Regular readers of this blog will be thrilled to learn that this post will be mercifully short, because I'm going to spend it mostly explaining why there will be no post this month. The reason is that frankly, at the moment I can't see well enough to write anything. In fact, you wanna hear something really tragic? I haven't even been able to watch TV for the past three days, my eyes are so bad. My daughter Amy, who is now grown with a family of her own, fondly remembers a lesson I often taught the children when they were young and clamoring for my attention: "Television is more important than family. Leave me alone."
So you can imagine how much I miss TV. I can't read, and I can't watch TV. My eyes can't focus on anything. Everything I try to look at swims before my eyes, which is why even now I am not writing this myself. I am dictating these words to Amy, who has kindly consented to type them out for me in spite of her own tragic upbringing.
So here is what happened: For some weeks I have not felt very well at all, and then a few days ago I got really sick. I mean incredibly sick. Sicker than I think I have ever been if you don't count those many miserable bouts of pneumonia related to my chronic asthma. This was different, and left me with some weird severe equilibrium imbalance that has me knocking sideways into walls and opening the bathroom door into my own face. It would be quite comical had I seen this happening to somebody else. My stumbling about has managed to provide Amy with a laugh or two, though she quickly changes her expression to a worried look of concern when she sees her mother watching. (Note from Amy: not true. I was very worried and did not see anything funny about it at all.)
Anyway, I was so helpless that I was unable to keep balanced enough in the kitchen to fix Connie's meals, so I called Amy and asked her to come over for a couple of days and look after us. You know how in the movies there's that effect where we see the room swimming from another person's point of view? I thought that was just in the movies, since I had never gone through anything like that myself. It turned out in this case to be exactly like that, and when I tried to walk from my bed to the bathroom it was like trying to make my way through that flying saucer shaped centrifugal force carnival ride while it's going full tilt.
Yesterday there was a small window of time in which I felt somewhat better so I sat at my desk intending to catch up with email. I read and responded to one email, then it all started swimming again and my eyes went out of focus. That is why I have Amy as my hands and eyes at the computer screen right now. I have been all but helpless for three days now, and both womenfolk have ganged up and persuaded me to go into the doctor and find out why I seem to be turning into Annette Funicello. So I will do that tomorrow.
In the meantime, August is rapidly dwindling and I have not yet posted the piece I intended to this month, and I wanted to write about it while the topic is still timely. With this imbalance thing, I don't know how soon I will get to it, and I don't know how much longer Amy will be in the mood to kowtow to my incessant demands, so we are taking this opportunity to refer you to some blogger friends who, it so happens, have already covered what I had intended to, so the best writing on the topic has already been done. I am not needed now, except to help spread the word. Many of my readers have written wondering what can be done to help move us to a more Zion society, and I think this is a worthy start, particularly for those of you currently residing on the Wasatch Front who might have some unneeded material goods to assist with. Here are those links:
Bare Record of Truth: Circle the Wagons
LDS Perfect Day: Participate in a Modern Day Circling of the Wagons
The Voice of One Passing Through
In the event anyone is interested in my dizzy little adventure, when my eyes are able to focus again, if I get any answers from my doctor I will mention the outcome in the comment section below, or have Amy write something there.
Anyway, weird, huh? Apparently the room does swirl around and around just like in the movies, and even when I'm lying on the bed with my eyes closed it often feels like I am spinning around on the edge of a whirlpool. I'll bet later I will wish I enjoyed that sensation more instead of letting it scare the hell out of me.
Oh, by the way, I usually keep up with comments daily, but have not been able to get to any of the comments on my other posts here for about a week. So if someone has asked me a question directly and not received a response, this is why. Ditto if you have sent me an email and not heard back.
Well, we're going to wrap this up. Amy is already starting to complain about how she would rather be watching TV than spending time with her father. Kids today. I don't know where she gets it.
Update Friday August 23, 2013:
Okay, I'm Back
I just re-read the above and my goodness, I ramble on as much when I'm dictating as when I'm writing it myself. Poor Amy. Poor readers.
I have read your kind comments below and I'm grateful for your many prayers and good wishes, which surely are the reason that by the time Amy had gotten me to my doctor Wednesday afternoon, I was much improved. I'm still a bit unsteady on my feet, but my vision is fine now and I'm on the mend. Thank you all sincerely. Frankly, I wouldn't belabor the topic further, because I believe talking about illness tends to call forth more illness, but my email box is full of concerned queries from many of you, so the best way to put everyone at ease is a brief explanation of what all that was about.
It was food poisoning! Probably. At least that was the doctor's best guess, based on the description of symptoms I gave. I told him I had eaten a jumbo hotdog 24 hours previous, and he supposed that was the culprit. He gave me some anti-dizzy pills and some antibiotics ("Warning: May cause dizziness") and told me I should be completely normal by today.
So in the car on the drive home, I told Amy his diagnosis, and she admitted to having eaten two of those same hotdogs out of my fridge the night before, and she still has shown no ill effects. So go figure. There should have been no problem with those hotdogs anyway, as they are new and tightly packaged. Amy has a theory of her own: the Mormon Mafia poisoned me. Yeah, that's the ticket. The story I'm going with is that the Mormon Mafia is trying to shut me up.
Actually, I suspect the real reason for that weird bout of unsteadiness is connected to a bit of difficulty I've been both fighting and trying to ignore for several years. Some time ago it was discovered that there has been some wearing of the myelin sheath inside my spinal column. The way I've had it explained to me, the myelin sheath is like a coating of insulation around the nerves that send signals to and from the brain. When that insulation gets worn or damaged, it can cause mischief. In my case this bit of unpleasantness manifests as severe fatigue and frequent stupors, which I have been putting up with for years, but I'm guessing this present difficulty in keeping a steady gait may be related. So I'll be keeping an eye on things and checking in next week with the specialist I used to see about this thing. Again, I attribute my rapid recovery to your prayers, and thank you all sincerely for your kind words.
So. Enough about this crazy shell I'm currently inhabiting while on this planet. Let's get back to the topic I meant to address here. Warning: Any promise about the brevity of this post is hereby revoked.
Circling The Wagons, Take Two
One of the unexpected perks of maintaining this blog is that I have had the privilege of becoming acquainted with some extraordinary people. For the past year or so I have been conversing with a lovely young mother from Australia named Eva, whose exceptional spirit has impressed both Connie and myself as we have written, spoken by phone, and Skyped with her. (Is there anything more delightful to the ear than the Australian female voice?) It seems Eva had a run-in with her bishop awhile back, who had strong objections when he heard her testimony of having given her sick child a blessing of healing.
It used to be quite ordinary for women in this church to bestow blessings not only upon their own children, but upon each other if they so desired. Some years back, Linda King Newell documented this once common practice in Sunstone Magazine:
“Someone apparently reported to Joseph that the women were laying their hands on the sick and blessing them. His reply to the question of the propriety of such acts was simple. He told the women in the next meeting “there could be no evil in it, if God gave his sanction by healing...there could be no more sin in any female laying hands on the sick than in wetting the face with water.” He also indicated that there were sisters who were ordained to heal the sick and it was their privilege to do so. “If the sisters should have faith to heal,” he said, “let all hold their tongues.” (Relief Society Minutes of Nauvoo, 28 April, 1842)That article cites many other statements from subsequent prophets confirming the absolute right of women to be vessels through which the Lord can provide healing miracles. But Somehow in modern times we came to confuse gifts of the spirit with priesthood authority, and so it was that my own mother, whose husband was off fighting in North Korea, often sat helplessly at home wringing her hands when her children were ill until a couple of men in the ward got around to putting on their shirts and ties and making it over to our house to perform a simple ordinance that she was perfectly capable of doing herself.
When my friend Eva was heard to have performed such a vile act on her own child, she was called in for a meeting with her bishop to answer for this blasphemy. Somehow during the interview, Eva also let slip that she questioned the propriety of the Brethren in Salt Lake City investing Church funds in a lavish shopping center, and this proved too much for her bishop. He convened a bishop's court and disfellowshiped Eva for the crime of "being out of harmony with the Church."
We do indeed live in strange times when a devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who makes a serious attempt to live the precepts of her religion, finds herself accused by those holding administrative office of being out of harmony with it.
Eva's reaction was not quite what her bishop had expected. This bishop, a militant former SAS officer (the Australian equivalent to U.S. Special Forces) expected her to grovel her way back into the good graces of her local Priesthood Authority. Instead, Eva reacted with a shrug and walked away.
When Eva's husband, Andrew, was instructed to "correct" his wife, Andrew refused to do so and was also disfellowshipped for his insubordination.
Guess what? Andrew and Eva learned it was quite possible to remain in the faith even if the local authorities did not think them worthy company. They believe, as the apostle Peter said, "we ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29) and with Nephi who tells us it is the Holy Ghost who will show us what we must do (2 Nephi 32:5). If the local LDS congregation had no further need of them, fine. They still had their scriptures and the Holy Ghost as their guide. What further authority is necessary?
But if rejection by the church they loved was not trial enough, their lives were further upended when Andrew lost his job.
I wish you knew these two the way I do. They really do live in the spirit, and know no fear. Instead of reacting in panic as many of us would, they saw their new circumstances as a wonderful opportunity provided to them by the Lord. Andrew and Eva received a strong witness that they were to sell all their belongings and make their way to the Rocky Mountains. They have already experienced many miracles. After listing their possessions on the Australian version of Craigslist, early one morning they found a man standing at their front gate. He had seen their listing, and told them God had impressed him to make the five hour drive to their home. He handed them $1,000.00 to use toward their journey.
I could write many more things about this remarkable couple, but instead I'll direct you to their blog, "The Voice of One Passing Through" where they are logging their progress. What I wanted to mention here was the project they have inspired in others, Circling the Wagons.
A few months back, before Andrew lost his job, he had reason to come to Salt Lake City where he happened to attend a presentation by Denver Snuffer. At that presentation were several people who I had also become acquainted with, both online and in person, and they were singularly impressed with Andrew. These people separately described to me how they had felt an instant and intense spiritual power in him. After Andrew's job loss, one of these friends actually traveled to Australia and spent a month living with them, and she returned and reported some amazing things to me.
Long story short, this group of friends had been talking for awhile about founding some kind of shared charity that believing Latter-day Saints could draw from when in need, a charity that would include material goods as well as money. Yes, the corporate Church already has such a program, and this particular charity is not intended to supplant, replace, or compete with it. The founders encourage members to continue to support their brothers and sisters in their various wards. But one difference between the Church welfare program and Circling the Wagons is that with the latter, the giver is provided accountability as to where their contribution goes, and can decide specifically what their contribution is used for, who gets it, and for what purpose. After my separate posts here on tithes and offerings, I received numerous queries from readers asking me if I knew of any suitable charity where the giver could control where his contribution went. This project sounds to me like it would fit that bill, and that's why I'm taking the time to write about it.
Those involved with founding Circling the Wagons have set this thing up as a legitimate charity. They do not take a cut of administrative costs, but administer it voluntarily. When they learned about Andrew and Eva's circumstances, they decided this young family would be a good place to start practicing a type of Zion society. The idea, as I understand it, is that those who contribute now may find themselves in need of future assistance, and could then draw on the resources themselves, similar to how Joseph Smith envisioned the ideal.
There is a member who is already fixing up a temporary cottage for this family to live in when they arrive, so, if you live on the Wasatch Front and have some spare household necessities, you might consider dropping them off. You can also contribute pocket money through Paypal or directly to the account at Zion's Bank.
I am not directly involved in Circling The Wagons, so please address all inquiries to the email address found at the websites listed above. My only part in this is that some of you readers have asked me for ideas on how they can become more faithful givers, and I think this is a worthy endeavor. In my opinion, Andrew and Eva are certainly the right people to start this experiment with. Here are those links again:
Circle The Wagons
Participate In A Modern Day Circling of the Wagons
Here is Andrew and Eva's account, beginning at the outset:
The Voice of One Passing Through
Eva's testimony to "My Brothers in Leadership"
It wouldn't hurt if those of you reading about this project were to share one or all of the above links. Let's see if we can give this thing some traction.
