-member (through no choice of his own) you can now get called into the Church principal’s office and get suspended or expelled just for being in the same room with this guy.

I suppose the reason Church leaders get so antsy about a member calling another person a prophet is because we Mormons have such a screwy idea of what a prophet is supposed to be. Most of us think of the prophet as the man at the top of the Church organization, the guy whose job it is to run and manage the Church and give us all our marching orders. But historically, a prophet was a far cry from what we have in place today. Look again at the write-up in your Bible Dictionary: “The work of a Hebrew prophet was to act as God's messenger and make known God's will.”

Someone on LDS Freedom Forum gave what I felt was a fairly apt analogy of the role of a prophet. He describes the prophet as similar in a way to the spokesman for the president of the United States. The president gives the spokesman a message to deliver, and he goes out and delivers that message on behalf of the president. That's it. The messenger doesn't all of a sudden start presiding over the executive branch of government. Nor does he convey his own opinion and try to pass that off as the words of his boss. He delivers only the message he's been sent to deliver, and goes no further. No one follows him home to find out what else he thinks.

There's quite a bit more in the Bible Dictionary regarding the role of a prophet, and as it happens, nothing in there bears much resemblance to what we have today; a corporate CEO who shows up to offer the dedicatory prayer over banks,[5] and participate in ribbon cutting ceremonies for lavish shopping centers.[6]
_______________

[5]That's right. The man we revere as the prophet of God on earth traveled to Provo to give the dedicatory prayer for a bank -very similar to the kind of prayers he gives when dedicating a new temple to the Lord.   http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/central/provo/lds-church-president-dedicates-zions-bank-financial-center/article_aa4c7a09-89ae-5eb4-a361-9fe3d4d400d8.html

[6]See “Bring Ye All The Tithes Into The Stores.” http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2012/07/bring-ye-all-tithes-into-stores.html  and the follow up, “City Creek: How Did We Come To This?” http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2013/01/city-creek-how-did-we-come-to-this_20.html

Joseph Smith not only didn't think his role included making celebrity appearances at store openings, he didn't even believe it was his place to run the church. Unlike the constant mantra we hear today to “follow the prophet,” Joseph vigorously insisted the people stop looking to him. He told them their dependence on him was the very thing that was causing them to be darkened in their minds. He tried repeatedly and in vain to get the members to depend upon no man, especially not him.[7]

Joseph Smith did not head up a hierarchy. Where today the Ensign publishes a fold-out flow chart suitable for framing[8] with the First Presidency at the top, followed by the Twelve Apostles, with the Quorums of the Seventy taking direction under the apostles, and the Relief Society as some awkward appendage to them all, Joseph Smith taught something different. All quorums were independent of each other. No position held status over another (not even the First Presidency, and especially not the Twelve Apostles, whose job it was to be the traveling elders, not some group of managers sitting around a boardroom at Church Headquarters). No division was answerable to another -not even the Relief Society, which was supposed to be completely independent of the male priesthood.
 
There was to be no hierarchy in the Church of Jesus Christ. It was a flat organization, with no one at the top “in charge” of anyone else. No member was subject to another, and no leader had authority over any member. A person with a calling had authority to direct only himself in his duties. He could not use his priesthood power to impose his will on others. If he so much as tried, his priesthood was instantly rendered impotent.[9]

It was a great source of frustration to the prophet Joseph that instead of each man seeking the will of God in his own life, the people clamored for someone else to tell them what to do. Nearly half the members in Nauvoo were converts from the British Isles, where centuries of dependence on authority was bred into the very culture.[10]  After Joseph Smith was murdered, the vast majority of these converts looked to Brigham Young to lead them.

We tend to forget that Brigham Young was not chosen to preside over the church by way of any revelation from God. He was elected by a slim majority of members after vigorously campaigning for that position. And even then it wasn't Brigham Young who the people selected, it was the entire quorum of the Twelve as a body, of whom Brigham Young was the Presiding Elder. Brigham Young was never ordained a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator; after the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum, there was no one left on earth who had those keys. Brigham even denied having the gifts that Joseph was blessed with. Nevertheless, over time we have been taught that Brigham Young was a prophet equal to Joseph Smith, until today our traditions hold that every man who attains the position of president of the Church has gifts and authority equal to those held by the founding prophet himself.

This belief is wholly unsupportable. We have absolutely zero historical evidence to back up these traditions, and we certainly don't see evidence of these gifts in our current leaders. Consider that not even our pioneer ancestors referred to Young, Taylor, Cannon, Woodruff, et al as prophets of God. In those days, the people called them presidents, not prophets. They presided over the church, but I am aware of few revelations received by them that were conveyed to the people as in Joseph Smith's day.
_______________

[7] Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg 237. See also, “Follow the Prophet, Don't Go Astray” http://zomarah.wordpress.com/2010/09/11/follow-the-prophet-dont-go-astray/
 [8] Or wrapping fish.
[9] D&C 121, “Amen to that priesthood.”
[10] See Lake Wobegon Mormons,  http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2012/08/lake-wobegon-mormons.html 

Those leaders who had earlier been contemporaries of Joseph Smith when he was alive, both taught and understood there was only one true prophet of this last dispensation, and the claim to that position was Joseph Smith's alone. This modern idea that the successor to Brigham Young is a full-fledged Prophet, Seer, and Revelator on par with Joseph Smith is a construct that did not develop within the church until the mid 1950s. That's also when the hymn “We Thank Thee O God For A Prophet,” originally intended as a tribute to the memory of Joseph Smith, began to be sung when President David O. McKay entered the tabernacle at the start of conference. Too bad McKay didn't nip that in the bud, because ever since then it has continued to be sung as an anthem glorifying men who never exhibited any gifts of prophecy whatsoever. [11]

In the past decade or two I've noticed that the Twelve Apostles are now also considered prophets, seers and revelators in their own right. I don't know when that business got started, but I don't remember being taught it growing up in the church. And unless I'm missing something, there doesn't seem to be much evidence to back up that claim. As LDS philosopher Tarik D. LaCour recently wrote in Sustaining Church Leaders: 
“In order to be a revelator, one must be a prophet and a seer also. It is not enough merely to have revelations, as all members of the church should have them. Rather, it is to tell others through the power of the spirit what has been revealed to you. If Joseph Smith had kept to himself what was made known to him, he would be a prophet and seer only. But, because what has been made known to him was made known to us, he is a prophet, seer, and revelator.
“Is President Thomas S. Monson a prophet, seer, and revelator? True it is that he holds the keys of the priesthood and is the president of the high priesthood. However, in the 40 plus years that he has been sustained as such, Thomas S. Monson has not made one prophecy, seen [translated] one thing, or revealed any new divine truth. This is not to say he is not a wonderful man. He is. But he is not a prophet, seer , and revelator. By virtue of theoffice he holds as president of the Church, he has the right to use these things. But apparently he does not want to use them.”12
Or it could be that the Lord has not seen fit to reveal anything in our day for reasons He already revealed long ago?[13]   We seem to have forgotten the Lord declared the whole church to be under condemnation. I would think that would include the Church's leaders.

It certainly couldn't have anything to do with the astonishing arrogance of some in high office who wear their titles like badges of honor, could it? On the popular new blog maintained by an anonymous bishop, we learn of this revealing exchange with apostle David Bednar:
I remember in a leadership training meeting where Elder Bednar told the story of how he was asked the following question: “How are you guys (referring to the brethren) so in tune with the Lord?” Elder Bednar’s response was interesting. “First of all,” he said “we are not ‘guys’. We are prophets, seers, and revelators. We are special witnesses. Don’t refer to us as guys.”
Hoooo-chee, Mama! Remind me not to cross that guy. David Bednar is so fully convinced of his special place in the firmament that if you forget to address him with the proper degree of deference, he will dress you down one side and up the other right in front of the the whole assembly! Bet you won't make that mistake again.

Here's my favorite part of this story: later that weekend in a training segment with the youth, Bednar sprinkled his conversation with words such as “dude, rad, gnarly, and freakin” so those kids would think of him as just one of the guys.[14]

[11] The lyrics to the hymn were penned by William Fowler, a British convert. The tune was borrowed from a Scottish bagpipe number played at military funerals. (You many have also noticed that the tune for Praise to the Man is also cribbed from a bagpipe standard, Scotland the Brave.)
[12] Sustaining Church Leaders https://www.scribd.com/doc/241926848/Sustaining-Church-Leaders
For a thorough analysis regarding what gifts should attend a prophet, seer, and revelator, see Michael Ellis, Thomas S. Monson, A Seer, A Revelator, A Translator, and A Prophet. http://zomarah.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/thomas-s-monson-a-seer-a-revelator-a-translator-and-a-prophet/ 

[13] Ezra Taft Benson, “Cleansing the Inner Vessel” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1986/04/cleansing-the-inner-vessel?lang=eng 
[14] I'm just an old geezer myself, so I'm not up to speed with the groovy lingo of these young hepcats of the now generation, but do kids today still use words like 'rad' and 'gnarly'? Those words were considered 'boss' and 'tubular' when I was a teenager way back in the sixties, so either Bednar is hopelessly out of touch, or I am, Daddy-O. (And isn't it odd that someone of Bednar's snootily proper stature would use the word “freakin',” which everyone knows is a slang variation of a vulgar term referring to the act of procreation?)

Why Not Simply Heed The Message?
Denver Snuffer has never claimed to be a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, so David Bednar, you and the boys in Salt Lake can breathe easy for now. Denver Snuffer is not after your jobs.

But he did have a message to deliver, and the last part of that message was presented at Phoenix, Arizona on September 9th. In a nutshell, the message was this: if we are to aspire to a Zion society, now is the time to dig in and get started. Waiting for the institutional Church to give us the go-ahead is not going to make it happen. And guess what? Zion was never intended to be instituted from the top down anyway. In fact, it could not be Zion if it was.  Zion has failed to appear thus far because the Saints have been waiting around for their leaders to start it up for them. It's been almost 200 years, and we'll wait 200 more if we refuse to simply follow the plan the Lord has already laid out for us.

You can read the Phoenix transcript for yourself here. But it won't have near as much meaning if you don't take a look at the nine lectures that preceded it. These talks, as Denver frequently reminds the listener, are intended to be seen as ten interrelated segments of one master presentation. They must be heard or read in their entirety and in the proper order if you expect to fully grasp the message.

How do we create Zion? Well first off, you don't do it by quitting this church and joining a new one. That's what so many outsiders feared Denver was up to; that his plan was to siphon off loyal latter-day Saints and start his own church. That's hogwash -the kind of nonsense that results from the current LDS corporate think, the idea that a prophet is some guy who has a bunch of followers who can't function unless they have a leader to look to for instruction. Denver Snuffer has no followers, nor does he want any.

In fact, an interesting thing happened as soon as Denver was finished speaking in Phoenix. He up and walked out the door.
That's right. He just left.

He had left his audience with a thousand questions they wanted answers to, but like the true prophet he is, he delivered the message God gave him to deliver, and when he was finished he was done. Many of the people who read or listened to that lecture later flooded his blog and email box with more questions.

Don't they get it? Denver Snuffer is not going to tell you how to do what the Lord has already taught you to do. He is not going to lead anybody anywhere. He is not going to be your president, prophet, or mystical guru. You want a Zion society? The instructions are in the scriptures. Denver Snuffer helpfully pointed those scriptures out to you. Now he's done. What more do you want?

If you're looking for someone to take charge and lead you, you may as well continue on the path you've been following. You've had people willing to take charge of you and lead you all your life and you're no closer to Zion now than the Saints were in 1831. What's it going to take for you to wake up and realize you don't need leaders in order to accomplish the Lord's purposes? Looking for someone other than Jesus Christ to be in charge of us is the very thing that has hampered this church for a hundred and eighty two years.

I am now encouraged that it's possible create Zion in our day. If anyone reading this is truly interested in doing that, I would suggest simply going to the source and reading the transcripts Denver Snuffer provides on his website, beginning with the first one he gave in Boise Idaho, and ending with the one at Phoenix, Arizona. You'll find them listed in order on the right side of his website. Do not rely on anyone else's summary or truncated interpretation of what Denver believes or what he preaches. I guarantee you will get it wrong.

I had intended to supply some snippets of quotes from the Phoenix seminar, because it's so rich in wisdom. But then I realized that offering snippets of things Denver Snuffer said has been part of the problem; it's very easy to misinterpret what he says if you don't hear or read it all in context.

I got a chuckle out of a question I saw in an online forum where someone had seen that the transcript of the Phoenix presentation was 42 pages long. He was reluctant to read the entire document, and asked the other members of the forum, “is there some sort of Cliff Notes version where I can get the gist of what he's saying?”

I guess he didn't realize that Denver's ten part series of lectures is the Cliff Notes version. These transcripts are the Cliff Notes to the Standard Works. They are an overview and analysis to the entire purpose of the Restoration of the gospel. They represent the coursework that will enable you to get the full gist of God's plan for his people. If you take the trouble to familiarize yourself with Denver Snuffer's Ten Part Overview of the Restoration, you will have earned your G.E.D. in Mormon Studies. Here are the chapter headings:

Be of Good Cheer
Faith
Repentance
Covenants
Priesthood
Zion
Christ
A Broken Heart and Contrite Spirit
Marriage and Family
Preserving the Restoration

That pretty much covers the essentials of what the Lord would have us know and do, front to back. And it's all very fascinating; you won't want to stop. There's nothing tedious about Denver Snuffer's teachings. If you want a deeper understanding, then go ahead and read the entire standard works. But when you do I think you'll be glad you had a guide like Denver Snuffer to point out the good parts for you in advance.

I highly recommend not only reading the transcripts, but also listening to the audio recordings, because Denver has a droll sense of humor that does not always translate to the written page. If you don't hear the inflections in some of the things he says, some of his comments could be misinterpreted, and you might take too seriously some of the things he says in jest. I like listening to the audio version of the talks first, then I read them so I get the footnotes.

Let me make a couple of things clear: First, Denver Snuffer is not looking to lead any kind of movement. The very idea repulses him.

Second, there is no such entity as a “Snuffer-ite.” If you come across someone who calls himself a
follower of Denver Snuffer, run the other way. He's either a phony or he just doesn't get it. Those who attended Snuffer's lectures are not Denver Snuffer's followers. They consider themselves followers of Jesus Christ.

Some years ago while reading a book on early American history, I was struck by a letter sent back to England from one of the colonial governors assigned by the King of England to govern the colonies. He was lamenting the fact that the American colonists refused follow his orders.

“We tell them their king demands obedience, but they stubbornly reply 'we have no king but Jesus.'”

If there is one belief held in common by the thousands so far who have found validity in the messages delivered by Denver Snuffer in his series of talks, it is that we have no king but Jesus. A rapidly growing number of latter-day Saints are discovering that leaders don't contribute anything to the advance of Zion; they often just get in the way. I think of that poor confused colonial governor every time I hear someone try to tell me my safety lies in following the Brethren. It makes me want to remind them of the words of the prophet Joshua, which I prefer to paraphrase.“You can follow whatever idols you want to, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

I suggest that if you hope to become spiritually mature, you're going to have to stop letting others frighten you away from examining the words of a fellow believer simply because someone in authority has told you he'll endanger your soul. Read Brother Snuffer's words and judge for yourself whether you think his thoughts are at least as inspired as anything you just heard in general conference this weekend.[15]  And if your bishop, stake president, or any other authority figure asks you if you think Denver Snuffer is a prophet, ask him this question:

“Aren't you a prophet?”

_______________

[15] Yes, I made a joke. Of course Denver Snuffer's words are more inspired than anything you'll hear in conference.

                                                                       *****


[A note about leaving comments: Many readers have posted as "Anonymous" only because they see no other option. This has resulted in an epidemic of commenters all going by the same name, which can be confusing.  I would prefer everyone use some type of username, therefore any comments posted only as "Anonymous" will be deleted. If that happens to you, you are welcome to return and post again, but you must use some kind of username at the beginning or end of your comment.
If you don't have a Google, Wordpress, or other username among those listed, you can enter a username in the dropdown box that reads "Name/URL." Simply put your name in the "Name" box, ignore the request for a URL, and you should be good to go. If the system still insists on a URL, enter any website you care to.  If you can find no alternative but to post as "Anonymous" I require you at least sign your comment with a unique identifier so that other readers can tell one "anonymous" from another.

230 comments:

1 – 200 of 230   Newer›   Newest»
Irven Hill said...

Rock,

Thanks for the post. I haven't e ever attended a Snuffer "conference" if I can call it that. I found PTHG to be very interesting.

What I find a little disagreeable is Snuffers claim that a prophet can only reveal the lords workings "after the fact" if I'm reading his Arizona talk correctly.

Also, I find his warning of disregarding his words being of dire consequence, a bit creepy.

I don't have any issue with the man. I have never met him. He shouldn't have been excommunicated in my opinion.

On another note, I have often wondered if an Abinadi came in my day and called us to repentance, would I recognize his prophetic call?

In my opinion(maybe wrong) Denver Snuffer isn't that guy.

In my opinion, Denver seems to be slipping off the rails on his last talk in Mess.

Anonymous said...

From TPJS pgs 109:
"I then called upon the quorums and congregation of Saints to acknowledge the Twelve Apostles, who were present, as Prophets, Seers, Revelators, and special witnesses to all the nations of the earth, holding the keys of the kingdom, to unlock it, or cause it to be done, among them, and uphold them by their prayers, which they assented to by rising." (March 27, 1836.) DHC 2:417.

Stephen

Rodney said...

Thanks for the post Rock! The message that has been delivered is what is important, read it, pray about it, and search the scriptures to reveal the light and truth within it. The messenger is of no matter only the message.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Stephen, you notice Joseph was referring to a specific group of apostles, in a specific time, headed for a specific mission. That does not apply to future GAs. For that matter, it didn't always apply to several in that group who fell away.

See "Lost Apostles" by William Shepard.

Also recall that he gave a special charge to the four missionaries who went to preach to the Lamanites which applied only for a particular time and place. But what he said to them is still quoted today by people who think everything the GAs say is the will of the lord, the mind of the lord, etc.

Irven Hill said...

Your 2nd hand account of Bednar is very interesting and absolutely believable. Anyone who had experiences with that guy, or dude while he was president of Ricks/BYUI knows that no arrogant acts are beyond him. He is entitled to things that us mundanes are not. Just ask him, then or now.

Ryan said...

Aren't the modern leaders explicitly called and set apart as prophets, seers, and revelators? If this is new-ish then surely someone remembers when this wasn't the case.

MarkinPNW said...

Irven,

Regarding Br. Bednar, yea, except when I notice him apparently showing off how smart, or inspired, etc. he is, I start to wonder how many times I might come across the same way, i.e. Romans 2:1-3

Becca said...