230 comments:1 – 200 of 230 Newer› Newest»
Thanks for the link to LDS Perfect Day! I'm in regular contact with the family we're circling the wagons for, and they are very grateful for any help.
As for you, my friend, I'll include you and your eyes/eustachian tubes in my prayers. It's good to know you've been imbalanced for only a few days, and not longer. ;)
Have you seen a doctor? How well is your eating habits? If not good - Have you tried eating raw vegan for a quick turn around? (I don't think raw veganism is the best diet in the world but a temporary boost when feeling really sick - doesn't fix everything but can make you feel better for certain ailments!)
Hope you are able to get better soon!
Are you the same Jon who did battle with the evil statists, "Kenny the Liberal-geek" and Nick over at Connor's Conundrums?
Gary, Yes I am.
Good. I hope everything is going well for you and your family. Are you e-mailng from your $5000.00 boat in middle of the ocean or are you still dry land? I couldn't find a decent one for myself that cheap.
Here's a couple of links to some very interesting, and excellent information which reinforces our position that freedom works! The first one is about 1 1/2 hours long. The second is a little under 47 minutes. They both show the problems caused by statism.
Let me know what you think. Rock can give you my e-mail (when he is feeling a lot better) if you wish to respond via that method.
Rock; this is awful--
I'm glad your daughter is close enough to help you, and you both have wonderful sense(s) of humor, but this is really very hard--
I'll let the other Pure Mormonism readers in my family know about this, and we can keep you in our prayers--
I wish the very best (wish?); pray the best for this family from Australia. I know that Australia has become a difficult place for many (from extended family's inlaws you live there)--
When a good friend of mine from our area went to Utah I shuddered for her, because my impersonal experiences with the Wasatch front have been difficult (we were robbed staying in the Marriott near temple square)--
but she was wrapped in arms of love; there seem to be many there who can serve; it seems that many people there are not stretched as 'thin' as they are in our area--
generally speaking, she has had a very good experience, and I've been pleasantly surprised--
I do know that if you follow the Spirit, you will be guided--
Rock, our prayers are with you.
I watched an incredible youtube video that I'd like to pass on to anyone interested in learning more about truth.
Good. I hope you and your family are doing well.
Here's a link to a fascinating program which supports our position that freedom can work. When I watched it I thought of the discussions we had with Kenny and Nick.
It's about 47 minutes long.
Sounds like you have vertigo. I hope and pray you get better soon.
Dearest 'Daddy Rock'
We love you, we will pray for you and Connie. Thank you for everything. Talk soon when your able to Skype.
thats hard, my friend. i hope you feel better soon. God bless you and yours always.
Gary, I have listened to those. I've been listening to Corbett for some time. Sounds like we follow a lot of the same people for ideas/news.
It's good to know there are others out there on the same path. I assume then you follow Tragedy and Hope also. Did you see the latest episode of History So It Doesn't Repeat?
Yes, I follow them also. You can e-mail at (New) (York) Man Jon @ gmail (NSA) . com (gov) if you would like (where the parentheses represent just the first letter).
I just sent an e-mail. Hope you got it.
Get Better Soon Rock! Do what your family and doctor tells you and I will also pray for your quick recovery. If your hearing isn't messed up, maybe you can just listen to TV. It's better than no TV at all.
I had vertigo once. Thought my brain had broken. I used YouTube to fix it with great success.
Hey, I'm back. Thanks to all of you for your kind thoughts and prayers. i am fully aware that my recovery was hastened as a direct result of your prayerful concerns.
For those receiving comment notices in your email boxes, I have added an update to the original post above. Thanks again.
If you have re-occurring vertigo I hope that you will go for a second opinion. Especially if you start having hearing disturbances like "ringing in the ears" (I think that the high pitched squeal the emergency broadcast system makes is a better description. If that starts happening, please go quickly. I had an inner ear infection that sounded just like what you were going through and didn't get it treated soon enough and lost a substantial amount of hearing and the tinnitus is now permanent. The doctor said that they might have been able to do something about it if I had gone it when it started. I hope that your doctor knows what he is talking about though and that it was just food poisoning. But even if you don't have the hearing problems but still have the vertigo there are things to help it like the Epley Maneuver. (That might be what Rob was talking about.) Get well!
You might want to ask your doctor to test you for celiac disease. Right before I was diagnosed my asthma got very bad, and I started having trouble walking/seeing. People with celiac also may get pneumonia due to damage to their pancreas. Its just a simple blood test (TTG), but it usually takes many years to be diagnosed and isn't on most doctors radar.
Dad! You didn't mention anything to me about spinal problems in your past! I'm kicking your butt!
Honestly, Dad, I have to say that I am so blessed to be your daughter. You are a man of God, truly.
It's amazing that so much love and compassion flows from one man. Im inspired by you (AND MOM!) to do all things through love more and more each day.No kidding!
However, I want to extend my upmost gratitude to the readers of Pure Mormonism. Your prayers really do have the strength needed to improve my father's health. He's driven BY the support you have shown.
Please continue to pray. I love my daddy so very much, and am not ready to lose a bit of him.
Yo Dad, whos the rambler now!
That's a good tip about Celiac, Lara. I've thought about being tested for that in the past, but aside from my aversion to blood tests, I really don't want to know. That would mean I'd have to go gluten-free, right?
Me likes me gluten.
Amy, I guess you never understood that the myelin sheath thing was a part of the myalgic encephalomyelitis that has plagued my body these past years. Next thing you know, I'll be hearing you say you don't remember me being stupid and forgetful all the time.
Ditto everything Amy said about reader prayer and support. It made a HUGE difference in my instant recovery, no doubt about it.
(That, plus my angel wife gave me a blessing.)
Thanks for those kind words, Amy.
A bit off topic, but did you happen to catch Denver's disciplinary letter today?
Let the good times roll.
Well, now we have that Catch 22 question that I put forth a while back. Both men listen to "The Spirit". If both are listening to the same Holy Being, doesn't it seem as if He is operating at cross purposes, unless He knows something that we can't, like the future to come sure as rain, or maybe He is arranging for the stage to be prepared where He can dramatically shake up everybody at the Stake House with the truth? I haven't the slightest idea of who Mr. Snuffer is, or what he has written that has so angered the Bigwigs. It is just the claim that each man is making, that the Spirit is guiding each one, that seems to contradict the concept of spiritual Oneness that everybody seems to speak of whenever they also claim to be guided by The Spirit.
Since He never talks to me, I'm afraid that He is not a source of wisdom for me, so perhaps one of you can answer the question for Him in simple terms that I can understand. Listening to The Spirit seems a nebulous method of learning the truth of a thing. The Scientific Method seems much more trustworthy to me, personally.
Just caught wind of this. That stake president is a fool. This is going to blow up big in the face of the corporate Church and bring down a firestorm of bad press.
Steven, that's why it's important to use both the brain AND the heart when seeking the input of the spirit. This guy Truman Hunt is not using his brain. He can see no further than some blind need to "protect the Church" and in so doing will cost the corporation untold PR problems as this story goes national about the Mormon Church clamping it's giant clumsy hand over the mouth of a devout member who is best known for persuading others to stay IN the church.
And now they want to kick HIM out for his testimony of Christ? Let the good times roll, indeed!
Cool! I'll be looking at the papers for the fallout. I will post links if I find any. Since I NEVER watch television, I'll have plenty of time.
I wonder Steven Lester if you can check if the Stake President Truman Hunt that has requested the disciplinary council for Denver Snuffer is this same Truman Hunt.
Denver is just another false prophet.
Denver Snuffer is just another false prophet making claims about a false Christ. Snuffer, even if sincere, has received a false spirit. “…if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not” (Matt 24:23). Did you catch that commandment from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself: “believe it not”. He warned his disciples to discern from among the many false Christs and false prophets that will deceive many, even the “very elect”, if possible. If you believe Snuffer you are ignoring the warning of Savior Himself.
READ YOUR SCRIPTURES! All of Snuffer’s musings are a distraction and a side-show from the Gospel. We have the word of God and we have not studied it sufficiently that we should need to turn to the wisdom of a man. READ YOUR SCRIPTURES! It is all given there plainly to all men equally to understand if they would just read and ask for wisdom, having real intent, and faith in Christ. Anything more or less is not of Christ.
Rock, I am so glad your health issues have resolved themselves and you're back to yourself.
I do read the scriptures. Faithfully. And God has taught me some astounding things over the last couple of years. Adding to or taking away from them doesn't mean adding to the word count . . . Joseph Smith did that all the time through revelation in the D&C. It means that we don't add to the law God has given, or limit the Word of God (or God, Himself). It means not making lists of men's ideas of what's appropriate in any given circumstance based on the law of God (adding to), or proclaiming things God won't do (taking away).
Have you even read Snuffer's work? (And why do you feel the need to post anonymously, since you're siding with the official stance of the LDS church? Shouldn't those who don't agree with the corporate church be the ones worried about anonymity?)
"...that we should need to turn to the wisdom of a man."
If I recall correctly the scriptures were written by men. Maybe if they were written by women we could trust them more? :)
I've read Snuffer's work. He mingles much truth with doses of his own fiction while taking his readers on a lengthy, never-ending, winding trail through a labyrinth that only he can navigate. Yet we never get out his maze. Book after book after lengthy book, and blog post after blog post, into the depths of the labyrinth. Along the way, false teachings abound, false doctrines are woven, biographies of church leaders old and new are painted from his contorted palette.
I'm not a fan of many teachings and practices within the church, but the church is right to take action to disassociate from this false prophet, under the rights and responsibilities of stewardship for the members. He is entitled to espouse and promote whatever doctrine he chooses under the laws of the land, but membership in the church is based on a different standard. He has an opportunity to choose whether church membership is worth curbing his new ministry.
the stake president's name is Truman. THAT is a very scary sign.
Atomic bombs and everything--
I have also not 'followed' Denver Snuffer's teachings or activities, and I also know nothing about the book, but some of my cyber friends seem very enthusiastic about it--
I'm with Steven on this--
But, TRUMAN?! I mean, no offense; he can't help what his parents named him, but talk about ominous--
big bomb dropper--
wow, that whole culture is SO foreign to me--
is everything like that out in Utah?
I hope Eva and Andrew will be safe there--
I'm perfectly serious--
worried about them in that kind of environment; are there a lot of hidden good people in Utah? I rather suspect it; I HOPE it--
but when I read about these nu-skin people it's like reading science fiction about a strange planet--
to me, anyway--
this is all off topic, I suppose--
Besides, Truman Hunt supported Romney!!! YIKES!
Well, is that a Mormon corridor thing?
I am far away from Utah, so I do not know if Truman Hunt of NU-Skin is the same Truman Hunt as Denver Snuffer's Stake President. I am just very curious and maybe someone from Utah can find out or knows.
As far as Eva and Andrew they will be safe wherever the Lord leads them.
@Suzie, I am far away from Utah, too (thank heavens!)--
Utah is the only place I was seriously robbed--LOL!
The fact is that I have heard of some people leaving here and going there and being wrapped in loving arms, so I, too, am sure that if they are following the Spirit they will be taken care of.
It's just that . . . it can be a scary place; it's hard to overcome the prejudice--
it is an unusual name--Truman Hunt.
The man sounds very patronizing.