The only audio I've been able to find is to Denver's Elijah talk. Do you have links to others?

Irven Hill said...

Surely I have come across as arrogant. I have been called that before. But, let's think of Terrel Owens when he said, "I love me some me". That's arrogant, easy to recognize as such. Bednar in some situations has been as blatant. I have also heard him say some things I agreed with wholeheartedly.

At the end of the day, I don't care what the Bible says about it. Moroni 7 is a better guage of judgement.

Nate said...

David a bednar is a son of perdition. See how he likes the sound of that.

James Lloyd said...

Thanks so much for publishing your thoughts on Denver Snuffer, especially after today's general conference where we were repeatedly warned about the dangers of not trusting our souls to the leaders of the church, for "they will not and cannot lead us astray." You, once again, have helped to reassure us and help us see things as they really are. Loved your book, by the way

Toni said...

Becca, try this link. I'm on my phone & don't know if this link only works on mobile phones or not.

http://www.publishinghope.info/denver-snuffer---fyim.html

If it doesn't work, do a search for Publishing Hope. They are the company that recorded and sells the CDs.

Toni

Karl Waterman said...

Those who blindly follow "leaders" whether religious without knowing the doctrine. Or, Governments, without reading the Constitution are heading down the same road. Lost.

Irven Hill said...

I would argue that many who read the constitution are also lost. Some of the biggest statists I know of are constitutional "scholars" and "experts". They are still blind followers of government.

The constitution allows for taxation or better stated: legalized theft.

Gary Gibson said...

I have read Denver's words for hundreds of hours, now. I've read all of his books and most of his blog. It is light. It is delicious. I hear the Lord's voice in them. I'll often read a post or even a paragraph and I'll often say to myself. Self, you have just received more light in a paragraph than you have received in 10 hours or even 25 years of general conference.

Why isn't the light perceived? Many prefer to ignore the buffet behind them, while they scratch in the dirt for a couple of undigested kernels of corn. When they find these kernels, they yell in delight. Why? Come to the buffet.

When I read Passing the Heavenly Gift, in October of 2012, it shook my foundation. It rocked the sand beneath my feet. It forced me to recognize my state and to seek more firm ground. I am grateful for it. My foundation needed to be shaken!

After he spoke in Mesa, as he closed his book and walked out of the room, I felt this huge weight fall in my lap. He had now discharged his duty, it was now ours. After a second witness, a brave sister rose up to speak and challenge us. She challenged us to not let this moment pass. From that point we began to form fellowships.

I believe the Lord asked him to deliver this message.

Everything changed on September 9th, 2014. It was now time to act, time to exercise faith. It has begun to cause a great division. It has started primarily with those who have heard the message. Many have now rejected it and have begun to fight against it. They are left to kick against the pricks. I am currently of the opinion that remaining on neutral ground for very long is not possible for this group as I have begun to observe. I have found four occurrences in The Book of Mormon, where the coming forth of new scripture is immediately followed by opposition. It has to follow. As the light floods in, the darkness will seek to counter. I have heard of a stake president now adding a pre-message to the temple recommend interview, warning of Denver. He is a nobody, a weak thing of the earth. Why should he rise to the level of receiving notice from a stake president, someone with status and honor?

The Lord has given the command for the beginning of the formation of Zion. It has come in the form of a divorced lawyer, Harley driving, Red Sox fan and former Mountain Home, Idaho resident(what a desolate place).

The Lord has now set his hand again to fulfill the Father's covenant with the house of Israel. He is remembering them. All His words will be fulfilled. Behold the majesty of the Lord as He does His work.

Gary Gibson

Frederick said...

Rock,
That was another awesome article. I loved it!! And the comment by David Bednar is disgusting. Seriously, it is exactly the same thing the Pharisees demanded of the followers of Jesus.

22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? ( John, Chapter 18)

David Bednar and the others are acting the part of the Pharisees perfectly.

Irven Hill said...

I meant Mesa, not mess.

Anonymous said...

Gary nailed it! Ive listened to every part of the lectures...read every transcript..attended 2 of the lectures in person. I have read his books... but above all I have prayed until my knee's are worn out to know the truth for myself. The light and knowledge found in the material is life changing... better yet...SOUL changing!

I have never felt more awake spiritually in my 45 years! The amazing part is my testimony is now based on Jesus Christ and the holy Scriptures...not any other man!

Anonymous said...

Gary nailed it! Ive listened to every part of the lectures...read every transcript..attended 2 of the lectures in person. I have read his books... but above all I have prayed until my knee's are worn out to know the truth for myself. The light and knowledge found in the material is life changing... better yet...SOUL changing!

I have never felt more awake spiritually in my 45 years! The amazing part is my testimony is now based on Jesus Christ and the holy Scriptures...not any other man!

whimp said...

honestly trusting in a man, be it a living one or a dead one in the scriptures seems like a really bad idea

i just don't understand how you could knowing how man is. I know how I am and I don't even trust myself to interpret correctly things that are from god, hell i can't even tell there if is a god sometimes

i have a friend that i believe that they believe that they saw god, but i know this person and have discovered some of their biases. i can not trust their "testimony" because i do not think they are honest about history and will overlook facts to hold on to their views

it is like you rock, i can't trust your testimony because i think you let your biases gets in the way of facts. for example like joseph smith's polygamy history. i see too much bias and not honesty with factual history

bias, everyone has it, that is exactly why you can't trust anyone when it come to god and religion. their views are reality but only reflect their understanding of reality

i would not trust any prophet seer or revelator past or present

Micah B said...

Rock, this has got to be my favorite of your posts. Hilarious and on point. Thank you!

Nate said...

Whimp

Good for you that is the beginning of meekness. Meekness is to know mans nothingness and Gods power and put absolute trust in God alone.

I applaude anyone who can see the frailties of man and act according to what is in their heart. Many atheists will enter heaven before those who trust in religion so strongly that they cannot open their hearts to greater truth. Once again the poor and unlearned will see and believe before many how are wise in the ways of the world. Such an amazing blessing to be alive right now.

czimm said...

Thanks for the post Rock! Love it. Can't wait to share. My hub and I are both still enjoying the humor as well.

Leejae

Ryan Nickel said...

Hey Rock,

Thanks for the post and great pic.

I want to clear up something that you wrote.

You wrote, "Brigham Young was never ordained a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator; after the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum, there was no one left on earth who had those keys."

That's not entirely true.

During the Succession Crisis, William Marks, who was the stake president of Nauvoo, said, "I laid my hands on Brother Sidney with Brother Joseph and he ordained him to be a ‘Prophet Seer and Revelator', and to be equal with him in holding the Keys and Authority of this Kingdom. I have known this for two years, and according to my understanding he has not lost it through transgression." (Doctrine of the Priesthood by Fred Collier p.9)

It should be noted that what William Marks was saying wasn't a hidden event that few new about. It was written up in the Times and Seasons June 1, 1841 that Sidney had been ordained a "Prophet Seer and Revelator."

And of course we have it in the Doctrine and Covenants as well.

D&C 90:6

"And again, verily I say unto thy brethren, Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams, their sins are forgiven them also, and they are accounted as EQUAL with thee in holding the keys of this last kingdom;"

I just thought I would through that in there for your readers.

Again, good work on the post...Ryan

Ryan Hamblin said...

I find that really hard to believe that there have been people ex'ed or even disciplined for having "associated" with Denver. I am heart broken each and every day I find and read stories of this type of practice happening in "God's Church". I'm having a really hard time with a lot of things right now and I'll tell ya, the best words of comfort that I have been able to turn to, other than those found in the scriptures, are the words on this blog and those that Denver has published.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Alan Rock Waterman said...

Readers,
Just a reminder that I was forced to adopt a policy of deleting comments where the commenter posts completely anonymously. We've found this necessary because the conversations quickly spiral into chaos when commenters don't have any way to address each other when several can only be identitied as
"Anonymous."

You don't have to use your real name, but we must insist you post with using some kind of unique identifier, either at the top of your post or at the bottom.

I hope the person who recently posted with the links regarding sustaining General Authorities as prophets, seers, and revelators will repost his comment, this time with a username. I would like to respond to his or her assertions, and I'm sure others would too.

So remember: You can be anonymous on this forum; you just can't use "Anonymous" as your username. It just gets too messy.

Anonymous said...

Well said sir. I'm glad my foundation was shaken too and that I'm now on this new path.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Ryan Nickel,
That's very interesting about Rigdon being ordained. I had not heard that.

My understanding regarding the ordination as prophet, seer, and revelator was that Joseph was anointed directly by God. God gave Joseph permission to anoint one other successor, and he chose his brother Hyrum. When Joseph and Hyrum died within minutes of one another, that was the end of that line.

With all the myriad claims being thrown about after the deaths of Joseph and Hyrum, I wonder if Marks wasn't fudging things in Rigdon's favor? How long after the fact was this information revealed?

I admit to not being well schooled in this matter, but it doesn't seem likely to me that God would tell Joseph he could ordain his brother as his successor, and then Joseph turn around and ordain Sidney too. Why would he do that without God's specific authorization?

Quite a number of men came forward claiming that Joseph intended them to succeed him (Lyman Wight, James Strang, Sidney Rigdon), but the only ironclad statement on the topic I know of that came from Joseph Smith had to do with his brother.

Many years later the Twelve claimed to have the keys, and I believe they imagined they did. But even if they held SOME keys, I don't believe that even collectively they held the keys of prophet, seer, and revelator. Again, that was a gift that was bestowed on Joseph directly from God, and I don't think even Hyrum was given leeway to pass it on to someone else.

I think the proof of the pudding is that no matter how many men have been "sustained" as prophet, seer, and revelator after Hyrum, no one seems to have displayed the fruits that would attend those gifts.

Intriguing possibilities, I'll say that. The succession crisis was a circus, so I'm not sure what to believe, other than I am lately inclined to believe that claims of authority have done more to divide us than anything else. If not for that divisive issue, there wouldn't be all these factions, and all us "Mormons" whether Brighamite, Josephite, Strangite, or what have you, could learn to find common ground.

Anyway Ryan, you've intrigued me and clearly I deserve to learn more about every possibility. Sigh. Just when I thought I was done for awhile. More research.

Anyone else care to weigh in on this?

BK said...

While I think it's great that Denver is helping bring some true things about Church history to light, I don't believe John the Baptist or Christ would consider Denver a true prophet or a disciple of Christ. For he preaches & practices contrary to their teachings, as do all leaders of the LDS Church, past and present.

David and Rebecca Campbell said...

According to today's sunday morning session of general conference we have 15 prophets, through their combined efforts we will not be led astray, but it was implied that we could be led astray by ONE man. So thank heavens we have 15 of them. That was Nelson, I believe. Frankly i believe all denver snuffer has said to be true. And now i am not sure if i can honestly renew my temple recommend. Because i do not believe denver to be apostate, but they do. They are holding us hostage through temple recommends.

David and Rebecca Campbell said...

http://www.publishinghope.info/talks-on-cd.html
The cost reflects the costs to produce and copy these. I think it is reasonable. We are sharing a full set in our family.

David and Rebecca Campbell said...

Thats exactly the point. Trust no one. Hear it and suspend belief one way or another until you receive confirmation from the Lord. P.s. you have to ask Him.

Nate said...

Yes while Rock says denver is not asking people to leave the church, he is asking people to get kicked out and he knows it.

Of course if people claim to believe that the LDS church does not have the authority they claim to have, and if they claim the need for rebaptism, and that this man Denver has seen Christ while leaders in the church haven't etc etc, then those people will get the boot out of the church.

Denver didn't ask people to lie and secretly believe. Everyone that believes everything Denver has to say probably should get kicked out of the corporation. Trust me it doesn't hurt you one bit to get kicked out or to resign. You lose nothing spiritually although you might have some people pointing fingers at you in scorn from the great and spacious building. If people really and truly believe Denver's message why would they want to remain a member of the LDS church?

Ryan Nickel said...

Just to follow up.

Rigdon wasn't called to be Joseph's successor like Hyrum was (D&C 124) but held the keys of presidency. Something that Brigham and the other 12 did not possess.

Marks' remarks are from the Sidney Rigdon hearing Aug. 8, 1844 transcripts.

Through common consent Brigham could be chosen/elected to lead. However he did not hold the keys of presidency.

When he organized the First Presidency in 1857 he spoke to Wilford Woodruff about it and Wilford told him that unless he received a new revelation he should not do it.

"I had a question put to me by President Young: What my opinion was concerning one of the Twleve Apostles being appointed as the President of the Church with his two counselors. I answered that a quorum like the Twelve who had been appointed by revelation, confirmed by revelation from time to time, I thought it would require a REVELATION to change the order of that quorum" (Wilford Woodruffs Journal, 3:283).

jeff said...

I don't have much time to re-write this comment under a non-Anonymous name, but here's the transcript of the first published general conference and a later one, and no, nobody's been making sinister changes to the sustaining votes.
https://archive.org/stream/ConferenceReports1920s/Conference%20Reports%201920-1929#page/n1159/mode/2up
https://archive.org/stream/ConferenceReport1880/Conference%20Report%201880#page/n69/mode/2up
You're a bit off on this one Rock.

Susan said...

I attended Brother Snuffer's lecture on Marriage and the Family in St. George, Utah, mostly out of curiosity. I didn't know much about him (I had just listened to his interview on MormonStories). The entire lecture was an amazingly spiritual "Zion" experience! The conference room was packed with people, eagerly listening, shuffling through their scriptures as he spoke. The entire talk was scripture-based. My impression of Brother Snuffer was that he is an unassuming man who loves the gospel, who sees the problems in the current LDS church and sincerely wants to help. At the end of the lecture, I was one of the first in the audience to leave. I noticed a senior LDS missionary couple (tags and all) near the exit doors of the hotel. My impression was that they were on assignment and that they had not heard the lecture. Their loss... As a postscript: I attended my ward's sacrament meeting the next day and noticed the contrast with what I had felt and learned the previous day. I am very sorry to hear that some members have been punished for attending Denver Snuffer's lectures.

JLC said...

Nate,

Great question. I asked myself why I stay in the church. There are a few reasons.

First, it's my church. I have friends in it that I enjoy being around.

I have an audience to teach to. The things I am learning outside the correlated BS can be shared with the young priest that I meet with ever week. They love it.

And I find it fun to act. It's been a rush to go undercover as a TBM when I'm anything but that. They will catch up with me some day and when they do I will honorable accept my fate but for now it's been fun to voice my opinion at church and have members perk up as I tell them I think the church is going at it the wrong way. If they ever ask me if I associate with the likes of Denver Snuffer I'll tell them, "hell no!" I don't associate with him although I believe the words he has written. I've been re-baptized already. (it was a great experience)

The whole thing is quite exciting.

One other thing, there is family to consider. I'm not going to break the hearts of family members out of time or season. These things don't need to be done in haste.

JLC

Anonymous said...

Rock,
I have read all of Denver's books, attended many of his lectures and spoken with him in person a time or two.
What you have posted is precisely my impression of him. He is a man called of the Lord to deliver a message. He is a prophet in the same sense Abinadi was and John the Baptist was.
It is my impression, supported by the promptings of the Holy Ghost, that he has spoken the truth.
Those who dismiss the message he delivers seriously run up against the Lord's admonition in 3 Nep 21 about failing to heed the words of Christ, because Denver DOES speak the words of Christ.
Bless you brother Rock for having the cajones to speak up for the truth.
James Russell Uhl

Anonymous said...

As an aside, my only experience with David Bednar was when I called his office to attempt to get a copy of his talk given at the Draper Temple dedication. His secretary was rude, condescending and totally lacking in people skills. She flat refused my request and flat refused to make an appointment with her boss so I could ask him in person. The word "arrogant" pretty well describes the impression I got of that office.
James Russell Uhl

BK said...

James,

'Speaking' some of the words of Christ is very different then 'living' the words of Christ.

Most false prophets speak the words of Christ (like Joseph Smith up to the LDS leaders today). They teach mostly true and wonderful things, they just don't live them.

Those who have studied what Christ actually taught would know that Denver is not living according to Christ's teachings.

And Christ said he will only appear to those who are keeping his commandments and who have true Christlike love. So that is why I believe Denver has been deceived by a false Christ, for I do not believe he keeps the commandments, and Christ said that is how you tell a true disciple/prophet from a false one.

It seems there is a flood of people today, and maybe always has been, of those who don't keep Christ's commandments yet claim to have been visited by Him and promised Eternal Life. But Christ warned that many would be deceived by these false Christs and it would be easy to tell who was for they would not be living Christ's teachings.

It seems that few realize or have studied exactly what Christ taught, to see the difference between Him and Denver and so they easily fall for the Denvers, Joseph Smiths, Brigham Youngs and Monsons and or even Popes and false prophets of this world.

Nate said...

JLC

I love it and I think there is merit to your reasoning. The only opposing argument is that IF Denver's message is true, and your convictions are correct, wouldn't be a greater testimony of truth to boldly walk away from the church and testify to your family and friends of the truth as you know it? Yes it might hurt relationships but Chrisf has promised is we will be blessed a hundred fold if we do lose loved ones.
That being said, I respect your decision and think your argument is perfectly valid. Right now I don't believe anyone stands condemned for not hearing or knowing certain truths because the 2nd great work has yet to begin. Denver and others are playing great parts in preparing people for what is coming though.

The most important truths Denver had shared are to come unto Christ, stop trusting in men, and prepare to meet the Savior in person.

Log said...

A just judge does not pretend to read minds nor hearts. When one pretends to read minds or hearts, one has ceased being a just judge and has become an accuser.

Nate said...

True that log

"It is better that a man should be judged of God than of man, for the judgements of God are always just, but the judgements of man are not always just..."
Paul said that He that has the Spirit can be judged of no man, but he can judge in all things. Christ taught to judge righteously.
The ONLY just judgement we can give is a judgement that God has told us by revelation.

Some fools are the most judge mental who rail against anyone they perceive to be judgemental. They have a false humility and love to teach others to be tolerant and nonjudgmental when in all reality they judge all of those who they consider to be judgemental. It is quite funny actually.

BK said...

Log,

Christ was one of the greatest 'accusers'. And he commands us to discern the righteous from the wicked.

But no one need try to read anyone's mind or heart, for Christ taught to watch people's 'actions', and a person's actions reveals what is in their heart and mind.

Anyone can say "Lord Lord" and speak all manner of truth, and most people and leaders do.

But Christ said that only those who actually keep his commandments and 'live the truth' are His true disciples and will see Him and gain Eternal Life.

Nate said...

One day Zhuangzi and Huizi are strolling on Bridge Hao.

Zhuangzi : "Look how happy the fish are just swimming around in the river."

Huizi : "How do you know they are happy? You are not a fish."

Zhuangzi: "And you are not me. How do you know I don't know the fish are happy?"

Log every time I see your posts I am reminded of Huizi. You think everyone should be nonjudgmental and treat others like Jesus Christ and you judge everybody who doesn't, like when you asked Rock why he didn't treat FT like he was Jesus. You set yourself up as judge as if you know that Jesus would have treated FT any differently than Rock did. I find it funny and to be frank quite hypocritical. Of course you won't see it though I would imagine.

Tiani said...

JLC,
I have a problem with you saying that you love to act, and get a rush going undercover as a TBM when you are anything but that. That does not sound like something Christ would do or say. I can understand friends, desire to teach and share, and family. But I cannot understand the other. I have read VERY LITTLE of Denver Snuffer, mostly some of his blog, reviews, and a quick skim of the Arizona lecture. I know that makes me lacking in my critique. I haven't read more because I prefer to get my own experiences, and don't want to be too influenced by his words. Of what I have read, I agree with a great deal of it. I have a problem with him saying before his excommunication that the Church held the keys and now saying it lost those keys (and saying it's a result of his excommunication). I believe the Church is under condemnation, but it seems a bit presumptuous /narcissistic to say it lost keys over Snuffer's treatment, but not for the countless others who were mistreated before him. (I used to believe the Church is under condemnation, but still holds the keys, but now I'm rethinking it all. Not sure if we've ever gotten the narrative right about priesthood and keys. Even Snuffer seems to say the priesthood can't be owned or controlled, but then says the Church has lost the keys. So there are some things like this he says that I find are a little contradictory and don't fit. I still think he has perhaps delivered an important message. I just don't think it's THE truth. So I will keep searching in the Light of Christ. I feel like I've had personal revelation that contradicts some of the Church's positions and teachings, but I haven't left yet because I haven't received any clear, personal revelation that leaving is the right thing to do, and I have received some that seems to call me to stay. That said, it's getting harder and harder because I want to be authentic, and do not want to act, nor be accused of being false. I try to be as open as I can, but don't want to damage the joyful faith of others who cannot understand, nor do something really stupid in the name of being truthful. Still figuring things out.

Nate said...

Amen

Keep searching. Trust the Spirit and nothing else. It is ok to take your time. Having your name on or off the records of the church doesn't matter for now. Things are going to change soon and everyone will know exactly what to pray about soon enough and the world will have to choose. Worldwide apostasy sucks because there is no clear choice.

BK said...

I believe we should trust Christ before 'the Spirit', for we can easily be deceived by false revelation/inspiration from the Adversary while thinking it's from God.

But Christ's words are very clear, even a child can understand them.

And Christ did not say to pray about things to know if they are true (that is what false prophets say), Christ said to prove things by 'facts', by comparing what people do and say to what Christ said, to see if they are true or not.

Trust in & discern by 'the words of Christ' (found in the 4 Gospels) to prove the truth of all things and persons and even to prove if our or other's 'revelation' is true or not.

KBA22 said...

Elder Bednar seems to be getting a lot of negative attention these days. The anecdote you shared about him reminds me of a very brief encounter I had with Elder Eyring at BYU years ago. I spotted him on campus. He was the first apostle I had ever seen in the flesh, up close. I said to my friend in an excited voice: "Hey, there's Eyring". He overheard, looked at me and said "It's Elder Eyring". Then he turned away and walked off. I was quite shocked! Ever since then I've never really been impressed with him. It's like he actually believes he's special...I don't.

Nate said...

I know of two occasions where "apostles" walked in to rooms where groups of people were waiting in excited anticipation to hear from them. On one occasion the group of missionaries was being a little too loud and on the other the group of men and women were not sitting close enough and all didn't move forward to closer seats when asked.
On both occasions the "apostles" looked over the audience and said "you are not worthy to hear from an apostle of The Lord" and then turned and walked out. What else can be expected by people who are idolized to the point of worship. No different than Miley Cyrus or Lindsay Lohan would act I guess.

Tiani said...

BK, I do believe there are false spirits and that we discern the Spirit of Truth by walking in the Light of Christ, and by the words of Christ. But the words of Christ are not just letters on a page. We understand them by the power of the Holy Ghost, and line upon line, precept by precept. I agree that actions count as much or more than words. But different people think different actions are "good," interpret the words of Christ differently. So the Spirit helps us understand those words. We know it's the Spirit of Truth because it's Light, and yes, in harmony and unity with Christ.

Listener said...

My wife and I have been silently following Snuffer since he wrote his first book. We've studied each lecture and attended one of them in person. We're in a lonely place not having anyone to share our feelings with without creating a riff in our ward. (We don't want all our friends and family calling on us to save us from apostasy.) Are there any fellowships in Utah Valley, or how do you find such people? My wife and I joke that we feel like Lehi's family in the desert.

karl vernon said...

Regarding the David A. Bednar comment, It reminds me of the same arrogance we often see in our government. Yesterday at an EPW hearing, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) asserted herself. A military officer testifying began to respond to one of her questions by calling her ma'am. But Boxer interrupted: "Do me a favor," she said, "could you say 'senator' instead of 'ma'am?' It's just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it, yes, thank you." She didn't have the courtesy to call him sir or by his earned military rank however. Just saying.

Anonymous said...

listener,

There are many groups in Utah valley. Most of them are very private because they want to be protected form the church spies that do try to get names of people who are on this path. Who knows, maybe you're one of them. Hope not. I'm up in Salt lake valley and gathering with a few people up here. I know there are many people that read this blog that are in groups in Utah valley. Hopefully they can get you to hook up them them.

Maybe if you lift an email address someone could connect and start screening you. I know this sounds silly but many people are not ready to come out of their relationships they have in the Church but want to worship according the dictates of their own conscience. so finding out more about you is important. Many of these groups partake the sacrament with each other with wine and grape juice. There are great gospel study moments (no manuals required or allowed) Hope you love your scriptures.Some share visions and promptings they have received. Music is use a great deal in many of these gatherings.

Taini, please forgive me for enjoying acting. I guess, to each there own. It's in my blood.

jlc said...

the last post was from JLC

Jesef said...

BK,

Do you only believe in the NT Gospels?

Why specifically do you judge Denver Snuffer as not following/living the teachings of Christ? Which teachings and how do you know he doesn't live them? How is this not judging unjustly?

How can you teach that we should not pray/ask, seek, knock to know the truth of things by the power of the Holy Ghost?

2 Nephi 32
8 And now, my beloved brethren, I perceive that ye ponder still in your hearts; and it grieveth me that I must speak concerning this thing. For if ye would hearken unto the Spirit which teacheth a man to pray, ye would know that ye must pray; for the evil spirit teacheth not a man to pray, but teacheth him that he must not pray.

And too many scriptural examples to list, including the Lord's own words, commanding us to pray and speak with the Lord and to seek revelation, prophecy, and vision.

I'm having a hard time reconciling your statements with scripture.

Please enlighten.

Listener said...

Yes, we don't know anybody in the Payson, Utah area except the lady who first introduced us to Snuffer and she has since disavowed him. It is a hard thing to even connect here without offering our personal info. I'm actually well known in Utah and would probably end up a big target. I suppose I'm going to continue as the "silent observer."

Anonymous said...

Listener,

I'm around your area and if you need someone to hang out with and chat I would be more than happy to. Just so you know, I'm quite unorthodox and question everything. I also wouldn't consider myself sold on lds doctrine, even though I am a lifetime member. I haven't read any of Mr. Snuffer's books yet, but I do own the second comforter and plan on reading it at some point. Most likely passing the heavenly gift as well to see what all of the hubbub is about. If this isn't what you're interested in, then no worries. But if you ever need anyone to just talk with without any fear of condemnation just let me know. Also, I'm mid 30s. This isn't super important, but It kind of popped into my mind as being something I should mention.

-just some dude

Anonymous said...

I just thought I would add... My offer is there for anyone in Utah county that just needs someone to talk with. I don't really care what the issue is. I highly doubt I'll be offended or judgmental. Unfortunately I've seen a lot of sorrow in my life. You can use my throw away email address to contact me. Its encourage_idiocy@yahoo.com haha. And yes, I love the name of that. It cracks me up. :)

-just some dude

Vaughn Hughes said...

Rock, another fantastic post. I think you've perfectly hit all the right bits of advice here. There is so much knee-jerk judging of Denver's message (and the messenger!) without ever taking the time to even read, study, ponder, and ask the Father about it. Whether it is His message or not. Isn't that the same thing we ask every "investigator" of the "restoration" to do? Why, if the Lord Himself might be speaking again for the first time since Joseph, would a person not even *consider* a real investigation of it? See how it tastes? See how it rings? Not rely on someone else to assess it for you? How would you have fared if you decided to let King Noah or his righteous priests let you know whether this Harley-riding Abinadi chap was anyone worth bothering with? Is the potential test here any different? Are you even aware you may be in process of being tested right now? Does it matter to you? How badly do you want to know the Lord? Too inconvenient? Not sure tending to your eternal reward is that urgent or important? There's a more engaging game match on your Xbox One right now, you say? You might change your mind someday. Hopefully not before it's too late.

Vaughn Hughes said...

And, Gary Gibson, amen to your comment. Mine would be the same.

Nate said...

Vaughn

One thing that is certain is that when God sends an Abinidi or The Servant etc (not saying Denver isn't that guy) it will come with magnitude and power to a degree that many will hear and consider.
There have been many so called messengers with messages. Books and books and blogs and blogs have been written. Harmston and strang and the crazy guy down the street have had messages.
Abinidi caused enough of a stir to be brought in front of the king of the land. Past prophets who have been raised up drew attention from the priests and scribes etc.
99 percent of the LDS church have never heard of denver snuffer or his message. At this point it can't be argued that people must hear and follow him or be condemned. No one has taught anything with any greater power than can be found in a good church meeting.
My point is that why should someone take the time to read Denver's message above anyone else's message that are being given?

If someone comes to me and says with great conviction that they know if I don't follow Denver's teachings I will be damned, then I would study and pray more earnestly upon the subject. Most people I have noticed that follow denver hesitate to declare him as anything more than a spiritual person that anyone else could be like within any religion.
No one seems to understand (including Denver) exactly what his message meant in all the specifics. I read on Denver's blog that he was still trying to understand what his lectures all meant.
This is so unlike any prophet who has been sent by God that it seems to be a bit of a red flag. Which prophet in the scriptures ever seems to give a message that he doesn't fully understand. The Lord speaks often of giving the spirit of understanding to those he has chosen.
I do know that many things denver has taught are true, but when a Seer and Revelator shows up I don't believe that person will hesitate to proclaim all points of Gods message in simplicity and understanding.
But then again I say this because I have my own spiritual witness about Denver so I am a bit biased.

Vaughn Hughes said...

Why consider Denver's words? Because he claims share the words of Christ. It's then your responsibility to investigate. Or ignore it. The Lord gave us instructions on how to discern true messages (and messengers) from false. No one gets to do it for you. Personally, I've looked at Harmston and a half dozen other pretenders before. There are lots. Their fruits reveal a lot. I can tell you only that the Spirit has witnessed to me that the message given through this man is the words of Christ. And that the words of 3 Nephi 21:11 are now in play. (http://bit.ly/1reb7iH) Find out for yourself. If you find he's a pretender, then move on and don't worry about it.

Nate said...

Vaughn

I have investigated and prayed about denver. The Lord told me many months ago before he was excommunicated that he was a prophet. The Lord told me specifically that he is a forerunner. I also know by the Spirit that not EVERYTHING he has taught is true, even in the 10 lectures.

I love denver snuffer and I know by the Spirit that he still has the authority he had when he was a member. Today is still a day of preparation.

I also know that no one is condemned for "not investigating Denver". There have been and still are many many prophets with the same power and authority of Denver Snuffer. His message is no doubt part of Gods plan to help prepare the minds of the people who's hearts are reached by his message. I can stand before God and men and declare boldly that Denver Snuffer is not the promised prophet that we must hear or be cut off. I know his by the Spirit.

If you have a different witness I do not mind and even persuade you to follow whatever God has given you. We each must love according to what God has given us. Denver is claiming a message from God, every person who closes a talk in the name of Christ is claiming a message from God whether they know it or not.
Please do not perceive this comment as contentious or unloving. I respect your beliefs but just wanted to plainly share what I have received. God bless

Vaughn Hughes said...

Nate, thanks for your note back. I respect & appreciate your words.

Bill Berrett said...

Thanks Rock for such a great and entertaining post. I love to laugh at your great phrasing and clever words. I have had the same experience studying Snuffer as Gary Gibson noted above. I spent my life studying the gospel and church histories and scriptures. When I started reading Snuffer in 2009 or so I found how lacking I have been in my gospel understanding. I conclude when you are taught by Angels and the Lord (as Snuffer has been) you learn stuff. That allows him (Snuffer) to teach stuff. That is why I continue to learn from Snuffer. I attended all of his lectures except one and that was because I had a daughter getting married and my wife thought I should be at the wedding--not the lecture. Women.

Makes me feel so secure knowing that the Brethren cannot lead us astray. I wonder if they have ever read the old testament. 1 Kings 13 for example. Keep up the good work Rock.

Nate said...

I encourage everyone to go on the website weepingforzion.com and prayerfully read what is posted right now. This is the first time I have read some of david whitmers testimony but literally everything he wrote I have been taught by the Spirit.

I DO NOT agree with every single thing posted on the website but if you would like to read a detailed testimony of David Whitmer it will explain much of what many people thought and experienced and relates to our day as well. If nothing else read the whole of part 7 that is posted today.

Nate said...

Excuse me part 9 is today's

Please prayerfully consider

Tiani said...

Wow, Nate. That's amazing testimony from David Whitmer, and indeed pertinent to us today. Sad, isn't it, that he wrote all of this with such care, and nobody knows anything about it. But it's coming to light, and that's wonderful. I felt the Spirit a great deal as I was reading it. I don't take it as a perfect clarification or the truth of all things, but certainly of great, great value. Nor would he want me to take it as such. But it seems he did his very best to testify of what he knew and felt. Makes me cry. We should be publishing this on the house tops.

Nate said...

Awesome! Didn't know if others would feel the Spirit but it seems that so many problems developed early on and no one cares to even consider it.

I agree david whitmer wouldn't want us to take his word for anything and was trying to teach the lesson that has evaded the church for so long and that is to learn to trust in God and not man. It is tough when we are indoctrinated from primary up to idolize these men and treat them as infallible. Thanks for your testimony

Jens said...

David Whitmer's is a fascinating testimony, Nate. Had I not been familiar with Rocks essays, Denver's writing and Damon Smith's research I would reject it out of hand. As it is, there is a pattern in Whitmer's testimony that feels truthful and profound. Surely Denver is the first of many messengers for our time.

James said...

Rock, maybe I am missing it in these comments, or in another post, but I am interested in listening to Denver Snuffer's talks. I get more out of things by listening to them, otherwise I have to read and re-read and read again.

All I have been able to find online are, I believe, the temple and Elijah talks. Is there anywhere I can hear these most recent ones?

Thanks!

Log said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jesef said...

As for the David Whitmer treatise, I'm just going to point out the obvious: He states that Joseph Smith went astray and was basically a fallen prophet.

That's a far cry from what Denver Snuffer is saying, which is that JS was the last real prophet we've had. DS even defends D&C 132 as an authentic, multi-part revelation which was completely misapplied by BY and company.

There are a lot of common threads between DW and DS, though, the doctrine of Christ being a big one. DS's faith communities/fellowships sound similar to The Church of Christ, sort of original Restorationism, before Sydney and the NT Church drive.

Often I read blog discussions that turn into debate or accusation or back and forth contention and wonder: Why debate? Why contend? Why accuse or revile? Why judge?

Why not just turn the other cheek and suffer long and be kind? Why not let the Lord through His Spirit correct a brother if he is in error? Why not just let light/truth shine on its own and let love abound? How likely is a brother to be convinced if he doesn't feel loved?

icecreamcake said...

http://onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/the-law-of-succession-part-one/ock

I would say that I am convinced that Sidney Rigdon was the man who held the right to the same claims of authority as Joseph and Hyrum. The D&C is very clear that no kne can get ordained to the presidency of the chuch unless by the hand of the outgoing presidency, if said president had even lost his position by trangress, which Rigdon of course never did- Rigdon was alive and we all know brigham did NOT get ordained by him when three years after joseph's brigham decides to becime president. So, historical no one ordained brigham to the presidency!
In addition, how can one be the president of the high priesthood when he was NEVER even ordained to be a high priest in his entire life! !

I discovered a blog post that lays ought to his brilliantly. It's a 7 part article but well worth the effort.

Nate said...

Jesef

That is a very good point. Something I can personally do much better with. I think the term fallen prophet is one that can easily be misunderstood.
The way he spoke of joseph smith is almost the same tone and with the same use of scriptures as Rock or many others speak about thomas a monson. The question is if it is possible that Joseph Smith could have been like our modern day prophets in that not everything he received was correct? This is a good question I think worthy of asking and taking to The Lord. It can rock our foundation and is definitely not a delicious thing to consider but if he is correct it makes all the difference in the world for what we should put our trust in and we will see the need for a confirmation from the Spirit on every point of doctrine before we put our faith in it.

At any rate I agree love is more important than being correct.

Good Will said...

BK,

Back by another name?

Would you please stop accusing everyone who has been divorced and remarried as "not living according to Christ's teachings"? I've already showed you, explicitly, where the Lord has "allowed" for remarriage after divorce. You're beating a gospel hobby horse to death!

Good Will said...

And, Rock, of course this is a wonderful post! Thank you for sharing it! I love you, brother, for your testimony and witness. It is good to have fellowship in the faith. Thank you for saying so well what so many (really, only a few) of us know and believe.

DS has "stepped aside" to let the wheat and tares grow up together, unmolested. Let us stay focused on the task at hand...and make sure we do our part.

Joseph said...

Denver's writings are phenomenal but more than that I believe most of his writings are inspired. However, we have to keep in mind that we are all mortal and our perceptions color our revelation. Everyone I know who has spiritual gifts, receive from both sides ... thus the need for the gift of discernment. I do not disagree with Denver that the Lord gave him the words for the 10th Lecture. But I believe the Lord is using Denver as an instrument for something far different than the claim of building Zion. As I have watched people clamor to be obedient to Denver's words, running around getting certificates signed and jumping into the waters for rebaptism, it has been an interesting and rather comical escapade to watch. Could not the Lord be using Denver as a sifter ... to measure those who jump from worship of leadership to worship of Denver? I ask, why in the world does anyone want to preserve the restoration when the restoration is Aaronic in nature? I for one am want the higher priesthoods ... I for one want to be a member of the Church of the Firstborn. I've already spent my life in an Aaronic Priesthood church. I have been rebaptized several times but not because Denver told us to, but because the spirit worked upon me. I am eternally grateful for Denver Snuffer and his sacrifices to bring us an in-depth understanding of so many things. I thought it was very good of Denver to post links that argue a different point of view re: some of his teachings. I propose the question ... are you following another man of flesh, or is Jesus the one you are following and taking direction from? Do you see the similarities of the Children of Israel being satisfied with the Aaron Priesthood and this latest call to preserve the restoration? Zion is not an Aaronic community. Please don't get me wrong ... I am so appreciative of Denver for opening my eyes ... including idol worship of man.