I don't know Denver; I have read very little of or by or about him, but I have gotten the idea that he's pretty true blue and likes to keep people in the church, so I really don't understand why the persecution, except that lately I have been suspecting that a few SPs are somewhat wolfish, white wearing sheep fleece--
oops, not true; I was also robbed quite viciously in Idaho--
those intermountain states are dangerous places, imo--
Hmmmm. What you're describing, Anonymous-the-most-recent, is uncannily like some pro-church comments I've read recently on other blogs. Crazytown it was, with communist/socialist themes interwoven with principles somewhat reminiscent of things i've been taught in church, and upholding "imperfect" and "not eternal" things in the name of hauling the entire church membership forward in "collective progression". It was a masterpiece of personally-constructed paradigms, but bore so little resemblance to scripture it boggled the mind.
But, while Denver has a highly disciplined mind (how many attorneys are you close friends with? It's a common-enough thing, with all they have to do), I wouldn't call it labrynthine. The things I've read of his are intricate, yes . . . but they are pretty darn clear. No darkness, no twisting. Bold, clear, and rather comprehensive for a mortal.
Have you read all of his books?
The fact that his writings have such a broad spectrum of reactions (from amazing fruits of the Holy Spirit to vilification) seems to indicate that it's the individual's reaction to them that's the determining factor, not the writings themselves. Arsenic is always poisonous. Always. However, there are plenty of "Biblical" churches and teachings that span the spectrum from high and holy to base and abusive. Just a thought.
I thought I had better add that I was just being a bit satirical about his name--
I should not make 'fun' of a person's name--
but . . . what parents name a child can say quite a bit about those peoples' values, and values will be transferred to children; that's all--
but it was meant in jest--
Rock, I'm really glad you're feeling better. When I first started reading I was really worried. We all need you to keep blogging!
Well, I've visited 17 sites, of business magazines, anti-Mormon sites, a blog by the ex-husband of the ex-stripper who was a co-founder of the Nu-skin company (stock price, around $86), and even several articles by the kids at BYU, and no where did I see even one reference that the CEO was also, at any time, a Stake President. Either they are two different men, or the one man keeps his two positions strictly separated. I did find out, though, that Truman is the middle name of this man. His first name is actually "Mike". That's the only revelation that I found.
Anonymous August 24, 2013 at 6:11 AM, 6:39 AM and 11:25 AM
Are you "Anonymous- HF" who posted comments on Rock's last article? You seem to have the same type of thought patterns. You make many accusations and misapply scriptures with no real argument. You make token phrases such as... "I'm not a fan of many teachings and practices within the church,"... but you do not list any of them.
For the record I have not read any of Denver Snuffer's books or articles so I cannot give you an opinion about his work. You said you have read his works and see many problems with what he says. Do yourself and the rest of us a favor and be specific and identify a few of his most obvious false teachings.
BTW, I do not know if Truman Hunt is a relation or not. If he is he is a very distant one. :)
It looks like the online missionaries have found your site too, Rock? (I found similar anti-Denver comments on the Bare Record site.) I wonder if random people feel the need to fight against Light or if it is an organized project. In any case, minions of darkness having come forth is a sign that you are on the faithful side of things.
Strange, that the doors are opening to condemn DS more than before.
I know Eva and her brother. They helped me until her husband lost his job. I'm glad to hear an update. She and I have emailed a few times and talked on the phone once. I have wondered what has happened to them. If they go to the lecture in Boise on the 10th, perhaps I'll meet them in person. Rock, I wish you and Connie could go. I would love to meet you both in person.
I no longer have my blog, and I have been so busy since mid-April that I've not had the time to come to the sites I used to go to quite often. It's good to know you're still here and still able to blog. I hope your health issues are healed.
Someone on LDSFF broke Pres Hunt's name down: tru man hunt. Not sure if there is anything to that. Someone also thought that snuffer was God's way of communicating to us as well. Not sure what I think about those ideas.
I was the one who pointed out the name--
I was focusing on "Truman", not on Hunt.
A person's name should be sacred, and my discussing the "Truman" was probably in very poor taste--
No apology is necessary. I agree with you. Pres. Truman was a mass murderer (Hiroshima 150,000 deaths and Nagasaki 75,000 deaths). These are conservative estimates. I was just wanting to distance myself from him. Your comments had nothing to do with mine.
Peace, prosperity aan freedom!
Sorry for the typo. It should be and not aan.
This post may seem confusing. I had posted this one earlier. Then it disappeared so I typed a new comment to you. Then in reappeared later. I'm not an computer or IT expert so I don't know what happened. You probably do.
A bit off topic, but when do you anticipate doing an update on the polygamy controversy?
Another fantastic charity is liahonachildren.org. They hand out nutrition supplements to clinically malnourished kids in the 3rd world. No one on the board makes any money. It's a good cause. I personally know about half the board and write the receipts for the donations. They don't have nearly enough money to help all those they should be. There are approximately 90k malnourished LDS kids in the world, and somewhere between 600 and 900 die each year. Yep, die. It only costs $60 per year to prevent each death.
To Steven Lester, I was also wondering if Truman Hunt was the same NuSkin CEO. No correlation in my research, but indeed, they seem to have the same signature! Compare here:
Signature from the letter: http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013/08/dont-call-me-yes-that-means-you-too_23.html
Signature from a NuSkin email: http://www.nuskin.com/us/html/081612_truman.html
Yes, Toni, I'm beginning to recognize the new internet missionaries. They focus on trying to get readers to stop looking further. And they're almost always anonymous. Plus they NEVER give any specific examples about what it is they object to.
I can't take seriously anyone who claims a personal visitation from Jesus and then publishes the personal details of such a sacred and obviously private event. Surely that is not something to parade around other than to draw attention to oneself. Furthermore, much of his theology is clearly in error (for example, his views on plural marriage), casting further doubts on his claims to divine inspiration. Much ado about a wannabe prophet.
Readers may be interested in Wayfarer's latest blog entry "Thinking About the Endowment." Click on his name above and that will lead you to it.
I was expecting to see something about it in the Tribune in Sunday's paper by Peggy Strack, but nothing yet.
Some day, Doorsxp. I have yet to finish reading volume II of Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy; they keep adding chapters, and I keep hoping for a hard copy to be published. I'm not much for reading entire books online.
Along those lines, however, I am currently dipping into the Temple Lot Case which is chock full of refutations by those who knew Joseph Smith intimately but chose not to follow Brigham. Fascinating testimony by one James Whitehead. Have any of you hear of him? Well, me neither, but for the final two years of the prophet's life, Whitehead was Joseph's personal secretary and stuck to him like glue. He turned over all Joseph's papers and documents to Brigham in Omaha, but soon was disgusted with the corruption he was seeing in the 12 and decided to separate himself from that group. He has some fascinating things to say.
It's interesting that the side the Utah Church backed in that controversy ultimately won on appeal, but curious that we never hear our leaders boast about it. That's because the testimony in the case does not leave Brigham et al in a favorable light. Joseph F. Smith, Lorenzo Snow and others testified and got their clocks cleaned in redirect.
You can find Whiteheads testimony and much more here:
Thanks for that reminder of another great LDS oriented charity, Rob. I hope my readers will look into that one, too.
My understanding from all my online reading regarding Truman Hunt the stake president and Truman Hunt of Nuskin is that they are indeed the same person. Would anyone like to confirm this once and for all?
Gary,I appreciate that video from the Tragedy & Hope website. I did not know about that site. Anything by Corbett is worth a listen, too.
I did get myself a rare first edition of Quigley's notorious book back in the day. Paid $150.00 for it at Walt West Books back behind the Provo D.I. in the late seventies. Some time after that I learned someone was reprinting them in Korea and they could be had with replica of the original dust jacket for only 25 bucks! If I had only waited. Now of course, it's available free online as a pdf file.
When Quigley learned about the great demand for his book, he prevailed on his publisher, McGraw-Hill I think it was, to put out a new edition so he could make some money off it. Since the information in the book was never intended to be seen by the eyes of the public, McGraw-Hill denied ever having published it in the first place. Quigley sued for the plates, but surprise! they had disappeared. What book? We never published any book by that title.
Quigley died a bitter, unhappy man with nothing kind to say about the inside shadow group he had once considered himself a part of. Being treated like this motivated him even more to dish the dirt. Somewhere in my possessions I have a two cassette interview Dr. Stan Montieth did with a very angry Caroll Quigley. Quigley tells the whole story of how the publisher pretended they never heard of the book they published. I'll bet that interview is floating around on the internet somewhere today.
Is this the interview with Quigley that you were referring to? I heard you need to be careful which book you pick if you are going to read "Tragedy and Hope" since the reprint left some important details out.
Did I never send you the 2nd book on Joseph Fought Polygamy? I finished it. The Price's said they were going to put it out in e-pub form but it would be different than what is on the internet. I offered to send them my copies but they declined.
I thought it was interesting how the Sunday School class on marriage left out plural marriage (unless a student asked a question on it). It seems the church wants to bury its past but won't reject plural marriage outright. To take the Price's view on it would be saying that the current church is not God's church. But then we wonder why the Lamanites didn't come and kill the gentiles as mentioned in 3 Ne. 16, etc.
Here's the link to "Tragedy and Hope." Someday I'll read it.
Having listened to the first couple minutes of that interview, it could be the Stan Monteith interview, but it isn't the full interview. It's clear it starts in mid sentence. The interview I have takes up two cassettes, and this one is only 49 minutes. I'd do a search for Stan Monteith and Carrol Quigley and see if something longer comes up.
I don't recall you sending me an epub version of JSFP Volume II, but I would certainly appreciate one. Now that Barnes & Noble are putting the Nook on clearance, I finally entered the 21st century and have something to read it on.
As much as the LDS Church wishes to put polygamy behind it, the leaders simply can't tell the truth about its origins. As much as they would like the public to forget about polygamy, they can't allow themselves to do the one thing that would really put it behind us: admit it was a fraud. To do so would call into question the legitimacy of Brigham Young, which would create questions about their own authority to preside.
There is nothing more important to the corporate Church today than authority. Nothing. If that crumbles, then in their minds, the Church could not be true.
Of course, the truthfulness of the "Church" should not be an issue. It's the truthfulness of the GOSPEL that is the important thing.
But not to these guys.
In regards to the looming Denver Snuffer fiasco, I have been toying with the idea of writing an immediate post about it. That effort may not be necessary now that Denver has posted this update on his own blog:
Still, I'm tempted to address the topic here at "Pure Mormonism" simply from the point of few of it being counterproductive to the the Church(TM). Threatening to excommunicate one of the few people who have proven effective in persuading throngs of disaffected Mormons to stay LDS and not give up on the faith, sure seems a very foolish move. It will prove to be a huge PR disaster for the Church when the national media picks up the story.
@Rock at 4:56--
Thanks. I hesitate to mention the 'p.m.' words--
on here, but I am always continuing to search myself--
and I appreciate everything you write about it--
Thanks for link on Whitehead--
I don't know, Rock. Satan wants good people to leave the church; I think *he* is very happy with where this is going. If the 'leaders of the church' are supporting that--
D&C 112:24, 25, 26 will happen at some point.
I'm not happy about it, at all. But I also believe that this could be part of the process of the wheat and tares being separated--
And, yes, that's not denying that it is foolish, but ultimately, babylon has got to crack and fall, and all corporations will go down with it, including--
the one I grew up in and have loved so much--
it's painful; I admit that it is painful; wrong as I know it is--
I don't rejoice in any of it--
can't rejoice in any suffering--
what a dichotomy (off topic)--WANTING Babylon to fall, knowing that it is necessary for the return of Jesus Christ and the establishment of Zion--
but realizing that it will cause pain--
All I know is that a close family member who is very GOOD and has been well inoculated, if you understand what that means, by 'awake' parents . . . is leaving to serve a mission soon, and all the FB business, etc.--
is going to be a huge challenge for him; he struggles with the church but is going out with a testimony of Jesus Christ--
do I EVER worry about him!!!