BK said...

Good Will,

I'm sorry that you don't agree that Christ condemned all divorce and remarriage but I have never seen you prove otherwise. His words are very clear on the matter.

Even most major Christian religions (Catholic, Baptists, etc, & even the LDS Church) agree that divorce and remarriage is adultery, they just don't usually enforce it probably because they would then lose most of their members.

Nate said...

Joseph

So glad to see others with the same understanding. Amen and thanks for the thoughtful comment

Joseph said...

Nate and others,

I have come to an understanding that the body of Christ are all those who love Jesus and who are doing their best to follow him. We are all his Bride ... We just look back to history to see that even the disciples of Jesus disagreed, the apostles instituted by Joseph disagreed. We are all mortals doing our best in this fallen world. The most important law is the law of love ... For I believe the law of love, which I have not mastered in any degree, is the higher law and when we are obedient to that law, then we are justified, sanctified and purified. Water, Blood, Spirit all taking their rightful place in our DNA for we then become the sons and daughters of God and our DNA actually changes. It is not the outward ordinances that save us ... it is the inward love. I think Mother Theresa has been given entrance to a much higher kingdom than I will have because I have not been given the gift of charity, something that she lived by. I believe this building communities and receiving certificates distracts us from the important work of loving our fellowman ... not just a tight-knit group that your closest friends agree to form. We are missing out on caring for the disadvantaged, the less fortunate because we want to be obedient to a man's suggestion that the outward performance of an ordinance will give us the baptism of fire. I am still trying to work through some of Denver's contradictory comments which are found in all of his lectures. I believe he is our test ... and it is a great testing ground the Lord has provided.

Nate said...

That is a great thought. Just last week I learned some wonderful things about Mother Theresa. If you study her life it is interesting to see that she felt darkened and forsaken for much of her ministry.
Call me crazy but when she saw a vision of Christ and Mary and the people God wanted her to serve I believe she agreed to share the light that God had blessed her with and give it (similar to the way Christ did) to those souls she served. This was her taking upon herself the cross. She was one of the few holy ones.
Like Ghandi she taught to help Muslims become better Muslims and Hindus become better Hindus etc. she knew if others found the spirit of truth it would eventually lead to Christ and His Spirit is given to us all we just have to tap into it etc.

I think you and I have spoken on multiple sites under different names (maybe not). Much respect. Some of my best friends I have started off with seeming disagreements and ended with extreme edification. God bless my friend.

Benjamin Shaffer said...

Rock, another great article, but I'm sorry to say that I have an error to correct. You say that none of the presidents of the church other than Joseph Smith have ever received revelation for the church, but this is not true. You are just being too forceful in this statement. While Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith never claimed to have the same gifts as Joseph Smith in the same abundance, and while the prophecies, and revelation they revealed was not as extensive as Joseph Smith revealed, there are still some valuable revelations received by them. I personally would like to see more of them in the D&C.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

James asked for a link to where the audio files can be found. Here it is:

http://www.publishinghope.info/denver-snuffer---fyim.html

I hasten to point out that the cost of the CDs is to cover the expenses incurred by the man who traveled to each of the locations to record them; Denver Snuffer is not receiving any of the proceeds.

It can be a bit expensive for anyone to purchase all 10 talks, and it's easy for me to recommend listening to them AND reading them, because a friend was kind enough to purchase mine for me. I would recommend you do what someone above suggested, and two or three of you pool your money, get a set of the talks to share.

I'm told that MP3 versions are in the works. You might ask Doug at Publishing Hope about when those can be expected. They'll probaly cost less, what with the cost of shipping CDs.


Alan Rock Waterman said...

Nate,
I'll add my voice to JLCs at to why I think it's a good idea to remain with the LDS church: for the fellowship.

My own bishop couldn't figure out why I'm a member of the church, because by his way of thinking, if you don't honor and respect top management, what other reason is there to remain?

Well, when I worked for ten years at Disneyland, I had little respect for management after the death of the founder, but I still believed in the ideals of the founder and I liked the people I worked with.

Let's remember that the church is the people; it isn't the leaders. They will go their own way. But the rest of us still hold fundamental beliefs in common, and though some of my fellow attendees worship modern idols, I like to see the area of commonality we have in basics like the Book of Mormon.

Besides, if all the Remnant abandons ship, who will there be to assist those left behind on how to put on their life jackets before the ship goes down for good?

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Ryan Nickel at 7:32,
Thanks for the additional clarification, and that quote by Wilford Woodruff.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Jeff,
can you please help me to understand? If I understand your point, it is that the Quorum of the Twelve were ordained (or at least sustained) as prophets, seers, and revelators as early as the turn of the 20th century. But I don't see evidence of that in the two links you provided. Am I just not looking hard enough?

At any rate, I could have made myself clearer in my original post. I said I did not remember ever hearing it taught as I was growing up that general authorities other than the Twelve were prophets, seers, and revelators. I still maintain I don't recall hearing that, though my ignorance does not mean it never happened.

My personal feeling is that the teaching was not bandied about the way it is today. Today I hear that claim constantly. In my day, I was taught there was only one prophet, seer, and revelator on the earth at a time.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying the Twelve have been sustained as Prophets, seers, and revelators since at least 1904. Well, okay. Maybe they have been, and if so on that point I stand corrected.

But what I want to know is who ordained them such? My understanding of the D&C tells me that only God can annoint a man with those gifts, though he allowed Joseph to ordain his brother as his successor in that office. But seeing as how Joseph and Hyrum died within minutes of each other, two questions remain for those who believe Brigham Young held the authority: When was Brigham Young anointed prophet, seer, and revelator? and who performed the anointing?

It can be argued that the Twelve MAY have held certain keys to perform ordinances, etc., but they didn't have the gifts of prophet, seer, and revelator among them, either individually or as a group. Even Sidney Rigdon did not claim that authority, and he was the most likely to be next in line for it, not any of the twelve traveling Elders, whose jobs did not include administering Church affairs.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Without citing chapter and verse of Snuffer's "Passing the Heavenly Gift," I'm pretty sure that book shows that the authority to pass on the role of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator is revisionist history. We believe it because we've been told it.

Alan Rock Waterman said...


the link that IceCreamCake provided above on the 7 part Law of Succession failed, but here is the link to part one:

http://onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/the-law-of-succession-part-one/

The Watcher is a brilliant historian, but his postings are so prolific I can't seem to keep up. One thing I am convinced of, however, is that if I read his blog more regularly I would be a lot smarter.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Benjamin Shaffer,
Right you are. Someone on a Facebook thread reminded me of the revelations these men claimed to have received, and I was forced to eat a certain amount of crow.

I should have remembered a pair of books I actually own and read many years ago, "Unpublished Revelations of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

So I stand corrected...Sort of. Because, as Jamie Tidwell Gordon pointed out on that same thread, although these men wrote down their revelations, they were not presented to the membership at large for approval, are not canonized, and so they don't really count.

Which fact in itself shouldn't mean they were not revelations, but the problem with most of them is that they were concerned with the absolute importance of continuing plural marriage. So I don't believe they were really from the Lord.

These "revelations" have the Lord making all sorts of assurances about how he would fight the Saint's battles, that polygamy was never to be taken from the earth, that it was an eternal and everlasting principle that MUST not be abandoned at any cost, and so on.

So on the one hand, I'm inclined to believe these revelations were not of God, but sprang from the very sincere wishes and imaginings of these presidents.

To be kind, I would categorize these revelations as "personal revelations," of the type all God's people are entitled to receive, and not as institutional revelations intended to be binding on the whole church. The first question we should ask ourselves is if they were revelations on par with those received by Joseph Smith, why were they not presented to the church so the members could pray about them and receive personal witnesses?

My understanding regarding many or most of these revelations is that they were written down in the men's personal journals, and not presented at conference.

At any rate, the institutional Church today does not recognize these revelations as legitimate. In fact they would remain buried if Fundamentalist author Fred Collier hadn't gathered and published them in his two volume work.

At least I'll give Taylor, Woodruff, et al props for one thing: They worded their revelations as coming from the mouth of the Lord, so at least those revelations have the pretense of being revelations.

That's a good deal more than the modern crop of general authorities ever attempt. They just TELL us they receive revelations, but they won't so much as offer us a fake one to look at.

Nate said...

Rock

Thanks for your explanation I miss the fellowship at times myself so that is a good reason. Plus I am sure you are not hiding who you are when you go to church.

As far as wilford woodruffs revelations and others I don't know if they can be trusted.
I believe wilford woodruffs wilderness revelation spoke of how fantastic polygamy was and how it would never be abandoned.
Plus it would probably take a revelation from God to add anything to scripture (theoretically) so if God never revealed that it should be considered scripture then there must be a reason....

France said...

Good Will -

You seem to think that there is only a single person who has noticed Denver's inconsistency on the issue of adultery, as taught in the Book of Mormon and Bible.

I am "France" and have no idea who "BK" is, but I like many of BK's points. I have given up trying to point out the misunderstandings of many people about adultery as taught in the scriptures. People just don't want to listen, as it would mean that they've sinned, or at least erred in ignorance. People don't like admitting that. I no longer care to try to convince people otherwise.

So go to town with "BK," but don't imagine that there's only one person who has pointed out these similar issues.

Tammy said...

Rock,
I'm happy that you've addressed the ignorance of so many people who are quick to jump on the broken down bandwagon and complain about Denver. It amazes me that we have such a tendency to judge according to our own understandings even if they aren't always based on truth.
I have done like a few other commenters have expressed, read some of his books, listened to his talks and read some in text form and have decided that he is a man, learning and listening to God and is on an errand for the Lord. He is imperfect. He has learned a lot since he started writing his books and he is a willing vessel with the attributes that the Lord deems necessary to reach people who are ready to learn.
I have to say, that for me, his words and encouragement to read and study and get to know Christ and rely on Him only, have been a great benefit.
The words he has spoken have furthered me on my journey. I thank God for everyone who has been a part of my 'schooling' the last few years, but they've only been there because of my prayers to God to help me learn what I don't know. My gratitude is much more to God because He is the one who is bringing me to these teachers. They are only teachers where they are willing to share when the spirit prompts them. The right people will hear because they are ready.

LJn said...

To Listener:
Listener said...

My wife and I have been silently following Snuffer since he wrote his first book. We've studied each lecture and attended one of them in person. We're in a lonely place not having anyone to share our feelings with without creating a riff in our ward. (We don't want all our friends and family calling on us to save us from apostasy.) Are there any fellowships in Utah Valley, or how do you find such people? My wife and I joke that we feel like Lehi's family in the desert.
October 6, 2014 at 12:38 PM

My reply to you:
Go to ldsfreedomforum.com and join. Once you have joined, ask for admittance to the Approaching the Heavenly Gift forum. Tell them Toni (aka ARP) sent you. There are many people on that forum from northern Utah (I am not one of them) and they do get together. Some are afraid of being found out, some don't care, and some have already been called in or disciplined for their beliefs.

LJn said...

If the mods ask who I am really referring to that subforum, I will only vouch for "Listener" - just sayin'

James Lloyd said...

We need to discard the belief that a prophet is perfect. Yes, we have been trained to think so and look at all the problems it has caused! Can you imagine the difference if our LDS leaders acknowledged that past leaders made mistakes, even serious mistakes, instead of hiding, covering or "explaining away" them! When we believe that a prophet is infallible, then we are idol worshiping because only Christ is perfect and it is Him in whom we must trust. So, Denver Snuffer can make mistakes and still be a prophet! We need to follow the Spirit, and yes, question things and get answers. God works through his imperfect children. We all make mistakes. God also does not reveal everything at once. Joseph Smith didn't get the whole organization and vision of the church in one sitting. I personally believe Denver Snuffer to be right about most things, especially the important things.

BK said...

James,

I agree that even true prophets probably aren't perfect, but they have to be pretty close to perfect, especially if they expect to get true followers of Christ to think they are true prophets. For it takes one to know one.

Christ said that 'true prophets are those who 'keep his commandments and have true Christlike love', and those are pretty high standards (I don't know of anyone, past or present, who has achieved that level since Christ's day).

Also, true prophets would not be adding their own doctrines or opinions or scriptures, but just repeating Christ's teachings. They point us to Christ and tell us to follow Christ and his commandments, not to listen to them or their opinions.

And Christ taught that if a person makes serious mistakes then they can't be a prophet or they are a fallen prophet and thus would have to repent and change before becoming a prophet again.

For again, a true prophet keeps Christ's commandments, which in doing so would render one practically perfect.

Christ said that is how we will know if they are a true prophet and not one of the many false prophets that Christ warned that most would fall for, who will look and sound so good, so smart and preach and seem just like a true prophet, when in reality they don't really keep Christ's commandments and they preach their own doctrines and opinions, not Christ's, when you compare the two.


Anonymous said...

Check www.Zion.community

Mike

James Lloyd said...

BK,
Joseph Smith said he was not perfect and often spoke "as a man". Joseph made errors in judgement, of others such as John C. Bennett, he made financial errors, and other human mistakes. Yet, he revealed more about God and of God than anyone in this dispensation. He was a prophet, but not perfect. I only think Denver Snuffer made a couple of mistakes regarding church history, but that doesn't throw me. What he has taught me and encouraged all of us to do is of God.

Calleen Bataiff said...

This is a question I posed to Denver Snuffer that I will also post here since you guys are pretty smart on a lot of things.

I have a question you maybe able to help me with. I just read Joseph Smiths talk on Elias, Elijah, Messiah, and there is a short paragraph on King David that goes as follows:

Although David was a king, he never did obtain the spirit and power of Elijah and the fullness of the Priesthood; and the Priesthood that he received, and the throne and kingdom of David is to be taken from him and given to another by the name of David in the last days, raised up out of his lineage.

"I'm interested in this David in the last days. Will he come up out of Jerusalem? Will he also be a dispensation head like Joseph Smith? Do you have any insight on this subject?"

Here is the quote out of Joseph Smiths Discourse, "Elias, Elijah, Messiah".:

Although David was a king, he never did obtain the spirit and power of Elijah and the fullness of the Priesthood; and the Priesthood that he received, and the throne and kingdom of David is to be taken from him and given to another by the name of David in the last days, raised up out of his lineage.

Ok, you guys, enlighten me!

Calleen Bataiff said...

Sorry about the double quote. My old eyes aren't what they used to be.

Nate said...

Calleen

My belief is that joseph smith never obtained the spirit of elijah either, but that his was the spirit of Elias. His account of John the Baptist seems to imply that john pronounced upon him the spirit of Elias or an aaronic preparatory gospel.

As far as David goes, often people would shout out "Son of David!" to Jesus because they knew of these prophecies.
Isaiah 11 speaks of the BRANCH as well as Zechariah. Jeremiah prefers to call Him David often.

Remember in Isaiah and I believe by the voice of an angel it was prophesied that the Savior would be named Immanuel. (God with us)

Many people say Jesus could not have been the Savior because His name didn't fit.

I do not believe this person has to be a Jew, but will be raised up to the Jews. Is it Christ Himself? Lineage and names can be tricky, especially if you throw in the idea of multiple mortal lives in... :)

In some ancient Jewish Messiah texts they speak of a Messiah Ben Joseph and Messiah Ben David, and they don't agree on how to interpret this. I would recommend studying revelations 11 and Zechariah etc

I will give it as my opinion that the mighty and strong one, the man like unto moses, David, the Servant etc are all the same person... I have a great hope that this person is out there somewhere being prepared.

Joseph said...

Calleen

Denver once said that names are titles. With that in mind, go and read D&C 77, then read D&C 7, D&C 27:6. And finally - here's an excerpt from Denver's Priesthood talk. It is obvious after reading all of this that the Davidic Servant referenced is John the Beloved as the Davidic King is Jesus ... However, it is John that comes to restore all things, to gather all of Israel, to prepare for the millennial reign of Jesus Christ.

"He mentions in this letter these things had happened: "And again, the voice of God in the chamber of old Father Whitmer, in Fayette, Seneca county, and at sundry times, and in divers places through all the travels and tribulations of this Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!" [So the voice of God has been there throughout all of this. As Joseph presided and as the Church rolled forth.] "And the voice of Micha el , the archangel; the voice of Gabriel, ”[“El” being the name of God]” and of Raphael,, and of divers angels, from Michael or Adam down to the present time, all declaring their dispensation, their rights, their keys, their honors, their majesty and glory, and the power of their priesthood; giving line upon line, precept upon precept; here a little, and there a little; giving us consolation by holding forth that which is to come, confirming our hope!" I want to remind you that Michael, Gabriel , and Raphael are known to us by other names and roles while they were mortal. As those who have come, though they were part of the El, or in the plural form, the Eloheim, they came into mortality and they served here among us. They came and they ministered here. Michael descended, and he came to the earth and he was known as the man Adam in mortality. Gabriel came to the earth and he was known in mortality as the man Noah. There is a big debate over the identical to the Raphael. I will tell you what I think and you can take it or leave it. Raphael is the name that was given to the man who in mortality we know as Enoch. Now there are four angels who preside over the four corners of the earth. Joseph surely knew that. Joseph’s letter mentions the names of three of the four. But he leaves the fourth one out. And I find the absence of the fourth one rather extraordinary. Now the fourth one's name is Uriel, also one of the Eloheim. There are certainly some who believe the reason for omitting his name from the letter was because Joseph Smith was Uriel. I do not subscribe to that belief. Although there are those who will absolutely cry heresy, and throw dirt on their hair, and tear their clothes because they are scholars, and they are bona fide, and they know I'm talking out of my hat — but I'd remind you that Joseph talked out of his hat too. That fourth and missing, unmentioned angel, Uriel , in mortality was known to us as John, the one who was beloved of the Lord.

These are the four great angels at the four corners of the earth. Adam is the one in the East, the angel who is considered the one who presides over and has control of the air. Which is apt because onto Adam was given the breath of life in the beginning. Raphael is in the South, and he is associated with the power of fire, which is apt because of his fiery ascent with his people into heaven. Gabriel is the angel in the West who has the power over water, which is apt because in mortality, he survived through the Flood. And Uriel, though not mentioned, is the one who in the North has the power over the earth, which is apt because he remains upon the earth and he is the guardian at one gate with Elijah at the other end. But you can take and leave all that as you will. I find the mention here in this letter by Joseph, of these individuals and these powers, and these four, three of whom are named, the fourth of whom, potentially is unnamed, to be interesting. Though he does mention “divers angels for Michael or Adam down to the present time.”