As for Denver Snuffer, I've only just read a few things from his blog and never felt the need to read any of his books, etc.--
Sometimes you just feel that your experiences parallel the experiences of another, and you don't need to go any further--
I don't have the attachment to him that many do, but I (and my husband) feel this keenly--
very keenly; I think my husband is more upset about it than I am, and he has read even less of Snuffer--
the fact is that something feels very wrong about this response--
by the way, the committee for strengthening members or whatever it is--
may have begun in the Ezra Taft Benson era, but one of us (I feel constrained from going into further detail, to protect the possibly innocent) knows personally that such 'spying' was also taking place in the mid-70s--
*shaking my head*
My husband and I have found it difficult to talk about anything else lately--
Regarding Jon's question about the Lamanites not yet killing the gentiles, well there's the illegal immigration question (with "Conservative" businessmen supporting it for cheap labor, and "Democrat" politicians supporting it for votes), the all the Latin American drug cartels from Mexico, Columbia, and other Latin American countries, the "Raza" movement, and possibly the idea that Asian DNA in Native Americans might have actually gone westward from America as the native cultures of Hawaii and the Pacific NW seem to be closely related. So maybe the "Lamanites" are already beginning to trample on the gentiles, we just don't see it yet.
Forgot to explain, if Native (Lamanite) DNA went across the ocean or Bering strait to Asia, a war with North Korea or China could do quite number on the North American Gentiles, and fulfill the Savior's prophecies. But maybe immigration, Cartels and "La Raza" will do it without help from Asia.
I don't believe Satan wants anyone to leave the Church, for the Church is aiding the Adversary's plans just fine. I believe Satan hates it when people wake up and leave the Church.
While I don't agree with, believe in or support Denver S. and most of his teachings, I do believe being exed will be one of the best things for him, for he doesn't seem like he would have left on his own.
Once out he may realize how much more wrong the Church is then he knew before and be able to speak out about the real history of the Church even more, though I don't think he sees all of Church history correctly. For example, he doesn't seem to believe Joseph was innocent of polygamy.
I think the Church is 'the blind leading the blind', so Satan loves it.
Rock, I've spent a lot of time perusing those articles, looking for Whitehead's name and testimony, and I haven't been able to find it, but what I have found has been, indeed, very interesting.
What a mess it was--
this scripture comes to mind:
There must be so much that it is overwhelming--
I've already spent several hours reading, and I'm none the wiser, but I do feel that what I have read has confirmed many of my ideas--
I posted somewhere else on Rock's blog about how much I appreciated your link to and comments on the Sunstone article about passive aggression--
very eye-opening. Thank you.
Also, thanks for the information on liahona--
Without trying to dig around in my Nook for where I left off, I've found this link online to James Whitehead's testimony in the temple lot case:
Be aware that this is just from the Abstract; the actual transcript of the entire case runs over 1700 pages. As it is, the Abstract contains about 5 or 600 pages. Also look for Judge Phillips' decision elsewhere online (about 58 pages).
The aim of this case was to determine which of the LDS splinter denominations could hold claim to descending from the original Church as founded by Joseph Smith, and that way it could be determined who was the rightful owner of the land the temple was to be built on. After all the evidence was heard, Judge Phillips concluded that Brigham Young was a bold and bald usurper.
After reading the evidence, it's hard to argue with that decision.
In case anyone has questions as to where I stand on the question of "Authority" please note: Just because I have questions regarding Brigham Young's rightful place does not mean I believe the Reorganized church was right. There is such a thing as both sides being wrong. The Book of Mormon is true. That's my position. Everything else is speculation.
It came through this time; all clear and easily read. I'm reading it.
My husband had much the same response; "does it matter? The Book of Mormon is true"--
I have to admit that hearing the testimonies of various people from Utah in that trial (my earlier reading) gave me creepy goose bumps--
when I told my husband about it, he just shrugged. I guess he has better things to do. He's smug; when he joined the church he told me, "I never felt good about plural marriage; I didn't have to accept it, and I had no ancestors who lived it."
Your last paragraph would describe quite well how my husband and I both feel.
inaccuracy today; hurrying too much--
not clear; I didn't know my husband when he joined the church--
the above implies that he told me when he joined the church that he hadn't thought polygamy was ever inspired--
he told me LATER that when he joined the church it was based upon other things and that he didn't believe polygamy had ever been inspired--
hope that makes more sense--
Av, bless your heart--
I know that you don't believe the church is a valid organization, and that's fine--
some of *us*, however, do believe that we wouldn't be where we are, in terms of character development and spiritual growth, if we hadn't had religious training, and there has to be a vehicle for that, imperfect as it is--
@PNW_DPer, thinking about what you say; have had similar thoughts--
guess time will tell--
For what it's worth, Denver doesn't blame his current stake president. He thinks there is pressure from the higher ups. Read his latest post: http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013/08/current-events.html
I just bought Passing the Heavenly Gift which is the only Snuffer book I don't own (besides his blog books Removing the Condemnation and Remembering the Covenant). They are fantastic. They have helped remove a considerable amount of illusion that I had.
I also bought Teachings of the Doctrine of Eternal Lives which I suspect he wrote also.
Wow! Comments all over the field about DS. I would just like to add that I have read all of his books (some multiple times) read all of his blogposts (all of them multiple times), listened to his talks and tapes, met him in person multiple times and talked with him in private. I have always found him to be interesting, intelligent, kind, and positive about people remaining in the church. Whatever pressure is being exerted on his SP, it will be very counterproductive to the efforts of the church in a PR sense. IMHO, Denver Snuffer is telling the truth about his experiences with the Lord. Is that so very hard to believe in a church where the vast majority do not question Joseph Smith having such experiences or the Book of Mormon being of Divine origin? What motivates people to doubt that ANYONE (other than "the Prophet, Seers, and Revelators") can have an experience with the Lord? People, have you read the scriptures? Men and women of humble background, people who were the "little people" throughout the scriptures, had experiences with the Lord! Just because there have been charlatans aplenty in the past, does NOT mean that everyone who speaks of the Lord in personal terms is a fake! Is this the long foretold schism, or split, that is to occur in the last days when the Wheat and the Tares will be separated? Think (and pray) about it for yourselves and DO NOT BE MISLED by the opinions and doctrines of men mingled with scripture!
"DO NOT BE MISLED by the opinions and doctrines of men mingled with scripture!" -Anonymous JR
That is precisely what DS' writings are, the opinions and doctrines of a man mingled with scripture.
For example, DS says, contrary to the account in Genesis, that Abraham actually killed his son Isaac, but then Isaac was resurrected. That is wild speculation that misses the main message of that event and directly contradicts the scriptures as well as thousands of years of oral tradition and separate written accounts of that event by the Jews. So, it is not just a matter of interpretation, he is rewriting fundamental scripture. This is just one of many examples.
Sorry, I must have missed that in DS's writings. Do you have a reference?
God would/cculd never command anyone to do something 'contrary' to the commandments, for he is the same yesterday, today and forever, with everyone.
We must judge the truth of even scripture stories by comparing them with Christ's teachings.
That would be an interesting clue if Denver was the author of "Eternal Lives." I would very much like to know who wrote it.
I'm not convinced it was Denver, though. Just a hunch, because that book is hardcover, and Denver's other publications are softcovers. It stands to reason he would publish in the same style. I'd have to put on my detective hat and compare the fonts and layout, but the only other book of Denver's that I own is PTHG.
In all fairness, IF polygamy was a fraud (I don't believe it was, but my position is irrelevant to this point), how would anyone at the top even know it? It seems that, even in Joseph F. Smith's day, all evidence for or against was quite circumstantial. The only way any of the brethren could know it was a hoax is if there was some document proving it (say, the Partridge revelation) sitting in the 1st presidency vault. I think you give way too little credit to Brigham Young. Even if he was not a fraud (I do not believe he was), he was incredibly shrewd, and leaving paper evidence of fraud is something he'd never do. I mean, the polygamy-as-fraud Brigham Young also purported ordered a hit on Joseph's little brother so as to have a stronger claim on the presidency, right? I'm not sure you can really implicate the current brethren on this one.
Besides, judging by the historical lashing that Elders Turley and Jensen received at the hands of a few Swiss saints, I really think you expect way too much historical knowledge from the brethren. After all, if a few Swiss (who don't even really speak English and don't even have access to, say, the BYU library) can completely smack down two guys who have been paid to come up with answers to historical questions for over 20 years with full access to the closed archives, do you really think that Elder (take your pick), who has spent 90% of the last 50 odd years "serving tables" knows any more than the latest primary graduate about church history? Very very doubtful. I mean, judging from the last 50 or so General Conferences, the brethren don't even read their scriptures anymore. It would seem that between building malls and deciding what color suits missionaries can wear, they spend their free time playing with birds and such.
I don't think we need to get that creative. It will happen, and when it does, it will be as plain and simple as a chicken crossing the road.
You are missing out. You really ought to read "The Second Comforter" and "Come, Let Us Adore Him." More important topics discussed there. Coming unto Christ is a much more proximate issue than what aspects of the church's positions are or are not correct.
I call baloney. I haven't seen that, either.
JR - You seem like a cool cat. I hope we meet someday.
JR, this is a clip from a talk given by Bruce R. McConkie back in 1982--
I took it from a pro-McConkie site, in which George Pace was called a 'cult leader'. I knew George Pace; he was a family friend, and he was a very kind man. The only time I saw Bruce R. McConkie he was too wrapped up in his thoughts to acknowledge my existence.
That is really beside the point. The point is that for several decades people were 'afraid' even to talk about Jesus Christ, because of McConkie's hard-hitting message. Did McConkie have valid points? Probably. Was George Pace TOO approachable for young people who were hurting? Probably--
But the fact is that McConkie's talk made it such that few people dared to think of Jesus Christ in anything but strictly academic terms after that talk.
George Pace apologized.
His book (Having a Relationship with Jesus Christ, I think) was removed from bookstore shelves.
Denver Snuffer's relating of his personal experiences is going to draw fire. It's happened before. Is it good? I don't think so. I think that *we* as LDS are on the brink of some kind of spiritual/ecclesiastical chaos.
Do I want to read Denver Snuffer? No. I'd rather stick with the Book of Mormon at this point.
Am I troubled over how the 'brethren' are handling this? Yes, and I have been for many years. I'm not sure what or whom these men are trying to protect. There are vulnerable people in the church who need God in their lives, and many church leaders are no help at all--
for what it is worth . . .
I just hope for the best for Denver Snuffer and everyone who has been reading him.
And I find myself looking over my own shoulder a LOT. My husband and I are quite sure we're on a 'list' somewhere--
This is where we need to be lightened up:
And now for McConkie (pure and unadulterated):
There are others--in the main they are intellectuals without strong testimonies--who postulate that God does not know all things but is progressing in truth and knowledge and will do so everlastingly. These, unless they repent, will live and die weak in the faith and will fall short of inheriting what might have been theirs in eternity. There are yet others who have an excessive zeal which causes them to go beyond the mark. Their desire for excellence is inordinate. In an effort to be truer than true they devote themselves to gaining a special, personal relationship with Christ that is both improper and perilous.
I say perilous because this course, particularly in the lives of some who are spiritually immature, is a gospel hobby which creates an unwholesome holier-than-thou attitude. In other instances it leads to despondency because the seeker after perfection knows he is not living the way he supposed he should.
Another peril is that those so involved often begin to pray directly to Christ because of some special friendship they feel has been developed. In this connection a current and unwise book, which advocates gaining a special relationship with Jesus, contains this sentence--quote: "Because the Savior is our mediator, our prayers go through Christ to the Father, and the Father answers our prayers through his Son." Unquote. This is plain, sectarian non-sense. Our prayers are addressed to the Father and to him only. They do not go through Christ or the Blessed Virgin or St. Genevieve or along the beads of a rosary. We are entitled to come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
oh, and JR or anyone else who is interested in a comparison between George Pace and Denver Snuffer:--
This was written almost 30 years after the 'event'--I thought it was really good--
I was going through a very strange time back in 1982--very caught up in a lot of family concerns. I heard about the talk almost immediately after it was given, and I was very concerned for my family's friend. A parent was dying, however, so it wasn't a good time to talk to my parents about what had happened to George. But I remember feeling that this would not have pleased McConkie:
29 And it came to pass that she went and took the queen by the ahand, that perhaps she might raise her from the ground; and as soon as she touched her hand she arose and stood upon her feet, and cried with a loud voice, saying: O blessed Jesus, who has saved me from an bawful hell! O blessed God, have cmercy on this people!