Calleen Bataiff said...

Nate & Joseph

All I can say is way to pull through! Your replies are amazing! Thank you so much!

I know that the prophesy given about Joseph's coming to restore the foundations of Christ's gospel was right on with the name.

15 And his name shall be called after me; and it shall be after the name of his father. And he shall be like unto me; for the thing, which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand, by the power of the Lord shall bring my people unto salvation.
16 Yea, thus prophesied Joseph:
(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 3:15 - 16)

However, I also understand that names are titles. I believe that Joseph Smith Jr. was an Elias and not an Elijah.

This is all very interesting. I have to study this harder. Thanks so much!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Joseph and Nate,

Thanks for your comments on Mother Theresa. For many years the following 2 quotes, attributed to her, have been in my heart. I hope others may find meaning in them.

1. Don't wait for leaders--just do it yourselves, person to person.

2. You won't know that Jesus Christ is all you need until Jesus Christ is all you've got.

Rock, many thanks to you for the blog.

Roger

BK said...

James,

Exactly. Joseph Smith was far from perfect, and that is one reason I don't believe he was a true prophet, same with Denver.

Christ was very clear on how to tell true prophets from false ones.

False ones don't teach people to go against Christ's commandments.

False prophets usually teach mostly true and wonderful things (that's their sheep skin), even many new ideas that haven't been heard before, for Satan knows far more truth then any of us and can easily teach false prophets truth through revelation.

Thus one of the ways false prophets easily deceive people is by their great knowledge of true things, people just usually don't notice the few falsehoods they intertwine into all the truth they teach.

Along with great knowledge, false prophets also use miracles, healings, emotion, and claims that God & Christ visit them, to get people to believe in them.

And last but not least, false prophets tell the people to 'pray about it' to see if they are true or not, cause they know that's one of the easiest ways to deceive people, for any good feelings/experiences they get from praying they will think is confirmation and if they don't get any good feelings then they will often blame it on their own unworthiness and still follow the false prophet.

Christ didn't say to 'pray about it' he said make so-called prophets 'prove it' by what they 'do', not what they say.

Many people can teach tons of inspiring truth, write books of doctrine or scripture and get lots of people to listen to them and their claims of visitations from God & Christ, but I haven't seen anyone who can prove they are a true prophet/disciple by their actions, love & how they keep Christ's commandments.

I only believe in and listen to Christ. He is the 'only' way and the 'only' person one needs to listen to to learn how to gain Eternal Life.

Everyone else is imperfect and can easily lead you astray.

Nate said...

Amen thanks Roger.

I have been in tears reading all this woman did and gave and pray God will see fit to use me in such a real and meaningful way.

Anonymous said...

I guess we can take Denver Snuffer at his word, that he has seen Christ a couple of times and been given a message to deliver, or we can demand a little more proof from him.

I don't think that confirmation from the "Holy Ghost" is a reliable method of verification. There are those that swear that they have received confirmation that Thomas Monson is a prophet of God. There are those that have receive spiritual confirmation that Denver Snuffer is a prophet of God, and is leading Mormons in a different direction. All of these "assumptions" are not based on fact or tangible evidence, they are based on warm and fuzzy feelings. They can't all be true.

Snuffer's attempt to create a grass-roots movement is much like the start of Islam. In fact, Snuffer and Mohammed have much in common. They both claim some sort of heavenly visitation in which they received esoteric knowledge to pass on to everyone else. Islam started out as a movement of the people, but quickly became corrupted over infighting, and trying to decide who would lead the movement.

Democracy is no way to lead a church. It is only a way to keep leaders honest. I can see this community movement of Snuffer's quickly turning into chaos, as politics and money enter the equation. Many idealistic communal movements have been tried before and have failed. The early saints could not live the law of consecration.

I'm sure that there are many people that are enthralled by the words of Denver Snuffer. I gotta say, I don't think his message will go anywhere. How can he be certain he is not being deceived like the saints at Kirtland that received false messengers. We are told in the last days that many false prophets will arise, deceiving even the very elect.

If Snuffer had a visitation, let him write it down and have people vote on it.

Joe

Nate said...

Joe

Ha ha I know you know that voting on revelation means nothing unless you are seeking an orthodoxy for a community. Is a majority of any church fit to decide what is truth and what is not? It is so clear that God needs to send someone with power to do the mighty works prophesied because this world is so full of confusion. We are all lead astray, every one, as sheep without a Shepherd.

Lena Hansen said...

Joe,
Good comment. Denver Snuffer is not asking for a vote or a warm fuzzy witness. He is inviting all of us to gain our own witness and receive the 2nd Comforter for ourselves.
It is completely up to individuals if they want to join a faith community working toward Zion, or stay in the church they are presently attending.

Joseph said...

The only one who will come forth with power is John the Beloved ... it is his assignment as Joseph Smith and John himself has said - it was an ordinance - just like Ezekiel ate the book (which was symbolic of his mission - John also ate the little book which is that he internalized his mission). John has been here for 2000 years preparing to come forth and deliver the Saints. With that said, I do believe Denver is a messenger but I do not believe he is the one that has been given Power. Unlike Enoch's time, we don't have 300 yrs to become Zion ... it will only be through the tribulation that is coming that will soften our hearts and minds. The communities may be a way to practice, but I myself have been told not to join any for their is much zealousness. I do not want to find fault with Denver, he keeps telling everyone to go get their own experience with the Savior and yet people keep putting him on a pedestal, hanging on every word he says or writes. When the Lord sees that we are serious about not putting another man of flesh in between us and Him, then mysteries are unfolded. The Lord, through Denver, is doing us an amazing service ... if we have eyes to see and ears to hear and a heart to follow the Only One worthy to be followed, then we will stop reading and re-reading Denver's words, lectures, blog and books, and go to the Word, Jesus Christ and the scriptures to receive. I do not believe Denver's words are scripture .... but I do believe he has a love for the Lord and has a good heart and sincerely wants us to be One with God. I am however stumped as to why Denver tells everyone to read and re-read his lectures, etc. Instead of Denver saying - spend your time with God ... go to scripture ... ask for revelation ... ponder upon God's word, meditate, he encourages everyone to get together and discuss Denver's works.) We are to ask for the mysteries to be poured out from heaven above, not from Denver. But then there are those who truly believe Denver's words are scripture. If you do, then I suppose Denver has stewardship over you. However, I want to fall under the stewardship of Jesus and none other. Thank you Denver for being not only a messenger, but also our test to gauge our spiritual development.

Nate said...

Joseph

Have you looked into the doctrine of eternal lives seriously yet and made it a matter of prayer until you can say one way or the other with surety?

I only ask because you and I agree with a lot the more I see your comments. I also have a testimony that john the beloved will do a great work. I am quite certain Elijah will do a great work. I understand why you would link john the beloved the way you did to the last days but from what I have received he is not "the only" one, far from it. The 3 Nephites if you remember were given the same thing with the same promise from the Savior.
Anyway I agree completely with your take on Denver Snuffer.

Ryan Nickel said...

BK,

What do you think about both Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith being divorced?

Info on BY:
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/brighamyoungswives.htm

Info on JFS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_F._Smith#cite_ref-11

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Joseph,
I'm not aware that Denver encourages people to read and re-read his lectures. If he has, I'd be interested in what context he has said it, because from what I've seen he encourages people to seek the Lord, not his writings.

Melissa J. Cunningham said...

Great post as usual and also inspiring. I love your writing. (Your tone and voice) So fun to read. It made me want to go back and read everything of DS again, which I intend to do anyway.

I enjoyed conference but sat there with my mouth hanging open at the bald face lie, "No president (prophet) has ever been elected." I don't even know what to do with that one. So disillusioned.

Ashley Ingram said...

Sister McConkie and Elder Nelson’s words have been twisted by those who do not speak for the Church.

Below are the actual words of Elder Nelson and Sister McConkie. For a clear picture of what leaders of the Church are saying, go to lds.org.

As for me and my house, we plan to “stay in the boat.” And we don’t plan to do it only “for the fellowship.” We plan to do it because we believe the Lord’s mouthpiece today is president Thomas S. Monson.

We sustain the prophet and we don’t do it by only raising our hand a few times per year as a token sustaining. We actually sustain and support him.



Elder Russell M. Nelson
Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said,

“Yesterday, we were each invited to sustain Thomas S. Monson as the prophet of the Lord and President of the Lord’s Church. And often we sing, “We thank thee, O God, for a prophet.” Do you and I really understand what that means? Imagine the privilege the Lord has given us of sustaining His prophet, whose counsel will be untainted, unvarnished, unmotivated by any personal aspiration, and utterly true!

How do we really sustain a prophet? Long before he became President of the Church, President Joseph F. Smith explained, “It is an important duty resting upon the Saints who … sustain the authorities of the Church, to do so not only by the lifting of the hand, the mere form, but in deed and in truth…

…that we will stand behind him; we will pray for him; we will defend his good name, and we will strive to carry out his instructions as the Lord shall direct.”

The living Lord leads His living Church! The Lord reveals His will for the Church to His prophet. Yesterday, after we were invited to sustain Thomas S. Monson as President of the Church, we also had the privilege to sustain him, the counselors in the First Presidency, and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators. Think of that! We sustain 15 men as prophets of God! They hold all the priesthood keys that have ever been conferred upon man in this dispensation.

The calling of 15 men to the holy apostleship provides great protection for us as members of the Church. Why? Because decisions of these leaders must be unanimous. Can you imagine how the Spirit needs to move upon 15 men to bring about unanimity? These 15 men have varied educational and professional backgrounds, with differing opinions about many things. Trust me! These 15 men—prophets, seers, and revelators—know what the will of the Lord is when unanimity is reached! They are committed to see that the Lord’s will truly will be done. The Lord’s Prayer provides the pattern for each of these 15 men when they pray: “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven…”


CAROL F. MCCONKIE
First Counselor in the Young Women General Presidency said,

“Our Father in Heaven loves all of His children and desires that they know and understand His plan of happiness. Therefore, He calls prophets, those who have been ordained with power and authority to act in God’s name for the salvation of His children. They are messengers of righteousness, witnesses of Jesus Christ and the infinite power of His Atonement. They hold the keys of the kingdom of God on earth and authorize the performance of saving ordinances.

In the Lord’s true Church, “there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred.” We sustain President Thomas S. Monson as our prophet, seer, and revelator. He reveals the word of the Lord to guide and direct our entire Church. As President J. Reuben Clark Jr. explained, “The President of the Church … alone has the right to receive revelations for the Church…”

Martin Harris Luther said...

And nothing bad has ever been done by the consensus of a small group of men with similar backgrounds and worldviews ... I defy anyone to give an example of such (wink).

Nate said...

Ashley

Great comment. These idiots who think they can follow God without going through the prophet, seer, revelator are out of their minds!
I have faith just like Jedediah grant. If the prophet asked me to give him my wife I would just say yes! There are plenty more women around!
I often say if thomas monson asked me to go massacre people in the mountain meadows I wouldn't even blink! Right away sir with a salute. Don't people know what a blessing it is to have those 15 men in their lives? They can talk to God for us! So simple. Trust in the men who God trusts and follow them and we will be fine.
I shook elder Perry's hand a few months back and just had to tell the whole world about it. I actually shook hands with a servant of God! He touched me!
Thank you for your comment and for sharing how it really is. People just don't get it.

Lena Hansen said...

Ashley,
Make sure you do not find yourself in a dark and dreary waste following the “man in a white robe”.
1Nephi 8
5 And it came to pass that I saw a man, and he was dressed in a white robe; and he came and stood before me.
6 And it came to pass that he spake unto me, and bade me follow him.
7 And it came to pass that as I followed him I beheld myself that I was in a dark and dreary waste.

-Be careful not to be lulled into security/pride.
2Nephi 28:21
21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

-Are you aware that the entire church is under condemnation? Ezra Taft Benson, said in 1984 the church was still under this condemnation

D&C 84:54-58
54 And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—
55 Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.
56 And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.
57 And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—
58 That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion.

-We do not have the fullness of the priesthood and we were rejected as a church:
D&C 124:
28 For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood.
31 But I command you, all ye my saints, to build a house unto me; and I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me; and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me.
32 But behold, at the end of this appointment your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things at the end of the appointment ye shall be rejected as a church, with your dead, saith the Lord your God.

45 And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place.
46 But if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest, because they pollute mine holy grounds, and mine holy ordinances, and charters, and my holy words which I give unto them.
47 And it shall come to pass that if you build a house unto my name, and do not do the things that I say, I will not perform the oath which I make unto you, neither fulfil the promises which ye expect at my hands, saith the Lord.
48 For instead of blessings, ye, by your own works, bring cursings, wrath, indignation, and judgments upon your own heads, by your follies, and by all your abominations, which you practice before me, saith the Lord.


-God has removed his spirit from us until the 3rd or 4th generation ( 3x40=120 or 4x40=160. 1844+120=1964 or 1844+160=2004)
D&C 124: 50 And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God.
52 And I will answer judgment, wrath, and indignation, wailing, and anguish, and gnashing of teeth upon their heads, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord your God.

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

Nate said...

Lena!

Now hang on there! You are in danger of speaking evil by quoting all of those scriptures!
Don't you know that the scripture spoken over the weekend and in the ensign and friend magazines each month trump the doctrine and covenants and Book of Mormon!
Beware of trying to interpret scripture in a way that puts the LDS church in a bad light, even if it's true!
Haven't you heard from elder packer and elder oaks that it is a sin to tell the truth sometimes!?

Ryan Nickel said...

Rock,

To answer you question about the 12 being called as prophet, seers and revelators, you can find the answer in History of the Church.

"I [Smith] made a short address, and called upon the several quorums, and all the congregation of Saints, to acknowledge the Presidency as Prophets and Seers and uphold them by their prayers. ... I then called upon the quorums and congregation of Saints, to acknowledge the Twelve, who were present, as Prophets, Seers, Revelators, and special witnesses to all the nations of the earth holding the keys of the kingdom, to unlock it, or cause it to be done among them, and uphold them by their prayers."

HC 2:417 (March 27, 1836; dedication of the Kirtland Temple).

Now from a revisionist standpoint, I'm not sure if we can trust this source or not.

Ryan Nickel said...

Assuming the above quote is accurate, then those keys of course can be passed on.

However, being a prophet, seer or revelator does not contain with it the keys of the presidency. Those are separate and come from revelation as you pointed out with JS and HS as in D&C 124.

The assumption that the 12 are equal in authority to the 1st Presidency doesn't give in this case BY the right to create a new 1st Presidency.

If that were the case then a 70 could as well. They've been ordained and have equal authority to the 12.

See the problem when it doesn't come from God through his chosen prophet?

Joseph said...

Rock,
Regarding Denver's encouragement to reread his materials - Here you go re: Denver's blog - an excerpt below. But I myself in personal conversations with Denver have heard him say that we need to reread his books. As I have stated before, I am eternally grateful to Denver ... he is a messenger ... he states over and over again to go to the Lord ourselves and stop relying upon him. Yet I believe we are given the opportunity now to do just that .... to prove who we truly worship ... whether we are guilty of idol worship or not. Also attached below is Denver's comment re: a new sign. I am troubled by that post.


Wednesday, July 2, 2014, but I have heard Denver myself

One Talk

The series of lectures that began in Boise and will end in Phoenix are one talk. There are three left. Each one of the talks builds on earlier material.

If you are interested in understanding, then it would be beneficial to rehear or reread the previous ones. The later talks will connect things that were raised in the earlier ones. It is not possible to state everything at once. Pieces must be put together systematically.


Sunday, March 3, 2013

A Sign

When the Seed of the Woman was born, a new star appeared in the heavens. In like manner, when the Lion of Judah returns, as with his first coming, there will be a new star seen. All the world will note its appearance and shall be troubled at its meaning. When it makes its appearance, you may know His return is soon upon the world. You may also know by that sign that He has given to me the words I have faithfully taught as His servant.

Nate said...

Joseph

I wonder if he was pulling a bit from the teachings of joseph smith where he spoke of the sign of the coming of the Son of Man.... Where all would see it and some would think it was a meteor or planet etc.... Interesting

Joseph said...

That makes sense Nate ... Thank you for your insight.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Ashley Ingram,

You show Elder Russell quoting Joseph F. Smith asking "How do we really sustain a prophet?...we will strive to carry out his instructions as the Lord shall direct.”

Well, that's just the problem then, isn't it? When was the last time you saw or heard President Monson provide us with instructions he received from the Lord? Or Gordon Hinkely?

It is the very absence of revelation from these so-called "prophets, seers, and revelators" that concerns those of us who are seeking to follow the Lord.

If they would do more than simply boast of being prophets, seers, and revelators; if they would actually provide a direct revelation now and then as did our founding prophet, then I wouldn't find it so easy to scoff at their hollow claims.

BK said...

Ryan Nickel,

In response to your question, I don't think Brigham Young or Joseph F. Smith were true prophets or disciples of Christ, so of course they went along with divorce and remarriage.

But their divorces/separations were actually a good thing if the wife they divorced wasn't their 1st wife.

For I believe they committed adultery already by living polygamy, for Christ taught that married men & women can't marry another spouse, even if they divorced the 1st one 1st.

For man's 'invention of divorce' means nothing to God, the couple is still married, for marriage is impossible to dissolve, thus any polygamy or divorce and remarriage is just adultery.

It seems most people would rather listen to and believe the opinions of Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, Pres. Monson or their favorite G.A. or Bishop or favorite author like Denver or their relatives & friends over Jesus Christ, because the things that Jesus taught are too hard to accept or live.

Everyone else in the Church, from Joseph Smith to today, seems to teach a much easier & water-down version of the Gospel, where almost anything goes, so of course 'many' people accept.

Whereas Christ said 'few' will accept and live his teachings.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Joseph, thanks for the quote in context. That answers your own question posed on October 8 at 331 PM when you said, "I am however stumped as to why Denver tells everyone to read and re-read his lectures, etc."

Far from promoting himself, he was reminding the listeners that this talk (the Phoenix one) was the final part of what should be taken in as one total presentation. After all, it had been an entire year since he gave the first one, so I agree that it would be, as he says, "beneficial" to hear or re-read the previous ones in order to get up to speed. He gives additional reasons, not the least of which is that he himself gained further insight in the meantime, and some corrections were in order:

"If you are interested in understanding, then it would be beneficial to rehear or reread the previous ones. The later talks will connect things that were raised in the earlier ones. It is not possible to state everything at once. Pieces must be put together systematically."