From the Book of Mormon. Every time I read it, I wondered how Elder McConkie reconciled it. I wondered what I had missed. Was the Book of Mormon, then, 'wrong', too? This woman with tremendous faith, addressed Jesus, directly! *gasp*
It's happened before, and it looks as though it will happen again.
Even while saying the church was under condemnation, I know that President Benson lent his acceptance, on some level, to the 'list keeping'--
though it happened before his time as the president of the church as well--
I think that this list keeping may be a manifestation of the very condemnation the church is under--
but that's just my, somewhat weak, opinion--
Since I knew George Pace, and I felt humiliated along with him, I can understand a little of how those who have met Denver Snuffer are feeling--
it's a terrible trial--
Look's like he has made such speculation...
Yes, they are indeed the same person. DS's SP is also the CEO of NUS.
Here's the announcement in Church News naming Truman Hunt as Stake President:
If the leaders are really righteous like they say they are, they will have the Spirit, which will teach them the real truth about polygamy, Joseph Smith & Brigham Young. Thus they won't be deceived. Same with all of us.
They have Christ's, ancient prophet's, & Joseph's testimony against polygamy, they either believe & heed them or they don't.
Many of them are so committed to defending the BY legacy and false narratives of JS that they are willing to concoct defenses for JS supposedly having both: (1) secret underage wives (14 years old, 2+ of these), and (2) secret wives married at the same time to other men (8+ of these).
Many ordinary members (those with a bit of learning) make up the same kinds of defenses for what essentially is indefensible, ignoring the facts of JS' denials and the fact of no JS children from purported relationships.
There are a number of absurd blogs by members who try to explain how these relationships were holy and wonderful.
It's like they are in a trance.
No wonder the outside world calls us a cult.
I mean, who's going to believe these things are holy except nutcases?
Not trying to take sides on this, but it doesn't read to me like he's speculating. It reads to me that he's referencing an ancient Jewish tradition. But thanks for bringing it to my attention Denver's blog that is. Wasn't interested at all but now that I've spent the better part of today reading his blog, the more i feel he is a man of God and doing what the Lord directed him to do....appreciate you guiding me to his blog by trying to discredit him....funny how the Lord works
I had Bro. Pace as a religion teacher at BYU. I also met him as a patient (I'm a dr.) a couple of years ago. What a fine man! I never understood BRM's treatment of GP. It was rude and abusive and greatly lowed BRMs image in my eyes and in the eyes of many people I know.
Denver is a fine man also, of a much different flavor from GP though.
When I read or listen to DS, the word "prophet", comes to mind.
I know, I know, there are people out there wetting themselves at the suggestion that a prophet could rise up outside the church hierarchy. Ask Moses about how many of the Isrealites he wanted to see become "prophets".
Thank you Rob. I take that as a real compliment because I find your posts to be valuable. I wonder if we don't already know each other. Do you live in Utah Valley?
I'm a bit troubled seeing Mr Snuffer called up for discipline. I've read most of his writings and found them quite agreeable; to the point of adopting many very similar views myself. The key difference being that I've not written publicly about mine. Still... If they can ex him for his views, when will the folks at the COB come for me?
DS is truly a holy prophet of God. Everyone here saying otherwise has a evil heart that cannot see pure truth shining daylight. Abraham probably did sacrifice Isaac so I believe DS is putting hidden truth to our mind. The bible is mostly full of mistakes and little truth. It is you who has the error to question the delightsome purity of holy prophecy. Remember Nephi killed Laban for God. Why not Abraham then? Nothing DS has written is wrong. It is only right and it is of God. I believe he is a true prophet with every fiber of my being. The Church will be cursed for dealing with him wrongly. Pray that they are shown a sign of his prophecy and power before their wickedness upon him.
Imo, the criticisms that can always be discarded at the outset are the ones that are vague, attacking, etc.
Rock said, "Still, I'm tempted to address the topic here at "Pure Mormonism" simply from the point of few of it being counterproductive to the the Church(TM). Threatening to excommunicate one of the few people who have proven effective in persuading throngs of disaffected Mormons to stay LDS and not give up on the faith, sure seems a very foolish move. It will prove to be a huge PR disaster for the Church when the national media picks up the story."
That might not be a bad move to focus on the fact that if someone is addressing the heavy parts of history and the results are that people decide not to leave the church (or they come back as a result of reading the book), then it would not be very good to label said person as an apostate. Shooting themselves in the foot. - Besides the fact that the man is a true messenger from God, and that in itself makes their move unwise. The message should be heeded and the messenger considered no more important than the boy who delivers a telegram to you (generally speaking).
Denver always puts his name on what he writes. He mentioned that in a post a while back. He uses no pseudonym either. If it's anonymous or under another name, he did not write it.
Very well said, JR @ 3:59. I concur with all you said.
Nephi was justified, Abraham was not, Issac was an innocent child. Huge difference.
On another somewhat unrelated topic...I recommend you read the following pamphlet written in 1887 by David Whitmer, one of the three special witnesses of the Book of Mormon. In particular, read Part Second beginning on page 25 addressed to believers in the Book of Mormon.
It is really fascinating. It describes how the church began to drift into error from its early foundations within only a couple of years. It documents how revelations were changed from their original received and published versions to accommodate new doctrines. A bunch of interesting things to think about for those interested in the pure roots of the restoration of the Church of Christ. Truly eye-opening.
Great post by Daymon Smith today on his blog, Mormonism Uncorrelated.
OK, the Denver Snuffer affair. His review of my new book is all the talk, of course.
What? There’s something else about Denver? Oh, that . . .
In the Jr High called Mormon Studies, Denver’s disciplinary hearing is also in the news.
Some have wondered, reasonably, why I have not been courted by these courts of Love.
I think they are incorrect in the comparison that relative to Denver, I don’t have quite the same size following. In fact, I don’t have any following at all. I have readers, a few, apparently; but I’ve been lucky enough to have readers who read my books, and separate them from me, and from my voice when it is speaking other things.
Denver has not been so fortunate. His books blend with him as a person, and his voice has been forced into the standard Mormon obsession for a prophet-revelator. Their minds are in darkness for desiring such a leader, as Joseph Smith warned the Relief Society in 1842, using Ezekiel 14 as his text. The biographical nature of Denver’s writing directs this reading, but the fault is not in his words. John Dehlin was pushed into this same voicing structure, even among those who professed to be ex-mo, telling you how compelling it is for us to find a leader to take us to the Promised Land, no matter what the leader says, or wherever that land may be.
If Denver is being discipline for having a following, that is not really his fault (although he could’ve avoided it, probably). We all recognize this. It is the consequence of the religion itself, and so they render judgment on their own voices in disciplining him.
It also seems to be an important difference that one of us says he has been visited by the Lord, and one does not say this. I don’t have any reason to doubt Denver’s claims; and I cannot see why a religion would want to brand as a heretic a man who says he hold personal converse with its Lord. He has not said, as far as I know, anything contrary to the mantras of the leaders of this religion. This again must be a judgment they render upon themselves, in that High Council, and a damning one, too.
His book, Passing the Heavenly Gift is ostensibly at the root of the decision. Ironically, it is concerned with history, and not personal revelation. This is telling, perhaps. What is so apostate about that book? Well, isn’t that the point of using words like “apostate”? It is defined according to the folks in charge of the Court, rather like the U.S. territorial courts did to polygamists in the 1880s. To be “apostate” is not so different from being guilty of Unlawful Cohabitation: one only needs to be the subject of someone’s supposition that they heard someone say you were such a person. In this case, the persons who matter are those in positions of authority, and that is another condemnation they render as they give judgment in their High Council. “That” is an apostate in this religion, which is one reason why I seriously doubt any in Heaven gives a shit about what the Courts of Love say. Except, perhaps, to see that they still insist on using medieval jurisprudence when they should know better, and that may be why they are wise enough to stay away from LDS apostles.
By comparison, I violated employment practices with the Book of Mammon. And I’ve apparently written things on this blog, or in my other books, which some readers would call “apostate”. But that is just a word, and all that matters is who is using it. My stake president has not used it to classify me, and that is the only difference. Why he has not, I cannot say, but I suspect it isn’t all “he-has-a-following” and “he-does-not” calculations. Even I’m not that cynical. Whatever these High Councilmen called “the Spirit” may well be directing their endeavors in the Denver Affair, but that does not mean they speak for the Spirit, or for God in their assessment of Denver Snuffer. It would be merciful, given their seeking resolution to his case, to give them inspiration to sit in judgment. What they deem in their council, however, is entirely up to them, I think.
I believe it's a high compliment to be called an 'apostate' from the LDS Church.
Rock, hope things get better. I can understand what you are going through. My husband has had slowly failing health that started over two years ago. Some of his symptoms are like some of yours. We can not find a doctor willing to dig deep to find out the real problem.
I really hope the family from Australia gets settled in. I am sooo glad to hear of people helping them. It is also stupid what the church did to them. If my kids need a blessing and no "worthy" male is around I will do it by golly. I lived in Utah for two years and will never live there again. Beautiful country though.
I am overjoyed to know about "Circling The Wagons"!!! Fantastic!
A few years ago I started wondering why the church did not offer very low interest loans to any and all faithful, active members of the church, to use for anything like medicine, doctor appointments, dental, repair a car or whatever. There are so many members that need help. Some get help from the wards with bills and food, and some do not, depending on the Bishop. Twenty three years ago we needed help and the Bishop refused. As a matter of fact, the ward was not there for us in any way, shape or form. I never asked for help again. Recently we have had a string of bad happenings. We have no insurance of any kind. We need a lot in both the medical and dental departments. We never recovered from 23 years ago. We do not have bad luck, we have no luck! LOL I am not looking for sympathy, just saying the church could do more to help ALL members, members like me and my family. We are faithful, active, tithe paying members, always have been. We have always done everything that was asked of us and always went above and beyond, still do.
I have read Denver Snuffer's writings. He always had disclaimers about what he writes. He tells people the things he writes are his opinions, so I believe it is not his fault if people are "following" him or seeing him as a "prophet". I see nothing wrong with what he has written. Maybe because I feel the same way on some of the issues. It is sad that members can not state their opinions on anything. When the church goes after someone like Denver it reminds me of communism: one can not speak truthfully about the powers that be or any issue concerning the powers; the verdict is known among the judges before the trial starts but the trial must take place anyway to show everyone that the powers are "fair"; and the only way to be found not guilty is for the person on trial to lie and denounce everything they said and then apologize to the powers and never ever run afoul of the powers again. The powers that be get arrogant and forget about Christ's love and do not think about how Christ would handle the situation and do not act in a loving and Christ like manner.
I started to think back on Conference talks and I do not recall any talks about how members should work on having a personal relationship with Heavenly Father and Christ, and getting to know and love Them. Enough rambling. Thanks to everyone who posted links and other information.
JRSG in Arizona
JR - shoot me an email a elephant rob smith @ gmail.com without spaces, replacing "elephant" with "2".
swplaza, you ought to re-read TPJS (I assume you've read it before). You'll find a bunch of passages from JS that indicate that Jesus' doctrine was a lot less palatable than we often assume, as was Jesus himself. God's ways are not our ways, if Jesus were present, this generation would crucify him for his doctrine, etc. (I apologize, but I don't have enough time right now to ferret them all out).
Regardless of the truth or falsehood of polygamy, if you judge what is true by what is palatable to your sensibilities, based on a fallen culture in a society controlled by Satan, you are very likely to hedge up your own path back to God.
The natural man is an enemy to God, and always has been. That is why we cannot be saved without revelation---the natural man could never guess God's mind and ways.
thank you for the link to Daymon Smith's blog--
He's not always easy to read--
trying to understand what he means here:
Except, perhaps, to see that they still insist on using medieval jurisprudence when they should know better, and that may be why they are wise enough to stay away from LDS apostles.
Not sure who the *they* is here--
maybe someone who understands Smith's writing style can explain--
Doesn't matter; I like what he has to say about the Book of Mormon and the Bible--
need to do some more studying--
I totally agree with swplaza.
And I agree with Rob that Christ's doctrines are not 'palatable' to the natural man. They are much too demanding for hardly anyone to accept. In fact, I can't seem to find anyone who really believes in all of Christ's teachings, let alone lives them.
The Church leaders since Brigham Young don't even seem to believe in Christ's teachings nor live them.
But I think swplaza is judging the Church & polygamy by the teachings of Christ, which prove the Church & polygamy false imo, not by the fact that such things are repulsive to him, which prophets say such things would be repulsive to any righteous person.
I agree that as Joseph Smith taught, if we have 'perfect love' we will learn God's 'high' ways through revelation and not be deceived by falsehoods & false prophets.
But I believe we must be very careful about quotes we read in TPJS, for just because they 'say' Joseph said something doesn't mean he really did.
I believe the early leaders had every reason to lie and say Joseph said such & such or even rewrite or add words to his journals. Even Rock has identified where this has happened.
I only trust sources which I can prove Joseph publicly published 'during his lifetime', while he could still speak for and defend himself.
I don't trust anything any Church leader from Brigham Young on, said or says, unless they can prove it.
Rob: I believe we are all endowed with the Light of Christ, the ability to discern right and wrong. If one has to turn off her conscience to understand something "holy", then what's the point?
Very good point swplaza.
I believe all men and leaders in the Church know that it would be wrong and hurtful to their wife and children for them to run around after & collect other women like the early leaders did. We all understand the Golden Rule.
Holy cow. I didn't get the name thing until you broke it down, Toni. Guess I'm a little slow! WOW. There is much to be said in a name, often more than we think.
Rock... I don't know if you've already had someone approach you about essential oils, but I would love to send you some samples to see if they help your conditions. They are safe, made from plants, and imo, a heavenly gift for people looking to get away from "big-everything-with-never-ending-side-effects". I would be happy to share some with you, unless you've already been bombarded by readers offering similarly. Let me know if you'd like to email or chat sometime about it. (My business plan involves sharing, so I'd be happy to share without stress, especially with the things you've enlightened our family with these past months.)
Good point Toni. He has repeatedly said that. I suspected that he wrote it because he taught about reincarnation on his blog, mentioned where to buy the book (http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2011/04/about-eternal-lives.html), and the cover style was very similar to his.
Regardless of who wrote it, I bought it and am looking forward to reading it.
Nice bit of detective work, guys. Thanks for confirming that.
Jen, I'm a big believer in herbal tinctures and flowers and essential oils, and I haven't been able to afford the natural medicines I am used to keeping in stock so yes, I won't turn down free sample of anything. Thank you most appreciatively.
You can PM me on Facebook if you like.
Rob, I am looking forward to reading The Second Comforter, especially since I'm one of those dilatory Saints who never really experienced the FIRST comforter until just six short years ago. I have the book; it was generously sent to me by a bishop in another state who recognized the gaps in my education when he learned that I had not heard of Denver Snuffer until a few readers here began bringing up his name in comments and recommending him to me.
By the way, if The Brethren had any idea of the number of bishops and others in Church leadership who communicate with me regularly and tell me they are avid supporters of the positions promulgated on this blog, they would likely be alarmed. It is apparent from their reaction to Denver Snuffer that loyalty to the institution is more important than doctrinal purity or theological truth. It's only sad that more local leaders can't recognize that serving Christ is more important than "protecting the Church," which is how SP Truman Hunt sees his role.
At least the passage of time has convinced a large number of Saints that Bruce McConkie was dead wrong. The man's arrogance was legendary.
Nice clip from the Mikado. Thanks for the link.
I don’t comment often on blogs, mainly because I’m not very good at getting my point across or know when it’s a good time to say something…just not very blog savvy. I hope this is a good time and place to make a comment.
Rock- I’m glad to hear you are doing better. Your blog means a lot and has changed my life, so I would be devastated if we didn’t get to read your voice, I hope the Lord continues to sustain and lift you up to be his voice, and thanks for it.
I’m grateful for stories like this family from Australia applying their faith; I believe those are the true faith promoting stories, not something about pigeons…
Also, I want to add my 2 cents about the “Denver incident “. The best way I can describe how I feel about his writings and work, (just to be clear, I’ve read “The Second Comforter: Conversing With the Lord Through the veil” and PTHG), is to compare it to the recent Stake Conference we just had, and specifically the “Adult” session they have on Saturday nights. We had an area seventy in our midst along with the Temple President and Mission President, (I don’t live in Utah). It was a nice meeting, all of these men bore testimony of the Savior and that they are his representatives, they were nice testimonies and I don’t doubt that they believe them, all of this was nice, but what jumped out at me and what I want to compare is how they instructed us on how to build a relationship with the Savior. The Stake pres. spoke first and they all seemed to echo his words, that the only way to build relationship with Christ and come to him is by following your leaders who in turn follow the prophet. He went on to describe the order saying, “You need to follow your local leaders Bishop/Stake president, who in turn follows the area seventies who in turn follows the quorum of the 12 who in turn follows the first pres and prophet who is the only one that has direct link to the Savior”. All of the rest went on to bare testimony of just that and how they did that throughout their “careers” in leadership for the church. Not one of them taught me anything on how to come to Christ and have a personal relationship, they just told me to follow the stake pres. guess the stake pres. is looking for a promotion. Now, I contrast that with what Bro. Denver teaches in his books and it is the complete opposite and I can tell you that I’ve grown closer to the Lord by following that counsel and not the one given to me at the “Adult” session of stake conference. Even now I don’t feel I’m doing him justice in explaining how much those books have brought me closer to my Savior, I guess only those that have read them would know what I mean. Anyway, I don’t feel I did justice on what my thoughts are on this subject, but I felt I needed to draw the comparison. I know what you mean Rock when you feel you are being a “rambler”. Thanks again for all of your words and doing what the Lord asked you to.
I have not read Denver's books, but I first "officially" got the idea that any member should be able to see the face of the Savior from a Stake Conference talk by a visiting Seventy or Area Authority some 30 years ago, who seemed to mention the idea in passing towards the end of his talk, but it really jumped out at me as a true principle. Oh wait, I actually already knew someone who had received a visit, but while the visit was very loving and spiritual, she was still too fearful to actually turn and look at him (amazingly, he did not force himself, fully respecting her while he visited and comforted her).
@anyone who will listen--
I want to talk about Jesus Christ to people--
kind of all the time--
I had a personal experience with Jesus. But I don't want to talk about it, because I don't want people to:
--laugh at me, because it's sacred
--not believe me, because they would be condemned
--it's just too private, too sacred
and, strangely enough, I don't even remember the date!!!!!!!!!
Which is odd, but that has happened with a number of spiritual experiences I have had--
the experience kind of does away with the 'time' that it happened--
So, I don't think *we* as LDS talk about Jesus enough; about His life, His mission, His atonement--
anything about Him--
and I want to do that--
but I would have to be very close to someone to share what happened to me--
I have told a few close people, and I told a friend, once, unwisely, and now I wish I hadn't--
so, it's a balancing act, really--
as for church leaders--
they just are.
A bishop about a decade ago persecuted us terribly; it had to do with a special needs child, and this man was just AFTER us--
it was rather horrible, actually. And then he threatened our temple recommend, and when we approached the SP, the SP supported the bishop--
we kept a low profile, cried a LOT, pled with the Lord a LOT, and put their names on the prayer rolls, because, believe me, we needed a lot of help to forgive them--
and still try to deal with our special child's issues, and that child went through a roller coaster with all the persecution--
and our other children as well--
with a few years both of those men were 'out'--
out of their callings; one was completely handicapped, and the other was dying.
We didn't ask for this to happen. We prayed FOR them, and we specifically said, "don't let them hurt us anymore, but please don't hurt them."
The Lord is the best/only judge--
but we suspect we are on a list since then--
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
How do you distinguish between revelations from God and revelations from the devil?
What's the litmus test?
Your question is too broad; I don't know what you are asking; I almost feel that you are trying to 'catch' me--
Because of the things that you have said on here before, I feel that you have an ulterior motive, but if I am judging you harshly, I apologize in advance. Because of the things you have said before, I am not certain that you believe anyone on here can answer any questions you might have, because I haven't felt that you believe that the people who participate on this blog are 'worthy'.
well, here it is, in my opinion; this is what *I* go by:
13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.
6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.
I readily admit that I admire, respect, and appreciate Denver Snuffer for all he is and for all he has tried to do to help his fellow man. Does that make me his disciple or his "follower"? I do not think so. He is a man, a fellow servant of our Father in Heaven and His Son Jesus Christ. He seems to have a special ability to put into words the things many people feel in their hearts but are unable to verbalize. Does that make him a prophet or is he just a false prophet trying to lead men astray?
If deciding that issue is important to you, I suggest youo consider these posts from his blog, written exactly 3 years ago. I know from personal experience he is very sincere in the things he has written.
Thanks for the references. These have some good examples of men's ideas injected into the scriptures.
First DS tells us about how some of us--only the predestined ones--will become gods:
"Indeed, God has given us a test worthy of a God. And only those worthy of becoming among the gods will be able to solve the riddle." -DS
If you were not predestined to be worthy like DS, forget about it, you're out of luck. Maybe you will get to be his ministering angel at best. Of course, this idea of man becoming a god is not actually advocated in the Book of Mormon, which is supposed to be the focus of these particular blog posts of his--one has to inject this idea into the text between the lines. DS just assumes that's what Nephi is talking about when he says "saved." There is no discussion in the Book of Mormon about three kingdoms/levels of heaven, no talk about exaltation of man to god. This is all revisionist interpretation of oblique references, interpretations based on "modern doctrines". Is Nephi talking about salvation? That's what Nephi actually says. But, for DS' narrative, we must redefine that Nephi *really* means exaltation to a god although it says otherwise.
Then, ironically, DS complains about men believing they will be gods---the very thing he said that Nephi was revealing to us how to do.
"They will think themselves destined to rule and reign over principalities, dominions, heights, depths and others. They are their own idols! What irony it all invokes!" -DS
What's wrong with just reading the Book of Mormon for what it actually says, without DS' spin? Looking through the skewed glasses of his world view can change plain and simple truth into something that aligns with his narrative. For example, since his narrative takes the manufactured D&C 132 as a true revelation of God, it must ultimately fit such backward ideas into everything else and this shows up in subtle ways throughout his new doctrines. When one allows these subtleties to shape the views of an otherwise obvious and direct text such as the BoM, this is how a few lies mingled with truth can corrupt everything.
It's not really a problem special to DS. And sincerity had nothing to do with it. Anyone who tries to interpret the BoM or Bible for you is going to inject something into them, whether intentionally or not, which is not necessarily the true meaning. My main objection is not to DS per se. It is to letting any mortal influence one's interpretation of the scriptures. Just read the BoM for yourself with clear eyes and an empty glass. Don't let DS' or anybody else influence how to read it or put a bit into your glass before you fill it up.
YES! Thanks from me too! It lays to rest concerns I've had previously about how to perceive the inconsistencies I've heard and read about Bro. Joseph. And, how grateful I am for what David Whitmer reminded us all about our fallibility as humans. Don't disregard truth because of any connection to erring man (or woman).