Your original concern above suggested that Denver was promoting his works and that people should focus continually on them. I disagree. I believe he want people to focus on the words of Christ, and his talks promote that very heavily.

Personally, I think it's a great idea to go over what Denver has said and take it in, in a shorter period of time than originally given. I intend to do that very thing myself. But as a compliment to the scriptures, not as a replacement.

adventeon said...

Listener said...
"My wife and I have been silently following Snuffer since he wrote his first book. We've studied each lecture and attended one of them in person. We're in a lonely place not having anyone to share our feelings with without creating a riff in our ward. (We don't want all our friends and family calling on us to save us from apostasy.) Are there any fellowships in Utah Valley, or how do you find such people? My wife and I joke that we feel like Lehi's family in the desert.
Yes, we don't know anybody in the Payson, Utah area except the lady who first introduced us to Snuffer and she has since disavowed him. It is a hard thing to even connect here without offering our personal info."

Listener, should you chance to read this, please consider contacting me via http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=6464 if you'd like to correspond with and maybe get to know another couple near Payson who feel the same way you and your wife do. Maybe we can both take that next step and actually get to know others around us who truly yearn for Zion. Either way, God bless you in your efforts to move forward, brother.

Jeff said...

Rock

I read your stuff blog and, while I don't agree with some things you say, I think your comments are well reasoned and grounded in plausible interpretations of scripture. You seem to have a genuine interest in people living the gospel.

I read Snuffer's blog and get a sense that the guy has gone a little bit loony. I have read PTHG and he puts a lot of stock in his interpretation of church history.

I've got to say, I'm a little surprised you're pushing the Snuffer barrow so much here.

And I'd say the reason Snuffer high-tails it out of his lectures is because he doesn't want to be questioned on his ideas.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Jeff,
For a guy who "doesn't want to be questioned on his ideas" he certainly has a strange way of showing it. Denver posted something on his blog that most of us wouldn't do: he provided links to his critics. And he does so without any commentary or effort to refute their claims.


His earlier post, "Standing Aside" explains why he is not taking an active role in things. He didn't hightail it out of his last lecture out of fear for what the questions might be. He left because he does not wish to be the guru of any movement . You can read that here, right below the Oct 2 one:

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2014/09/standing-aside.html

Neither I nor Denver Snuffer are pushing Denver Snuffer. We do, however, have something that brings us together, and it's something I have in common with a growing number of Saints. It's the belief that the blatant falsehood being promoted to follow the leaders is causing the Church to self destruct. The great irony is that the more they push that falsehood on the people, as they did this past conference, the quicker those very leaders are making themselves irrelevant.

Ashley Ingram said...

"Prophets through the ages have always come under attack by the finger of scorn. Why? According to the scriptures, it is because “the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center” (1 Nephi 16:2), or as President Harold B. Lee observed, “The hit bird flutters!” Their scornful reaction is, in reality, guilt trying to reassure itself, just as with Korihor, who finally admitted, “I always knew that there was a God” (Alma 30:52). Korihor was so convincing in his deception that he came to believe his own lie (see Alma 30:53).

The scornful often accuse prophets of not living in the 21st century or of being bigoted. They attempt to persuade or even pressure the Church into lowering God’s standards to the level of their own inappropriate behavior, which in the words of Elder Neal A. Maxwell, will “develop self-contentment instead of seeking self-improvement” and repentance. Lowering the Lord’s standards to the level of a society’s inappropriate behavior is—apostasy. Many of the churches among the Nephites two centuries after the Savior’s visit to them began to “dumb down” the doctrine, borrowing a phrase from Elder Holland.

As you listen to this passage from 4 Nephi, look for parallels in our day: “And it came to pass that when two hundred and ten years had passed away there were many churches in the land; yea, there were many churches which professed to know the Christ, and yet they did deny the more parts of his gospel, insomuch that they did receive all manner of wickedness, and did administer that which was sacred unto him to whom it had been forbidden because of unworthiness” (4 Nephi 1:27).

Déjà vu in the latter days! Some members don’t realize they are falling into the same snare..."

-Elder Lynn G. Robbins
Of the Presidency of the Seventy

Anonymous said...

Rock, though you are incredibly long-winded (and I usually stop reading your posts somewhere in the middle because I lose patience) I do agree with much of what you say and I find visiting your blog worth my time.

I think we need to be fair here, though. Sometimes we can get a little too technical when it comes to wording and definitions. I think we can reasonably say that when these members were asked if they believed Snuffer was a prophet, bishops were not referring to the ancient definition in the Bible. They were asking these members if they were following Snuffer as if he were some cult leader or something. I know nothing about Snuffer myself, I'm just saying I think what these bishops meant was pretty obvious. In my opinion, this is similar to asking someone if they are gay. In 1950, the same question would have meant something entirely different than it does today. If you were feeling happy and someone asked you if you were gay, would you say yes because you were happy? Of course not, because you know darn well they aren't asking if you're happy, they're asking if you are a homosexual. Understand what I am saying?

I have my own church issues, but I think that we need to remain objective in our criticisms in order to be fair. Call me crazy...

-Ashley

Nate said...

Ashley

Ok I will speak to you without sarcasm because you seem like a sensible person and you exercised patience.

What would you do if the Holy Ghost told you very plainly and very powerfully that the 15 men who the church sustains as prophets seers revelators and apostles, are not seers, revelators, or apostles, and that the LDS church is part of the great and abominable church?
Please I ask you to answer this question at face value. Don't give the typical response of "the Holy Ghost would never say that..."
I am talking a clear, powerful, unequivocal communication from the Holy Ghost. What would you do? Would you then continue to put your trust in those 15 men? Would you set aside what the Holy Ghost told you?
Believe what you want but I have had this very experience and I tend to think I ought to follow God rather than men.

Stella said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jeff said...

Rock

Fair enough he posts links to FAIR's analysis of his book but that's a different proposition to fielding face-to-face questions.

Presumably you think some kind of leadership is required for a body of the Saints (it appears Christ and JS thought so). Sure, you and and Snuffer are both agreed on one point (and incidentally both Joseph and Brigham are on your side - neither advocated leadership by compulsion or blind obedience).

You disagree with some statements and positions of the authorities on tithing, war etc. Snuffer claims to have seen the face of Jesus and received a mandate similar to those given to Peter and 3 Nephi. Seems strange that such a revelation is accompanied by a disavowal of any responsibility to straighten or re-institute God's true order of things.

Just saying that you and Snuffer seem to be disconnected more than you are connected so it surprises me that you post so much about him.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Ashley Ingram,

I agree with pretty much everything you quoted in that statement by Lynn Robbins, beginning with his declaration that "Prophets through the ages have always come under attack by the finger of scorn."

But I discern in quoting that piece, you are not referring to actual prophets, as in ancient days, and even the early church, but you mean to apply that statement to the modern general authorities of the church merely by dint of their being called "prophets."

Giving a man a title of "Prophet, seer, and revelator" doesn't make a man a prophet, a seer, or a revelator. He must display the gifts attending the title.

You talk about dumbing down the doctrines. Have you read the church manuals lately? The church magazines?

I look very closely in the words of the prophets for parallels to today. examples are too numerous to mention here, but many are covered in Brett Bartel's post "The Actual Meaning of the Book of Mormon." The Book of Mormon is chock full of warnings that the apostasy is taking place right under our very noses.

I pray you will set aside your assumptions and read the book with new eyes.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Ashley,
I don't know if you are the same Ashley as Ashley Ingraham above, so I will respond here to the separate post at 8:36 PM.

The very point of my original post is that bishops were making unwarranted assumptions when asking members if they believed Denver Snuffer was a prophet. I have spoken to most of these people I referred to in my post personally by phone, and they assure me that they made it crystal clear that they did NOT believe Denver Snuffer was a prophet in the way the term is commonly understood in the Church, i.e. someone who thinks he has been chosen by God to lead the Church. They were clear they believed him a prophet only in the meaning that he has a testimony of Jesus Christ.

There is much evidence to suspect that bishops and stake presidents Churchwide have been sternly cautioned to be on the lookout for anyone expressing the slightest bit of affinity for Denver's teachings, and it's also clear these local leaders are not interested in knowing anything other than the modern equivalent of "are you now or have you ever affiliated with anyone whose views have not been approved by those in authority in the Church?"

So there is no need for you to provide a lesson in semantics here. You admit to not reading past the middle of most of my posts because you don't have the patience. Too bad, because I believe in the adage that patience is a virtue. Had you shown a greater degree of patience and continued ahead just a bit with this one, you would realize your comment abvove treads ground already covered in the post, and you might have come out the other end with a better understanding of what was discussed therein.

When you say "Sometimes we can get a little too technical when it comes to wording and definitions," I agree with you. But when bishops are unjustly punishing extremely devout members willy-nilly because they make assumptions about those member's beliefs that are wildly inaccurate, I think that is when being very precise with wording and definitions is not only in order, it is essential. A bishop who judges hastily and unjustly based only on nebulous instructions received from higher up the chain of runs the risk of bringing God's judgment on his own head. And unnecessarily so.

David and Rebecca Campbell said...

Has anyone here read the transcript of brent larsens conversation with a member of the 70? The conversation was at the time of his pending ex for saying he believed denver snuffer to be a prophet on the internet. Larsen explains over and over how he has different definitions for prophets. He sustains monson, but he still thinks denver is a prophet, such as Luke in the bible who was not an apostle. Well, semantics wasnt the issue there because he explained it to the 70 until he was probably blue in the face. I was blue in the face after reading it. Semantics is not the issue.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Jeff,
I swear I don't know what you're getting at. You wonder why I post so much about Denver Snuffer, but by my count, I've posted only two pieces. The first because he was the first victim in the second wave of unjust excommunications (the first wave was the September Six debacle) and I felt it was newsworthy because like the September Six, it was orchestrated from above. (And as in the case of the September Six, the corporate Church disavowed any part in them until forced to admit Boyd Packer's role in them.)

This second piece I posted was because I see an awakening in the Church, an awakening that Denver Snuffer has played a major part in, and it's also newsworthy because the Corporate Church is doing all it can to put the kibosh on it, and doing real harm to good people in the process.

Thirdly, I like Denver Snuffer. I admire him. But I don't idolize him, and for that I'm sure he's grateful. I don't anticipate writing a new post about Denver Snuffer annually, but I don't regret the two articles that do mention him.

I don't know why you feel it's odd that he and I may not be on the same page on everything. Denver and I are separate individuals, and though we are friends, I don't know enough about Denver Snuffer to even know where we differ. So you have the advantage of me there, Jeff.

I also don't get your objection to Denver not fielding audience questions face to face. Why should he? Reports I received from those present tell me that many in the audience were confused as to what they should do next, and wanted a leader to tell them.

I would suggest that those who need someone to tell them what they should do next and how to do it may not yet be ready to govern themselves.

Perhaps it would be beneficial for those individuals to hear or re-read Denver's previous nine lectures so they have a better understanding how change is up to them, not some mighty Strong Man deliverer. Who died and put Denver Snuffer in charge of anything?

You wonder how it can be that Jesus Christ would give Denver a message to deliver, and Denver then not have the responsibility to straighten or re-institute God's true order of things.

Again, why should he? Who is Denver Snuffer to try to set aright the things of God? One day the prophesied "One Mighty And Strong" will come to put God's house back in order. Denver Snuffer does not appear to be that man, but we in the church are so darn hungry for real meat that some are willing to assume anyone who shows up and speaks words of truth and wisdom must be some kind of messiah.

That only speaks to how miserable and hollow our religion has become, if someone who merely shows up and reminds us how marvelous and expansive it all is suddenly gets celebrated in some quarters as the Mormon Buddha.

Denver is simply one man with a message. I think in the coming days we are going to see God working through many more people who are just as flawed as Denver Snuffer, and also just as chosen.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

David and Rebecca,
My favorite part of that transcript was the Seventy absolutely 100 percent convinced that Denver Snuffer was NOT a prophet, all the while not even knowing enough about Denver Snuffer to pronounce his name correctly. He called him "Duster."

Robin Hood said...

Rock,
I quit posting here some time ago, but I check in from time to time.
However, I feel I have to post today in order to correct you regarding a comment you have made. You say "there is much evidence to suspect that Bishops and Stake Presidents Churchwide have been sternly cautioned to be on the lookout...." This is incorrect Rock. I can categorically assure you, from personal experience, that no such instructions have been received.

Now Rock, this isn't the first time I have pulled you up on these kinds of comments. The Area Seventy issue was another - which I have noticed you have never publicly corrected. This is very disappointing. You really should take a little more care, in my view, because these remarks alarm the saints without justification.

While I am here I will make a general comment. It is my belief that Denver Snuffer is a base deceiver of the highest order. Events since have demonstrated that his excommunication was absolutely justified, and that those who follow this man now are in serious spiritual jeopardy.

Ashley Ingram said...

Brother Rockman,

Kate Kelly and her followers seem to believe the leaders to the Church today need help and need direction- they are old men who can’t possibly be in tune with God. They desire the priesthood be given to women and they seek to belittle the Church at ever chance in an effort to force their cause. To sum it up, Kate Kelly and her followers believe the leaders of the Church are not in tune with the Lord and it is the job of the Kellyites to instruct the leaders.

Another group of wayward souls are lead by John Dehlin. He believes, as best I can tell, the Holy Bible needs several pages torn from its’ cover and burned- all pages that condemn homosexuality. He also believes the current leaders of the Church are wrong for their condemnation of homosexuality.

I’m not trying to cause any offence by using the above lables- I’m just trying to make a point about what the above groups stand for.

The Dehlinites and the Kellyites stand in solidarity with each other and they share a common belief that the leaders of the Church today are not true prophets and apostles.

I believe both the Kellyites and the Dehlinites are wrong. However, I don’t believe it is fair to “make a man an offender for a word” to use a phase from Isaiah. I look at the totality of the message.

From what I can glean from you, brother Rockman, it appears you stand in solidarity with the Kellyites and the Dehlinites in their core belief that the leaders of the Church today are not true prophets- they are frauds.

You seem to believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, but somewhere along the way, the Church strayed and it is now a fraud.

I don’t come here to your blog to belittle you. My sole purpose is to share with you and your flock something that has helped me in my life and that is following the living prophet(s). I gain strength and comfort in having living prophets to help guide me in a world where Kellyite and Dehlinite type messages could drag me into a strange path.

If my assessment of you is correct (the current leaders are frauds), please answer the following:

When did the Church go astray? Was it 1844 when Joseph was slain? Was it a few years later when Brigham lead the saints west? Was it 1890 when President Woodruff declared plural marriage over with? At what point did the Lord remove His stamp of approval? Was Spencer W. Kimball a true prophet, or was he a fraud? Do we need to rip from the cover of the Doctrine and Covenants all sections after 1844? Was John Taylor a fraud?

In the above tread you asked that I point out any place where Gordon B. Hinckley or Thomas S. Monson had done any real prophesying. I could do that, but at this juncture, I prefer to first get a clear picture of your message. I want to understand your flock. Help me brother Waterman; when did the church leaders change from men of God to frauds- what year? Can you do better and nail it down to an exact day or hour?

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Robin Hood,
I suppose you assumed from my comment that letters or bulletins had been issued to stake presidents to be on the lookout for Denver Snuffer. Not so. But stateside training meetings have been held by members of the Seventy where bishops, stake presidents, bishoprics, and high councilmen are given instruction on various topics. It's probable that such meetings have not yet been held where you serve in England, but I have bishops and former bishops and high council members who tell me that in these training meetings questions have arisen during the Q&A involving what to do with members who attend "unauthorized" meetings with those no longer in the Church. Denver Snuffer was named in two instances I am aware of.

I also read reports of others who have been in attendance at these trainings, so these tales are readily available elsewhere on the internet, not only through my sources. It was in just such a training meeting with Elder L. Whitney Clayton that Clayton was asked how to respond to those who seek for the ordination of women.

"They're apostates," was the answer Clayton reportedly gave, and shortly thereafter the stake president in Kate Kelly's FORMER stake in Virginia commenced disciplinary hearings on her in abstentia, even though she had already moved to Utah.

Did Clayton give direct orders to have Kate Kelly excommunicated? No, but the inference was all it took for Kelly's former SP to take the initiative himself. After all, are bishops to allow apostates to remain among us, or do we take action to cleanse the Church of them? Clayton defined those in the Ordain Women movement as clearly apostates. That stake president left that meeting resolved to do his duty.

It doesn't take direct orders for some local leaders to take action against their members that is unwarranted. All they need is the impression that they have the go-ahead from above. This has been happening a LOT here in Utah and California. I can give you names.

As I think I indicated in a private conversation to you, the Church hierarchy are being more circumspect these days in not giving direct counsel as did Packer and Jeppsen in their day, (and even Nelson more recently) because the blowback in the national media regarding these interferences has been considerable. But the hints they often provide "off the record" are enough for some overzealous local leaders to take the initiative, believing they have the blessing of the Brethren. (My own stake president informed me that it was a member of my ward who first brought a complaint about me, but I have reasons to believe that member of the ward is also a certain member of the stake high council.)

You can bet that Denver Snuffer is a concern of some local leaders, especially along the Wasatch Front, because of the stir resulting with his well-received series of talks. Excited members mention his name in their testimonies.

Someone in the Phoenix area got enough members to call the original venue and complain about Denver's scheduled appearance there with the result that the venue cancelled Denver rather than lose future business from church activities there (it was some kind of ranch). Another location had to be found in nearby Mesa. Who organized that phone tree and got the owner of the venue to cancel?

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Ashley Ingram,
I'm afraid you are dead wrong about Kate Kelly on several counts, not the least in your accusation that she seeks to belittle the leaders at every chance, that she believes they are not in tune with the Lord, and that it is her job and other "Kellyites" to instruct the leaders. I would suggest that before slandering the name of someone you do not know, you glean your information from a source other than the comment section of the Deseret News.

One need only look to the online Mission Statement at the Ordain Women site to learn these women's primary objective:

"We sincerely ask our leaders to take this matter to the Lord in prayer."

In other words, they have not been demanding anything of the leaders. They only wish the leaders would do their jobs. Have you bothered to ask yourself why won't these prophets, seers, and revelators take this important matter before God and seek a revelation?

After all, women were apparently in possession of the priesthood in Joseph Smith's day, so the question of what happened to it is a valid and important one. So why haven't these men taken the matter before the Lord? Why not seek an answer in the way they tell us is their great privilege and purview?

(Continued below)

Alan Rock Waterman said...