@9:54; you are correct in stating that anyone should never try to interpret the scriptures for anyone else--
that includes anyone--
There is a reason for the Book of Mormon's existence.
however, sometimes it is important for *us* to talk with others just to get the idea that we need to think and pray and read and act for ourselves--
that's a somewhat radical notion, after all!
add to Denver Snuffer:
seminary teachers, institute teachers, church college instructors of all fields, Sunday School teachers, RS teachers, priesthood teachers, the men and women who write all the manuals--
anyone on the 'general board'--
people who speak on the 'circuit'--
EFY speakers, BYU Education Week speakers, Primary teachers--
visiting teachers, home teachers---
ANYone who tries to teach anyone anything--
all are suspect--
unless they have the Holy Spirit--
where is the scripture when I need it? If you don't have the spirit, you shall not teach--
the point being--
oh, and yes, conference speakers (all kinds of conferences, the church's regular conferences, and alternative conferences of every possible kind), ministers of other religions, authors of books and blogs--
anyone can teach the wrong thing or push his/her worldview on another person--
makes it very complicated; makes being alive and trying to find the truth VERY risky indeed--
I probably left somebody or some office out--
educators at schools other than church schools--
anyone can lead anyone else astray--
or help someone else find the truth--
it all depends upon whether the Holy Ghost is there or not--
YW and YM leaders--
It's too bad most LDS have never read David Whitmer's amazing pamphlet. You can see why Brigham Young all but obliterated Whitmer from the histories. David's brother John was the official Church Historian, and together the brothers fill in a lot of gaps in our knowledge of what was going on at the beginning. Reading Whitmer's address will help to reconcile many of the difficulties we encounter today when we try to understand inconsistencies.
Whitmer reminds us that Joseph received a revelation (published in the Book of Commandments) that his ONLY gift was to translate the Book of Mormon and that he was to "pretend to no other gift."
This raises some questions: Was Joseph Smith called to be a continuing prophet, seer and revelator, and to "organize" the church into one more Christian denomination among those already in existence? Whitmer shows that the church existed just fine as the believers in Christ; there was no need to register it as a formal denomination. He said others persuaded Joseph that the church needed to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the world, and that the way to accomplish that is by legally organizing it under New York state law.
How about the Book of Abraham? Are the reasons we see questions raised about its authenticity because Joseph was acting beyond his authority?
Perhaps we would not be burdened today with a top-down hierarchy that claims priesthood authority over the lives of the members had Joseph Smith not overstepped his bounds by helping to create a structural entity that divided the leaders from the members at large.
When that revelation was reprinted in the Doctrine & Covenants, the line was amended to read "he is to pretend to no other gifts until he finishes the translation." Was Joseph authorized to amend that revelation? I have no idea what to think about that. All I can tell you is that if you haven't read "An Address To All Believers In Christ" you might want to.
"I can't take seriously anyone who claims a personal visitation from Jesus and then publishes the personal details of such a sacred and obviously private event"
Yeah I mean why believe such an individual, who shares the same message as Nephi, Jacob, Isaiah and a host of others who "parade" their experiences of a personal visit of the Savior....just throw out Joseph Smith and any other who has sought out the Savior......
@ LDSPer: You have been through a lot with your handicapped children. I am so sorry for what your child had to endure. You are special people!
You mentioned being persecuted by a Bishop. Me and my family had a similar experience (not involving handicapped children though). We had two Bishops that harassed us. Not only were the Bishops out to get us but so were other members of the Ward. I also had other things going on at this same time. I wish I had done what you did and plead with Heavenly Father for help and guidance, but we were caught up in other issues that took up a lot of time, and I honestly did not think to go to Heavenly Father. And we went to the SP, who happened to be a brother-in-law to one of the Bishops. The SP could not separate himself from his family and do his job and help us. Wow. He was horrible to us.
I was Primary President and every Sunday I made sure to get Jesus Christ in the lesson, regardless of what was being taught that Sunday. I found ways to tie Christ in to the lesson. Even as a Primary teacher I did the same thing. The majority of the ward did not like what I was doing and how I was doing it. You would have to know the dynamics of the ward to understand why. I believe this was just ONE reason why me and my family were treated badly. I was released as Primary Pres. after just 6 months.
And when my daughter was12 years old had a horrible experience at the hands of 3 sixteen year old boys, members of our ward. The incident was completely dismissed. That was a nightmare. In hind sight I wish I would have called the Sheriff department and filed charges against those boys. That would have gotten some attention!
I think that if I had pleaded with Heavenly Father to help us, things would have turned out differently. I was mad at people, at the church, at leaders, members. At the same time I was dealing with my husband's ungrateful family who did us dirty and my ungrateful ex-family members who did me dirty, and still are. But I learned my lesson regarding going to Heavenly Father for help. It makes a big difference, for good. We never lost our testimony of the gospel/doctrine through all of this though. I have wondered why we have had to go through all that we have been through, if there is a reason, or if it is just life and luck of the draw.
JRSG in Arizona
If that is all you saw in those blog posts, I am sorry for you.
Best wishes to you.
Just one precept of men mixed in with scripture is more than enough for me.
The fact that DS believes in the validity of D&C 132 is enough to disqualify him. The fact that he can't discern that bogus doctrine says a lot about him. It is likely the reason why he floats the idea of Abraham actually killing Isaac, instead of trusting that God would not require it.
The analogy that D&C 132 attempts to make between Abraham being commanded by God to sacrifice his son Isaac, and the notion of Abraham being commanded by God to have plural marriage/concubines is a FALSE analogy; a logical fallacy. Abraham DID NOT actually sacrifice his son. Abraham showed his faith and *understanding* in the true God and the goodness of God, that God would provide another way. And that’s what happened; God provided an animal instead as Abraham believed would happen. Abraham knew God was good and that it was a test of his faith and a blessing of knowledge about the sacrifice that would eventually be made by the Son of God. The D&C 132 analogy can only work if God also stepped in to STOP the plural marriage/concubinage from taking place. I got news for you: God doesn’t make false analogies. Therefore, God is not the author of D&C 132; Satan is the ultimate author of D&C 132, and Satan sucks at logic.
But DS attempts to force D&C 132 into the picture. Therefore, the idea that Abraham actually killed Isaac works better for his narrative. Then that part of D&C 132 is not as blatant of a logical fallacy anymore. That's likely why DS is susceptible to rewriting the account in Genesis and so he floats the idea. He does the same sort of reinterpretations elsewhere--as I have already pointed out with Nephi and exaltation of men to gods--to fit in other problematic 19th and 20th century doctrines.
I am sorry for you--that you don't realize these things. Many people don't get it yet. Protip: As easy way to check whether someone is on the right track or wrong track is their position on D&C 132. If they get this wrong, they are going to get a whole lot of things wrong. It may be subtle, but many things will be wrong.
I have also had lots of bad treatment from most all of the Bishops and Stake Presidents I have had the last 20 years (over 12 leaders) but I have found it worth it if it wakes us up to how corrupt & false they and the Church are.
Now it all makes sense why they act so badly, this is how false leaders with pretended authority & how false churches work, churches founded by scoundrels & imposters like Brigham Young, John Taylor, W.W., etc., for the corruptness goes all the way to the top still today.
Heavenly Father is hoping the bad experiences we receive will wake us up, but unfortunately it usually doesn't.
I totally agree 4:31, I believe that what we believe & feel about polygamy says alot about our characters.
If DS can believe in 132 or polygamy in any instance, I would never believe he had an experience with Christ, for it is totally opposite to Christ's teachings and he would know that if he ever talked to Christ.
DS reveals himself by what he believes, not only in polygamy but in many other things he does & says.
God would could/would never tempt or tell Abraham to sacrifice his son, for it goes totally against his laws and even God has to obey eternal law. God cannot tempt us to do evil or he would cease to be God. Joseph Smith and other prophets clearly taught that this is how you know revelation, etc, is from God or not, if it is contrary to God's laws.
Abraham apparently had long lost the Spirit from living polygamy with Hagar etc, had was very vulnerable to falling for revelation from the Adversary, which I believe is who told him to sacrifice Issac.
Now it probably was God who stepped in to save Issac by an angel, but we know God could never have told him to do it in the 1st place.
Abraham also proved he didn't have the Spirit when he went on to remarry after his wife died instead of being faithful to his 1st wife and when he went on to take all those concubines.
Just like Joseph Smith said, unless we have perfect love, we will be deceived by falsehoods, for if we have perfect love we will be able to see if others have it or not, and not be deceived about past or present false or fall prophets.
I don't agree with Todd Compton about many things (including polygamy), but I spent a LOT of time in the Book of Mormon during that awful time--finding the scriptures about persecution--
and there are many--
and then I was led to this, which I found very fascinating--
again, this man is 'teaching'; this man could be compared to anyone who teaches anywhere/anytime; the things he said, however, made a huge difference to me:
This is all very mainstream, but like Denver Snuffer, this man is just a church member; he has no special calling; he is just a church member with an idea--
I have shared this article with church leaders, ones whom I felt were sympathetic, and the reaction has been mixed--
There are those who believe that only general authorities should be heeded; well, this particular article has done me a lot of good (and my family members)--so . . .
as I say, though, I don't agree with Compton on everything at all--
It was HARD to trust in the Lord during that time, but I'm glad we did. It was really strange when we heard about the total incapacitation of the one leader and when the other one was dying he came to me and apologized, weeping. The situation was very deep; one of our special needs child was targeted (as was another special needs child, but in a different way)--and one of our 'normal' children had some terribly unjust things happen--
this man confessed to it all; he confessed to being part of it; we didn't find out until several years later how deep the conspiracy (and yes, it was a conspiracy) went--
and it's all in the Book of Mormon.
When I preach the Book of Mormon, :) , there is a reason for it--
I got more comfort from that book than from anything--
There are few things more sad or terrible than those who have access to the truth who turn away from it. The Book of Mormon makes it clear what happens to them--
they become much more hardened. So do our "brothers and sisters" who are leaders who persecute the poor, the meek, the handicapped and ill--
they become more hardened. It's all part of the 'wheat and tares' process--
hard not to get impatient with the Lord's timing, but when you see people dealt with by the Lord when you know they have been corrupt--
it's really very hard; it really is--
@anyone who cares--
every living human being has been deceived in one way or another--
knowingly or not knowingly--
I mean, either they have come to see the deception or not--
the greatest efforts any honest-hearted human being makes not to be deceived . . .
can be supplanted when a person is sick or tired or needy in any way--
and to the person who said that a church founded by Brigham Young would have to be evil--
Jesus did establish His church when He was living, and that church became totally corrupt--
I don't like Brigham Young any more than any other person who questions his integrity--
but each human being can make choices to follow Jesus Christ or not--
no matter where he/she finds him/herself.
It's silly to say that a person can't be righteous if he/she finds him/herself in a certain organization. It is the individual choices made that matter--
for one person, I honestly believe, the best choice may be to leave the church, though I would never encourage anyone to do it. IF a person came to me, told me about something that had happened to hurt him/her in a way that could never be resolved--
and had received a confirmation of the Spirit that he/she needed to leave the church, as long as it was done in a humble spirit, not trying to hurt anyone--
I would support him/her.
I do encourage people to stay in the church, but the idea that anyone who stays in the church being evil is--
well, it's not a righteous judgement.
If *you* choose to leave and you do so for inspired reasons, I will support you in that choice and not condemn or judge you--
so don't judge others when they choose to stay. It's a simple matter of respecting agency.
I can choose to believe as I wish about Brigham Young (I personally believe he was a scoundrel, but used by the Lord, somehow--my own ancestors thought little of him, by the way)--
and still remain in the church, especially if, after much fasting and prayer, I am told to remain. It's not easy, believe me.