To Ashley Ingram (continued)

You have decided, absent any evidence, that I have taken the position that the current leaders of the Church are frauds, and the rest of your comment assumes I have made such a claim. I have not. You stated elsewhere with not a little pride that you usually do not read my pieces all the way through, but if you ever choose to do so, or even if you will listen to my several podcast interviews, you will learn that I am waiting for one of these purported prophets, seers, and revelators to live up to their claims and produce an actual revelation.

For all I know they still hold the KEYS of prophets, seers, and revelators. But I have no way of actually knowing, because they have yet to provide the fruits that should be in evidence, and by which we as members are commanded to prove them. When I was growing up in the church, I was taught repeatedly the admonition "by their fruits ye shall know them." I'm seeking the fruits necessary to confirm the claim.

As soon as one of these men presents a revelation they claim has come directly from God (as Joseph Smith frequently did)I will read it thoughtfully, then take it to the Lord in prayer to receive a witness of the Holy Ghost. Once that witness is received I will then join with the congregation at general conference and sustain that revelation as being the true word of God, so the revelation can be entered into the canon. This is the way the Lord has prescribed so that we do not be led astray by random claims.

Until they provide us with something to work from, what are we expected to do? As Mike Danelek pointed out in his blog, Don't you think outsiders notice this discrepancy? Don't you think even nonmembers are noticing there are no continuing revelations in a church that boasts of being guided by them?

(continued below)

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Ashley Ingram (continued),

You ask when do I think the church apostatized? If you'll read my book, you'll see I don't believe "the church" has apostatized. But if you'd like better insight into my beliefs, I'd recommend you read that book, and maybe a few posts on this blog. They're free, and they should provide you with the answers you're seeking.

Bu I would suggest you are asking the wrong questions when you ask me to pinpoint the very moment the Church went astray. You are asking when I think the leaders lost the ability to receive revelation. I would ask you this: at what moment was it when they were given those powers? Our scriptures show that the keys and power to be a prophet, seer, and revelator were given to only two men in the latter days.

So allow me to pose two questions for you:

We know that only God can anoint the prophet, seer, and revelator, with one exception. The Lord allowed Joseph Smith to anoint his successor, and he so anointed his brother Hyrum.

Both Joseph and Hyrum, the only men on the earth with the keys of prophet, seer, and revelator, died within moments of one another. So here are my two questions:

On what date was Brigham Young anointed prophet, seer, and revelator? And who performed that anointing?

Unless we can trace this authority to Brigham Young, we cannot claim it exists in our leaders today. That does not necessarily make these men frauds. I believe that at least two thirds of them are sincere, well meaning, and rightous men. But it does make them possibly misguided in their assumptions of holding special authority, and it could mean they are counterfeits.

Read D&C section 124 if you would like to know when and why God removed his blessings from this people and substituted cursings in their place. And then note the evidence of those cursings in the difficulties faced by our pioneer forbears.

By the way, there are no such things as Kellyites or Dehlinites. In fact I've never heard those terms used in conjunction with either Kate Kelly or John Dehlin until you introduced them to me here. Your use of those terms, together with the assumptions contained within your post above, indicate you have very little actual knowledge of who these people are, what they stand for, or what they seek.

My name, by the way, is Rock Waterman. I've never been addressed as "Brother Rockman" until just now. But I like it, so you may continue to address me that way. In fact, I insist that from here on out, everyone is to address me as "Brother Rockman" with no exceptions. I have already informed my wife of my new policy, though she has yet to take me seriously.

Perhaps I should contact the Kellyites and get them to force her to comply.

Nate said...

Sister ashgram

I don't know which Ashley is which but I present the same question as posted above. What would you do if the Holy Ghost told you powerfully and clearly that the 15 men are no apostles, seers, revelators and that the LDS church is part of the great and abominable church?

Gaybob Spongebath said...

Hey Rockman,
Now that your secret identity is exposed, I note that Ashley Ingram has also discovered you are the shepherd of a "flock," as she indiscretely revealed in her final paragraph.

I guess the cats' out of the bag, so we may as well admit to the world that our beloved Brother Rockman controls a huge flock of loyal disciples who hang on his every word and are willing at any moment to do his bidding (including but not limited to performing blood atonement rituals on our mutual enemies). We meet bi-monthly with the Kellyites Dehlinites, and Snufferites in the secret underground lair we all share deep in the Rockies (we rent the space next door to the genealogical storage vaults).

There in our secure underground hideout, we mumble and grumble endlessly against the massive power of the Monsonites.

Monsonites. Ptew! Bloody poseurs!

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Anyone who questions the propensity for some local leader today to expel faithful members from the church without any cause whatsoever, and with the silent acquiescence of the highest ranking members of the Church hierarchy, need only take a look at the disposition of Will Carter's appeal from his excommunication:

http://in200wordsorless.blogspot.com/2014/06/exhaling.html

Nate said...

Gay bob

I love it man you should comment more often. I am happy to count myself a sheep in the Rockman flock.

Calleen Bataiff said...

Gaybob & Nate

I hope no one takes you guys seriously. I about fell off my chair when I first read your posts, until I went back far enough to understand what was going on.

Phewwww!!!! I was worried there for a minute.

Calleen Bataiff said...

I just finished reading DS latest post on his blog and found it disturbing at first. This poor ppl are trying their best to receive the baptism of fire yet without success. As I ponder this situation, it occurred to me that a person should do nothing until he is directed by God to do it. God has His own timing for everything and we can't force it. Is does get frustrating at times. My husband is seeking also for that baptism yet it seems in vain. But I know that a person heart needs to be right before God before anything can happen, and because we don't know how to get our hearts into that state, then we can get discouraged.

Here's a clue for anyone out there who is frustrated in their spiritual quest:
Only God can make ones heart right and patience is the key. Oft times it comes to us while we aren't really looking. Just keep studying the scriptures and feeling out for the Holy Ghosts promptings and it will come to you when you least expect it. If you need to be baptized, don't do it until God sanctions it. Your obedience is only to Him and not what you think He wants at the suggestion of another person, even if it's Denver Snuffer.

Don't get me wrong. The spirit is speaking volumes while I'm reading his stuff, however, it's God that a person needs to look to, not Denver.

Calleen Bataiff said...

Or Rockman either!

Nate said...

Calleen

Spot on! God brings us to the point of meekness and faith where we cry out in our Spirit for the power of the atonement. The crazy thing about being obedient to God though is that you have to be baptized by fire to even receive a commandment from Him! So it is a tricky situation. Even before the baptism of fire people can feel the influence of the Spirit and feel the swelling and expanding motions to know if something is a "good seed" (alma 32). Unfortunately at times people feel this about Denver of the church (any church really) and take if to mean that EVERYTHING related to it must be true. How amazing when one does receive the baptism of fire and how it changes everything from that point forward. Like you said it is upon Gods timing though.

Saddend said...



Honestly, we tend to make this far too complicated. Go read (or watch) the gospel of Luke a few times, compare it to what you've been taught at church so you can recognize how much you have been pacified upon the foolish precepts of (business) men. Until you recognize just how far away from Christ's teachings you've been led astray.

Stop lying to yourself, Look at your life and recognize your awful condition. Read you BoM that your heart may be softened to repentance.

Humble yourself before God, not expecting anything wonderful in return, just do it because you recognize how badly you have failed him.

Continue this process everyday, every chance you get, pray continually. Read the scripture (BoM and NT) until it means more to you then food. Feast your starving soul upon the truth.

He can not put new wine into an old vessel, you have to repent of your delusions first. I can assure you, we are all in GREAT need of repentance.

It's not hard to do, it's just very uncomfortable and inconvenient, you may not be willing to give up most of your worldly comforts to receive the kingdom of God.

The members have all bought into this idea that we can circumvent the uncomfortable aspects of the gospel by paying a small tax, and preforming hollow rituals in their place.


I am sorry to speak unpleasant things to you, but Unless you do these things, ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.






Nate said...

Below is an excerpt from Denver Snuffer's blog

-"I believe He will not give an original revelation to reveal what He has already revealed to us in scripture. Instead He requires us to first study His words, then when scripture becomes unable to answer the inquiry, He shows us by revelation how to see what is there before us. Some of the greatest things I have beheld by revelation I have then found to be already described in scripture. I just did not have the eyes yet to see it." -

I prophesy that in the coming years Denver Snuffer will learn from God that this very line of thought hindered him from receiving greater truth from God...

We CAN and MUST receive a revelation that ANY revelation is from God. If you assume that something is true simply because it is in a book that has been labeled as "scripture" then you set yourself up to be mislead.
Just because something had "already been revealed" in scripture does not mean that if has already been revealed to you individually.

Robin Hood said...

Rock, you said "churchwide". Now you say it was just in the US. Which is it?
What you're really saying, if I understand you correctly, is that in the regular Q&A sessions that GA's have with local leaders (and these things go on all the time, all over the world) Denver Snuffer has been mentioned twice that you know of, and you don't know whether that was by the GA or the local leader.
Please Rock, for the sake of your own credibility, get the story straight and present the facts rather than an agenda.
I'm really sorry to address you in this way Rock, but I feel I have to in the circumstances.

If a GA said that Snuffer and his followers are apostates, he was right.

Calleen Bataiff said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Calleen Bataiff said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

As I understand it, Denver is telling people who keep asking about his talks to relisten to them because he is not going to expoind on them. He is not telling people to go to those talks for all answers instead of the scriptures. He does constantly tell people to read the scriptures and get their own answers. Another thing about his messages. As i have heard it, when you have a vision or revelation it does not necessarily come across as reading a book with everything laid out for you. It is sometimes pure intelligence, which the person then has to organize into words and linear story. So I dont know if what he says is scripture or not, but it probably is influenced a little bit by his interpretation of the intelligence he received. I have no first hand knowledge of how he obtained his message, hust speculating. -Rebecca C

Anonymous said...

And to clarify, i believe what he has said so far as i have tried to get answers on it. Still working through that process and his talks. -Rebecca C

Anonymous said...

What I had to do was literally separate the church from the gospel in my mind. I have been doing this for a few years now and it is a very uncomfortable process but necessary for growth. - Rebecca C

Irven Hill said...

When I was in Escanaba Michigan as a missionary in 2000, there was an RLDS(at the time)church. The Elder at the time was Elder Donna ROCKMAN. She must have taken her marching orders from the Kellyites, much like you must brother "ROCKMAN".

Calleen Bataiff said...

Nate

I agree totally with your response to my comment. I know that Denver has brought us a lot of truth as he was taught by the Spirit of God, however, I'm unsure of who he is as far as a dispensation head, unless its just one of these minor dispensations. I'm kind of thinking he may just be an Elias, a precursor to this David guy that is supposed to come. I'm not sure on this, it's just an idea at this point. At any rate I really enjoy and appreciate your comments and responses to my wild ideas.118

BK said...

Ashley,

I'm sorry that you don't see how abusive the Priesthood ban on women is and how the leaders of the Church do not and have never respected women's divine rights, power, wisdom and full equality in all things and leadership.

Not all women realize and respect their God-given divine rights, privileges and power, because they have been told by men for 6000 years (who claim to be talking for God) that women are 'less then' or 'not entitled to' or 'not in need of' equal power or position, when nothing could be further from the truth.

It seems you are listening to and believing what 'men' say (who profess to be prophets) instead of believing what Jesus Christ said.

Christ repeatedly warned us against falling for false prophets, (yet few seem to think they could be those in the Church) and so He commanded us to 'prove all things' before believing anything or anyone, especially men who claim to be prophets and their teachings.

The church leaders were wrong about the Priesthood ban against blacks and they are wrong about it for women also, and I believe one day they will repent of it too, as soon as enough women realize their divine rights and call for them.

For Christ's teachings, especially His 'Golden Rule' proves that things like polygamy, the church's use of tithing funds, the idea of no female Prophets/Apostles/Bishops/St. Pres. etc in the Church, and the Priesthood ban for women, etc, are all wrong and could never be of God.

For men/church leaders would not want done to them what they do to women. Nor would men put up with it, like women often sadly do. It seems most men have more self-respect then most women do. For many, if not most, women have gone along with male abuse/control in church, home and society for 6000 years.

When in reality, Heavenly Father's greatest command is for men to respect, protect and love their wives and women, and treat them equality, as they would like to be treated and given the rights and privileges and power that men would like or claim.

God would never deny his great and eternal power to his daughters, he in fact gives it to them often more abundantly then He gives it to men, for women generally have the greatest love and make the greatest sacrifices in life, giving birth and devoting their life to raising their children, often alone.

Those with the most love automatically have the most power, even so called 'Priesthood Power', for it comes directly from God not from man, by virtue of one's righteousness, whether they are male or female.

I believe there have been far more female 'Prophets' on earth, with God's full power in all things, in the last 6000 years then male ones, it has just been rare for men of any church or age to acknowledge them.

Calleen Bataiff said...

6BK

I am inclined to agree with you on this woman and the priesthood thing. Where I believe most have gone wrong is in the definition of priesthood power. DS describes the priesthood as being an association with Heavenly beings and the power and authority comes from Gods instructing us directly to act. If this is the true definition of priesthood, then you are right on the money, as I believe you are. However, Corporate LDS Church has corrupted the definition, and because they have done this their definition is not of God and holds no value, so basically, they are wrong and are teaching false doctrine. Which means they are not respected of God on this point. So, they have adopted Satan's definition which is the worlds definition, so there is no surprise there, 6000 yr.s worth of no surprise.

However, if DS's definition is correct, then anyone can hold the priesthood, including women and children as long as they have an association with heavenly beings and can receive instruction from God himself through the power of the Holy Ghost. I used to envy Enoch and Mose. I thought I had to be a man to hold an audience with God, but I've come to know that isn't the case and I need not envy them, but look to God for what He wants of me, and I receive instruction from time to time.

FYI, their corrupted definition of priesthood isn't the only Godly definition they've corrupted. I think they've pretty much corrupted every definition God has put out there and are teach their definitions as if it were Gods. My heart goes out to all those who are innocently being lead astray, however, I know God is in charge of all things, and He will not let it go on forever.

Nate said...

BK

Amen!

Nate said...

Calleen

Yes I have thought of this often and I was saddened by Denver when he stated women will not get the priesthood until the millennium. Not true.

The priesthood is literally the power of God. It is glory, intelligence, light, love, spirit etc.

The use and control of this substance is based on faith. Priesthood comes when one submits to God and can then be used for a vessel of Gods power. Offices, titles, and the respect of men have nothing to do with Gods ability to work through a human being.
I know by the Spirit that women have exercised this power since time began. God will prove it with undeniable power in the coming days. No one left will be able to refute the priesthood of women. We will also be shown of the sacrifices and blessed acts of women in past ages that have been covered up by evil men since Lilith. There is a reason that evil men conspired to ruin mary magdalenes reputation. Magdala = the high tower or fortress.

For a man to gain the fulness of the priesthood he must have the full permission and ratification of his wife. The man is not without the woman in The Lord.

BK said...

Very good Calleen, I agree with you.

Thank you Nate.

BK said...

Nate,

Thanks, great post. I agree.

Though I wouldn't call it 'permission' from a wife, but a man would definitely need to be unconditionally faithful and true to his wife his whole life with exclusive true love for her, before he could receive an ounce of Priesthood from God.

But same for the wife too.

For Unconditional Exclusive Eternal True love for one's spouse is the major prerequisite for Priesthood Power and righteousness.

Nate said...

BK

Thanks. Though I believe you will disagree, I believe that a man and woman can become one in spirit, and that their glory (given from God) can be shared. Each spirit has a portion if light (glory) or grace or virtue that they have obtained by faith over the time of their existence. This light is unique to our character and person, and I believe it can actually be transferred to others and a husband and wife can be perfectly melded in spirit. In fact I think this is the only way two people can know and understand one another perfectly. This also essentially doubles each individuals glory and light. This to me is why I said "permission". A husband cannot become one with a wife spiritually without her consent.
I would go through all of the scriptural evidence but I am too lazy : ) plus scriptural evidence is just that, evidence... And not conclusive.

Ashley Ingram said...

“…there are no such things as Kellyites or Dehlinites.” -Brother Rockman 10 October 2014


What rock have you been hiding under man? I wrote in my post that it was not my intent to label their followers, but since you and your flock want to run with it, I’m fine with using those terms to describe the “causes” these followers stand for.

They oppose and mock the church leaders and they seek to give council to their priesthood leaders rather than accept council.

Once upon a time their followers would start their blog posts with things like, “I’m an active, temple recommend holding member…” and then they would insert the word “but” and they would begin their childish rants.

Now these followers, for the most part, are no longer members pretending to be in good standing. They are now, in large measure, just your run-of-the-mill anti Mormons. And the anti prophet, anti church leadership rants rage on and on.

“I am waiting for one of these purported prophets, seers, and revelators to live up to their claims and produce an actual revelation.”
-Brother Rockman 10 October 2014


“And it came to pass that he said unto me: Show me a sign…”
-Jacob 7:13


“9 But, behold, faith cometh not by signs, but signs follow those that believe.
-D & C 63:9


I believe God is at the head of our church and that his mouthpiece today is President Monson. I take great comfort in following his council.

My aunt is a Methodist. She told me in 1986 that she was not going back to her church until they got a different preacher. It is 2014 and she is still on the sidelines.

I met a nice couple in Georgia last month. They claimed to be cafeteria Catholics. They explained they pick and choose which bishops and doctrines to follow…

It is nice to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We have a living prophet and we are blessed for following his council.

It is my hope that you, Brother Rockman, will listen to the council of your priesthood leader(s) and stop trying to tear-down the leadership of the church.

You can steer your flock in a righteous direction, or your can go the way of the flavor of the month distractors. Either the church leaders are right or the Kellyites and Dehlinites are right. They are on diverging paths. You and your flock could become an anti-Kellyite/Dehlinite Rockmen. Please shave your beard and get a missionary style haircut; that will set the tone for your new path.

Nate said...

Ashgram,

I only do this because you will be grateful for it. Council= group of people. Counsel = the word you should have used in your comment.
Just one of those things that people often mess up with. I make errors and typos all the time and seriously i would like it if someone pointed out something like that... : )

I would still love for you to answer my question. If someone truly believes with all of their heart that they are following the Holy Ghost shouldn't they do it?

It is quite hypocritical if you tell someone to trust the Spirit when it tells you the Book of Mormon is true, but not to trust the Spirit when it tells you something that contradicts the teachings of the LDS church... What would you follow if you had to choose? The brethren of the church or the Holy Ghost?

Irven Hill said...

Ashley

Specifically, what counsil(sic)is it that gives you great comfort? What is his most recent counsel given?

"You can rest assured that this church doesn't put its investments and its confidence in anything that isn't stable, honorable and (having) a record of performance and integrity".-Thomas Monson, May 14 2010

Zion's bank had many problems in 2008, more than some other banks. They were less than honorable and definitely lacked integrity. There is no banking institution with integrity, as they only have form, but all lack substance. There has been far wiser counsel on banking institutions from men like Thomas Jefferson and recently Ron Paul.

Only a fool would take comfort in Monsons counsel about Zions bank.

Anonymous said...

Ashley, I promise I have been where you are now. Its just simple obedience, right? I even wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper once to talk about how Catholics act like they have an ala carte religion. Here's the thing. The more I learn, the more I realize that I know nothing. Now, it is a bit arrogant to assume that people with different opinions than you are not listening to the spirit because the outcome is different than your outcome. No person can see the whole plan. So how can you be so sure that these people are so wrong. Another thing, why does it even bother you? How does it affect you at all? Why not live and let live? Your comments cant be a missionary effort to correct us, because theu dont have much in the way of compassion in them. More like anger and defense. So I am just wondering what this is all about... And Sampson had long hair which gave him strength. Jesus had long hair, a beard, and he wore dresses, can you imagine that? Clothes do not make the person, but if they do, I would choose to emulate the Lord, rather than a corporate business suit.
Rebecca C

BK said...

Ashley,

I believe there is a great difference between looking for a 'sign' (miracle) from God before we believe in Christ VS. looking for concrete fruits, proof or true revelation from Prophets.

One is wrong to do and the other is right to do.

Even if you choose to believe 'watching for revelation' is like watching for a sign, it was Joseph Smith who authored Jacob 7:13 & D&C 63:9, whereas Christ trumps Joseph and commanded us to look for & at a so called prophet's fruit/revelation/actions before believing that they are true prophets.

Christ said prophets have to 'prove to us' they are true prophets by their actions, revelation, etc, before we should believe them.

So I believe it's right and wise that Rock would look for & want to see true revelation, among many other proofs, coming from someone professing to be a true prophet.

Anyone who just assumes warm fuzzies are confirmation from God or just takes someone's word for it that they are a prophet, is just asking to be led astray.

We must follow Christ and prove persons, by watching their fruits & actions to know for sure.

And I myself, after watching what they do & say, don't believe Pres. Monson or any LDS Church leader, past or present, has proven they are true disciples of Christ, let alone true prophets, they prove just the opposite, anti Christ.

BK said...

Nate,

Thanks for explaining that. It's an interesting idea. I think you could be right or very close. I do think spouses can have a powerful effect on each other, especially in the next life.

Otherwise why would Christ's apostles talk about how a righteous spouse can save an unrighteous spouse.

I think alot of people will need their righteous spouse's help in the next life to finally gain Exaltation.

And yes, I agree that each spouse will have to eventually give their 'permission' in order to become 'one' with each other, for I believe common consent is an eternal law.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Robin Hood,
Good call. I should not have said "churchwide" when I really meant stateside. I am sometimes guilty of forgetting the Church exists outside the Mormon Corridor. A lot of us here still behave badly that way.

There have been several people who were present at some of these training meetings who reported on them (particularly L. Whitney Clayton's part) and the leading way their suggestions provided enough for overzealous local leaders to take action against members of their flocks, and I assumed they were well enough known. But I forget that not everyone frequents the Mormon Facebook groups as I do. I believe the discussions on those groups to be credible.

But mea culpa for my use of "churchwide" when in reality so far I am aware only of a handful of these training sessions taking place. I assumed they were part of a churchwide program. They may very well be, but I don't know that, and you were right to call me on that.

Robin Hood said...

OK Rock, no harm done. Thanks for the clarification. All is well.
You're still one of my favourite Americans!

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Ashley Ingram,
I'm not the one to address your concerns over what you call the Kellyites and the Dehlinites, since I can only speak for myself, but I really don't see them as mocking and opposing the leaders of the Church as you accuse them of doing.

My own opinion is that the leaders are irrelevant to the church. There is very little need to mock and oppose them, as they really don't matter to those who belong to the church of Jesus Christ. The church of Christ I belong to has only one person at its head, and that is Jesus Christ. That is what I was taught since I was a child, and the scriptures support that. I can find no scriptures to support your contention that to be a member of this church requires loyalty to the leaders.

Everything you are decrying seems to imply that you feel we must defer to the leaders first. But why? Do you believe it's their church or do you believe it's Christ's church? You have even created a label for those who prefer to put Christ before the leaders. You call them "Anti-Mormons." I'm afraid you know very little about most of those you have so labeled.

As Rebbecca C. wrote above, most of us on this forum understand you completely, because we were once just as certain as you are now that being "Mormon" required absolute loyalty to those in the Church hierarchy. In most of our cases, we have become MORE religious, not less since we realize Christ is our leader. You see us as having weak testimonies, but we see ourselves as having increased in knowledge and understanding once we let go of the vain traditions and focused our testimonies on the true head of the church.

Most of us don't bother "opposing" the current leaders of the Church so much as see them as irrelevant. How else would you classify men who spend most of their efforts, as they did this past conference weekend, desperately trying to convince us that we need them? Why not direct us to Christ instead of insisting we give our allegiance to them?

Why should we follow them? On what evidence? That we cannot follow the teachings of Christ unless they point us to them? Jesus said "come follow ME." As Irven asked you above, what specific counsel have the Brethren provided us that is more pertinent than that which we can receive from the Lord? I didn't hear anything new revealed at conference, did you? So what counsel is it that you insist I follow? Did you hear something I missed?

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Ashley Ingram,
I also feel to ask if you understand the difference between seeking for signs and looking for fruits. You seem unable to differentiate between the two. But then neither could I back before I took Joseph Smith's counsel when he warned that those depending upon the prophet were becoming darkened in their minds. My faith in the Brethren was keeping me in confusion, just as many here will attest that they were also in confusion until they came to have an eye single to the glory of God, and not to fallible men.

By the way, you could do us all a favor and stop referring to my "flock." I don't have a flock. I have readers. They read my stuff, then they go on about their lives. They don't follow me anywhere, and they certainly don't look to me to lead them. Most of them came to the conclusion on their own that something was askew in the Church long before they discovered my blog. I didn't awaken them. They were already awake when they got here.

By the way, you will awaken yourself one day soon if you seek the Lord's will. Everyone you now label as Anti-Mormon was once extremely dedicated to the Church, until they came to realize their devotion was misplaced. We belong only to Christ and His gospel, and not to the earthly organization.

On the question of "Cafeteria Mormons," I believe a discriminating diet is a good idea. When I'm at a buffet, I can choose to put all kinds of stuff in my body, or I can select just those things that I know will be beneficial and nutritious. There is all sorts of cultural baggage that has glommed onto this Church that has not come from the Lord. I think it's a good idea to choose the revealed word of God over rumors and cultural assumptions, don't you? If we don't learn to pick and choose only that which is valid in this religion, we're likely to follow every wind of doctrine.

As for your counsel that I should shave my beard and get a missionary haircut, believe you me, no one is more anxious to cut this hair than I am, because this past summer was quite uncomfortable, and I don't aim to go through that again. However, I grew my hair long as an act of service, not vanity. I grew my hair this long so that I could donate it to be woven into a wig for a nice older lady who for now has only a scarf with which to cover her baldness. The requirement for donations of hair for this purpose is that it be a minimum 15 inches long at the pony tail, and I still have 3 inches to go before I can finally cut it off and send it in to the weavers.

When I do cut my hair, though, I'm afraid I may disappoint you. My hair will be shorter, but I doubt I will pass for a missionary. I hope you won't think less of me if my hair touches my ears.

As for my beard, I will cop to vanity on that one. I don't really have much of a chin. The beard fools people into thinking I actually have a chin. So I'll keep the beard so I can keep fooling people.

I must say, though, Ashley, I'm a little disappointed in you for bringing up outward appearances as though they are the things that matter. What if I had grown my hair long for no particular reason. Would that have made me unworthy before God? According to Hugh Nibley, your criticism of my grooming seems to put you in the class of what Jesus considered the worst sinners:

"The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism... the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances."

Alan Rock Waterman said...

BK,
I hadn't seen your response before I wrote my own reply to Ashley, but I couldn't have explained it better myself. Seeking for signs is something we are warned against doing. But "seeking for signs" is a very different thing from seeking for evidence or "fruits" of a claim so that we can tell a true prophet from a false one.

One claiming to be a prophet, seer, and revelator ought to produce at least ONE evidence that would establish the claim as legitimate.

In the Church today, we have men who are given the title of prophet, seer, and revelator, yet produce no fruits or gifts to warrant the title. That doesn't prevent many members from pointing to the title alone as a SIGN that the man is indeed what he claims to be.

"A wicked and adulterous [diluted] generation seeketh after signs."

Log said...

Rock,

1 And he went out from thence, and came into his own country; and his disciples follow him.

2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?

3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.

6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.


The correct response to your position would be to cite this and be done. After all, the people of Nazareth would be justified in saying Jesus was no prophet since he did no mighty works there except some healings, possibly in private.

Abraham worked none of the fruits or gifts to warrant external recognition according to the scriptures, yet he is the father of all the faithful.

Indeed, a man can be a prophet, seer, and revelator, yet no man know him; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And as much as we might like all professing prophets to work public miracles to establish their bona fides, that demand is, in fact, what is meant by sign-seeking.

As Joseph said: The greatest, the best, and the most useful gifts would be known nothing about by an observer. It is the true that man might prophesy, which is a great gift, and one that Paul told the people--the Church--to seek after and to covet, rather than to speak in tongues; but what does the world know about prophesying? Paul says that it "serveth only to those that believe." But does not the Scriptures say that they spake in tongues and prophesied? Yes; but who is it that writes these Scriptures? Not the men of the world or mere casual observers, but the Apostles--men who knew one gift from another, and of course were capable of writing about it; if we had the testimony of the Scribes and Pharisees concerning the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, they would have told us that it was no gift, but that the people were "drunken with new wine," and we shall finally have to come to the same conclusion that Paul did--"No man knows the things of God but by the Spirit of God;" for with the great revelations of Paul when he was caught up into the third heaven and saw things that were not lawful to utter, no man was apprised of it until he mentioned it himself fourteen years after; and when John had the curtains of heaven withdrawn, and by vision looked through the dark vista of future ages, and contemplated events that should transpire throughout every subsequent period of time, until the final winding up scene--while he gazed upon the glories of the eternal world, saw an innumerable company of angels and heard the voice of God--it was in the Spirit, on the Lord's day, unnoticed and unobserved by the world.

Log said...

Another instance in which words wouldn't suffice.

13 But it came to pass in the ninetieth year of the reign of the judges, there were great signs given unto the people, and wonders; and the words of the prophets began to be fulfilled.

14 And angels did appear unto men, wise men, and did declare unto them glad tidings of great joy; thus in this year the scriptures began to be fulfilled.

15 Nevertheless, the people began to harden their hearts, all save it were the most believing part of them, both of the Nephites and also of the Lamanites, and began to depend upon their own strength and upon their own wisdom, saying:

16 Some things they may have guessed right, among so many; but behold, we know that all these great and marvelous works cannot come to pass, of which has been spoken.

17 And they began to reason and to contend among themselves, saying:

18 That it is not reasonable that such a being as a Christ shall come; if so, and he be the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, as it has been spoken, why will he not show himself unto us as well as unto them who shall be at Jerusalem?

19 Yea, why will he not show himself in this land as well as in the land of Jerusalem?

20 But behold, we know that this is a wicked tradition, which has been handed down unto us by our fathers, to cause us that we should believe in some great and marvelous thing which should come to pass, but not among us, but in a land which is far distant, a land which we know not; therefore they can keep us in ignorance, for we cannot witness with our own eyes that they are true.

21 And they will, by the cunning and the mysterious arts of the evil one, work some great mystery which we cannot understand, which will keep us down to be servants to their words, and also servants unto them, for we depend upon them to teach us the word; and thus will they keep us in ignorance if we will yield ourselves unto them, all the days of our lives.

22 And many more things did the people imagine up in their hearts, which were foolish and vain; and they were much disturbed, for Satan did stir them up to do iniquity continually; yea, he did go about spreading rumors and contentions upon all the face of the land, that he might harden the hearts of the people against that which was good and against that which should come.

23 And notwithstanding the signs and the wonders which were wrought among the people of the Lord, and the many miracles which they did, Satan did get great hold upon the hearts of the people upon all the face of the land.

24 And thus ended the ninetieth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi.

Log said...

This principle is true even in matters spiritual: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Ashley Ingram said...

Brother Rockman,

I will pray for Thomas S. Monson and the other leaders of the church rather than pray that they produce an outward “sign” or “fruit”. I don’t play with words or argue semantics.

For example, President Obama “evolved” in his belief system to the point where he now believes same-sex marriage is a good thing.

Our church leaders, with 4,000 years of scripture to back them, are advising us today that same-sex marriage is not of God. My children are taught in school that same-sex marriage is wonderful and that to speak against it will lead to swift punishment.

I’m thankful for living prophets to help me and my family better understand the will of God on this and other current matters. Follow the prophet and run from John Dehlin- makes sense to me.

You know the teachings of John Dehlin are sinful, but you seem to stand in solidarity with him. Why? Because he gives you shout-outs on his facebook and he, along with you and other distractors get lumped into a great anti Mormon PR article in the NYT. You guys are sewed at the hips and for 15 minutes of fame you sell your inheritance.

As for labeling, I did not label them. They, with great pride, labeled themselves. The only ones in their group who refuse the label are the ones who are trying in vain to walk the fence and have it both ways. Those who hide from the label prefer blogging anonymously and they flip-out when their true identity is exposed. A modern-day prophet recently gave counsel to a council regarding using our true identity when on-line. (Elder David A. Bednar of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles delivered on August 19, 2014, during Campus Education Week at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.)

Brother Rockman, at least you do make me laugh when I read your blogs- thank you for that.

“I don't have a flock.” ARW 13 Oct 2014. That is funny.

“Birds of a feather flock together.” –Ashley Ingram 13 Oct 2014

President Harold B. Lee observed, “The hit bird
flutters!”

Your flock is headed down one path and the Lord’s prophets are leading their flock down another path.

I believe the Lord established His kingdom on earth and he called Joseph Smith to do his work. I believe that kingdom exists today and it is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

If I am wrong and you are right, where is the kingdom today? Is it in the studios of John Dehlin. Did the kingdom follow Kate Kelly when she fled to Africa to hone her lawyering skills? Perhaps the kingdom stayed stateside with Hannah Wheelwright or went to Canada with Amy Isaksen Cartwright aka Amy Lynne Cartwright. Is it in a Denver conference center echoing reverb?

Or is it everywhere and nowhere- a grand spirit essence that the unenlightened are incapable of comprehending. Is it in our hearts and there is no need for a church?

Are ordinances no longer needed and if not, why not and if so, who has the authority to do them?

Does anyone have the authority? Are we waiting for a restoration of that authority? Is Denver, the guy who has been excommunicated for apostasy, the one to restore it?

My hope is you, your whatever you want to call them, and the above mentioned people along with their respective followers change course. I wish no tithing funds were needed to counter attacks and sacred funds were instead freed-up for food and clothing to help care for the less fortunate.

If you choose to follow the prophets and recommit to what you committed to when you were baptized, you need to make a statement, a bold outward sign for your non-flock to behold. Perhaps you could die your hair or bleach it if cutting it is not an option.

Now listen ye non-flock of Rock, please sit this one out if you have enough restraint.




Nate said...

Rock

The proper thing for you to have done would be to do EXACTLY as LOG would have done. Nothing more nothing less.

Actually never mind. I thought your response was wonderful.

“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” ― Martin Luther King Jr.

Log said...

Nate,

Wherein have I done you evil that you disparage me so? If I can repair the offense, then please tell me what I must do.

Nate said...

LOG

Can you see the irony in quoting a scripture to Rock and then telling him that he should have cited a scripture and that's it?

Why didn't you just cite a scripture to Rock and then be done if that is how you believe things should be done? You have no need of forgiveness from me. I don't know you from anybody, I just have seen you comment from time to time and every time you are correcting somebody and telling then how to behave as if you know how they should behave.

Did Rock sin in his response to Ashley? If not then why did you tell him that he "should have" responded differently?

Log said...

Nate,

You have misunderstood my post(s) to Rock.

If I have done you no evil, then please stop disparaging me. It serves no good purpose - leading neither to repentance nor Christ - and makes me wish to avoid interacting with you.

Nate said...

My friend if you think I am disparaging you then you are disparaging Rock.

Why don't you answer my question? Did Rock sin in his response to Ashley or not?

I am going to assume you didn't see the irony in your comment, or now you do and you just don't want to acknowledge it.

Log said...

Nate,

I address my comments about Rock to Rock. That is why I don't answer your question.

You are indeed disparaging me, and I have asked you to stop. I ask again: please stop disparaging me.

Nate said...

Ok I just was pointing out the irony and hypocrisy of your statement. If the truth of that irony and hypocrisy is what you call "disparaging" then you were the own cause of the "disparagement". I just simply point out what countless readers (who are no doubt better than me) refuse to point out, but I don't care if everything thinks I am a hypocrite. I am! I am a sinner and I know it.
I love people like Rock because I know he has his own relationship with God and I NEVER have to question is motives or intentions. He is always seeking to be Christlike and to follow the Spirit.
Heck I even think Ashley Ingram is trying to follow the spirit. I get the feeling like you think you are the only one around here that has been born again and has the spirit, and therefore that gives you superior authority to correct people, but if you are corrected then it becomes "disparaging". So funny. Alright though I am done if you are.

Log said...

If I continue to address posts to Rock, Nate, are you going to persist in misunderstanding them and taking it upon yourself to censure me?

If so, then we're not "done," and the only way I can resolve this situation peaceably would be to leave until you are banned. If not, then we're "done." It is entirely up to you which way you choose.

Jesef said...

Is it not pointless and counterproductive (and un-edifying), in an anonymous/pseudonymous blog, to be correcting, accusing, or contending with one another? Can we not just default to kindness and courtesy in a setting like this? All we are doing here is exchanging ideas. We cannot fully interact here in a personal way, so all the gospel laws cannot be implemented. "Never accuse. Never Contend. Never Coerce. Never Aspire." - words to live by from Brother Joseph distilled by Brother Nibley is good counsel. We probably shouldn't be reproving (especially anonymously/pseudonymously) unless moved upon by the Holy Ghost, and then we should be careful because we are not just and holy. Just my opinion. I would love to see the discussion stay friendly and uplifting, otherwise it is not of God.

Jesef said...

Perhaps person-to-person comments could be addressed via personal e-mail, unless they are relevant to the public discussion. Then public commentary on what maybe should be private comments can be avoided. To post publicly is to invite public discussion. Just an idea.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 230   Newer› Newest»