I don't believe that 132 is inspired, either, but I believe Denver Snuffer has a right to his opinion, and others have a right to read what he says or listen to what he says. I haven't read him or listened to him, beyond reading a few of his blog entries; when he mentioned polygamy I decided I didn't want to read him anymore. That was my choice, and I was trying to follow the spirit; I can't accept that polygamy was, ever, right--
no matter who did or did not live it--
but I can allow others the agency to listen to or read whom they will, without attacking them--
I don't agree with Todd Compton on polygamy at all--
but he wrote some valuable things that have been helpful to me--
you hold on to good things where and when you find them--
if you become too extremely black and white in your delineations you can miss out on some good things, I believe. But agency is sacred.
And I don't like that Snuffer is being 'watched' and scrutinized. Gives me the chills at the back of my neck--
Yes, everyone is at times deceived, but those with the Holy Spirit (perfect love) soon see through the deception and change things, so they don't lose the blessings of eternal life.
And yes, even true churches like the one Christ started always become corrupt, usually quickly. Just like corrupt churches started by scoundrels.
Just because we feel we have received revelation from God to stay in a corrupt church doesn't mean our revelation was from God.
For God is not a God of confusion, he doesn't tell some to leave the Church and some to stay. One or both are getting false revelation.
I believe the Adversary is constantly giving people revelation to 'stay in the Church', for it's effective at lulling people asleep to go along with & support evil.
Before we follow our personal revelation we must test it & compare it to the scriptures and the teachings of Christ and true prophets like Joseph Smith to know if it's true or not.
For Christ, Joseph Smith and other prophets warned us that if we support false or evil organizations, governments, churches, teachings, leaders or false & evil prophets, we can lose our Celestial Standing.
If we have the Spirit and the Scriptures we can be spiritually independent and not have to rely on any mortal or church or organization to lead us, until the true Church is again restored.
If we don't have the Spirit then Joseph Smith taught that we will be deceived and lose our eternal life, no matter what Church we go to.
Anonymous? Are you a scorpio?
1 Nephi 14:26 implies (though this is just from my own reading) that others throughout the world of whom the Nephites were then unaware--would have things told them--
My husband is looking for the Book of Mormon scripture that chides one of the Nephite prophets for not believing that others had access to the truth, from time to time--
you said (anonymous):
if we have the Spirit and the Scriptures we can be spiritually independent and not have to rely on any mortal or church or organization to lead us, until the true Church is again restored.
How did you get those scriptures? Nobody here (not I) is denying the widespread apostasy. Even those presidents of the church (apostles) whom you deem to have been fallen men--
have announced that the church continues to be under condemnation; both President Benson and President Hinckley said that--
flawed as they were.
Before we follow our personal revelation we must test it & compare it to the scriptures and the teachings of Christ and true prophets like Joseph Smith to know if it's true or not.
To assume that others are not doing this is arrogant.
For God is not a God of confusion, he doesn't tell some to leave the Church and some to stay. One or both are getting false revelation.
I believe the Adversary is constantly giving people revelation to 'stay in the Church', for it's effective at lulling people asleep to go along with & support evil.
You can believe whatever you want, and I won't tell you that you are supporting evil. I do believe that people are placed where the Lord wants them to be--yes, even Bhuddists, Catholics, Hindus, Jews, and Muslims--
I have met people who have been led to other churches; I have met people of other religions who believe God has led them there. Who are YOU to question that?
take your logic farther?
Is each person supposed to:
--marry at exactly the same age?
--go to exactly the same training institutions?
--have the same professions?
--wear the same kinds of clothing, etc.?
--have the same number of children?
Do you believe that each person is guided personally to do unique things with his/her life? *I* do. That is the difference in our beliefs. You obviously believe there is ONE, RIGHT way to live--
and anyone who lives differently has been deceived.
That's absurd. I don't believe that everyone should adopt special needs kids, home school or avoid conventional medical treatment, and yet I have, prayerfully, made those choices.
I know people who have been told to pursue conventional medical treatments and send their children to public school--
and who would never even consider adopting children with special needs--
do I think they are spiritually inferior to me? Good heavens; if I do, I am no better than the Pharisees/hypocrites!
You really place a huge emphasis on churches--
I believe that pure hearts can find truth anywhere, and I believe God loves all His children enough that He will lead them to truth WHEREVER they are.
Not leaving the LDS church is a personal choice. Leaving it is a personal choice.
Even though you apparently have left the LDS church you are still imbued with the traditional inheritance of believing that it is your responsibility to 'convert' others--
I share my beliefs with others. They can listen if they wish. I like to talk to others who love the Book of Mormon and Jesus Christ.
to be continued
continued from tirade #1--
. Beyond that I do NOT believe it is my stewardship to tell anyone that they are wicked for being: Bhuddist, Catholic, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim--
Or for not being any of the above--
I've said it before, and I will continue to say it--
just being in this world requires a certain amount of support for evil.
If you ate something today, there is a chance that you hurt someone--
there is someone who helped prepare your food, even if you got most of it from your own garden, which some of us try very hard to do--
if you used fertilizer (even organic), someone may have been hurt in the process of making that fertilizer--
any number of things--
if you have recently been to ANY store, you have supported evil.
You are not free from the stains of this world, whatever religion you do or do not choose--
hence, we all need a Savior--
even those of us who stay in the LDS church--
even those who leave.
And I DO believe in personal revelation. I know people who were told not to have any more children and found out later that they did the right thing. I know people who were told to have as many children as possible and found out later why--
you could take ANY aspect of life and apply what you said to it--
and you come out--
needing a Savior, whatever you chose/choose.
We have had this discussion before. I am NOT telling you that you are evil for having made the choice you have made. Would you please stop implying that others are evil, because they have made choices different from the ones you have made.
It is annoying.
If you have access to the Book of Mormon, thank a church, even the very apostate, flawed LDS church--
the most reprehensible young man I ever met (in my high school in a place FAR away from the intermountain west) was the son of a RLDS minister--
he had the mind of a sewer rat--
thank imperfect missionaries, even LDS--
thank even the corrupt LDS corporation that keeps those presses rolling and keeps the Book of Mormons coming--
but someone has to keep that book being printed--
and you wouldn't have it if the church (whether RLDS with their evil sons of ministers or LDS with their abusive bishops, etc.)--
in some form hadn't brought it to you--
I don't want to talk about callings, etc.--
but what I do for a calling right now (and I won't say what it is) gives me an opportunity to have an influence right at the 'front lines'--
to help people think about Jesus Christ.
If I left the church, I wouldn't have this opportunity--
Yes, I can see myself going from door to door:
I'm standing there, holding the Book of Mormon:
"I want to tell you about this book. Now, don't have anything to do with the church that prints this book; they are a bunch of corrupt reprobates, but read this book, and it will lead you to Christ."
Door slams. I'm considered a lunatic.
That's fine. I don't mind people thinking I'm crazy--
but what is the point?
The church gives people an arena. And opportunity to be good or bad and to influence people either with a testimony of Jesus Christ or with the philosophies of men (mingled with scripture)--
a testing ground--
IF a particular person chooses not to be involved, I can think of a myriad of reasons why they might definitely be justified and, yes, by the Lord--
but to tell people that they are wicked and supporting wickedness if they choose to step onto that very problematic and very difficult stage and try to speak a part--
is . . .
well, it's not your place.
It's not anyone's place.
I have been a missionary. I regret ever having manipulated anyone, IF I did or when I did--
I have searched my mind and heart to see if I did--
but if I tried to manipulate; if I tried to use my own wisdom and not the Spirit of God to teach or 'convert'--
then I was wrong.
You don't know what Father in Heaven's will for each and every one of His children is--
to assume that you do is, as I said earlier, arrogant.
End of rant.
And, yes, I believe I am defending truth by saying what I am saying, because agency is sacred, and the notion that *you* (or anyone) knows what is right for every other human being is--
not a righteous principle. It's not true.
amen and amen!
anyone who cared about the scripture from the Book of Mormon about how God deals with ALL nations of the earth:
7 Know ye not that there are more anations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the bisles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the cearth beneath; and I bring forth my dword unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth?
What does this mean if it doesn't mean that, however apostate they have become, every major world religion had its roots in God at some point?
What on earth could it possibly mean--
Perhaps the major world religion swallowed the truth up, but there are bits of truth still left--
some of the most advanced medicine (yes, medicine, but not western) in the world comes from ancient China and more recent (but still VERY old) India--
there are Godly people in all these religions--
tell them or tell Father in Heaven that these people are supporting evil by remaining:
Bhuddist or Catholic or Hindu or Jew or Muslim
There is indignation in this scripture at the audacity of those who think that truth can only be had by certain individuals--
I declare that even LDS can seek for and find the truth--
Yes, I know some Bhuddists who are scary (yes, even violent and extreme, which is something not many westerners know); I know Catholics and others who are not good people--
but many, many of these people are seeking God--
and they will, in spite of what anyone else thinks, find Him.
I really have said enough.
Why haven't you answered the questions I brought up to you in the previous article? I have been waiting for your response. Perhaps the reason might be you are what is called an internet "troll". Here's a definition...
"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
The question is are you an accidental or deliberate one.
Some of your questions are just silly---some paranoid. I have you the benefit of the doubt, assuming such questions were meant to be rhetorical. If you have serious questions, I'd be happy to try to answer them.
I have listed three paragraphs below. These are my comments which contain the questions you have not answered. I have put them in parentheses so as to not confuse them with my other comments.
(Going back to your first comment you started by saying..."I think you all need a wake up call." You are making an unrighteous judgement here because you know very little about any of us who post on this blog. This is unless -HF stands for Heavenly Father. Are you Heavenly Father?)
I can see how you might take the question, in the above paragraph, as being a rhetorical one, however in the context it was written, it is a valid question. A simple answer from you would have been "the HF stands for ____ and not Heavenly Father."
(In your second sentence you say..."I suggest you all watch the following video and receive wisdom if you are able." Another harsh judgement with an insult tacked on to the end. Is this what Jesus would do?)
This one is obviously a rhetorical question. I doubt Jesus would say what you said.
(Are you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? I think your earlier comments were deceptive as to your background because of your comeback... "Not so sir. I'm a firm believer in the Book of Mormon and frequent reader of your blog." When I read your comments it sounded like you were a anti-mormon trying to convert all us cultish Mormons to Jesus. Was this intentional or unintentional? I will leave that judgement up to God.)
There are two questions in this paragraph. The first one is important because many people believe in the Book of Mormon, not just members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. If I understand your background I can communicate with you more effectively which could lead to us better understanding each other. If you are a sincere person you should have no problem answering this one.
The second question was rhetorical and intended to get you to think how you came across to the readers of the blog. Only you and God can answer that question.
You really have me scratching my head on the "paranoid" accusation. Be more specific.
BTW. Your own comments (words), put you in the classification of and fits the definition a "troll", accidental or deliberate.
Let me explain a bit of my thought process to hopefully clarify a few things. There were calls by commenters for more lively and ad hoc church meetings. There were calls by commenters for softer views on this rule here or irrelevance of that practice over there. There was an increasing aversion to the Bible and a growth in Mormonism insularity in the nature of comments over many months. So, I posted a very lively church meeting with a very strict message, based on the Bible (on a section it mostly agrees with the Book of Mormon), by a non-Mormon. You could have taken away several lessons from it (if you were able/open to receive them).
1) Lively isn't necessarily a good thing. For example, yelling hell fire at the congregation will certainly get your attention, but what do you lose? Many people answered that part in their responses.
2) Jesus actually did preach about hell and hell fire, but you likely never really heard that before at church. What does that say about the consequences of downplaying adherence to the laws of the gospel? What does that say about how/what we emphasize at church?
3) "What does the Bible (BoM) say?" Almost no one made any scriptural appeals in their complaints. Should this question be asked more or less often? I think is it critical to appeal to scripture often and to read or re-read them completely objectively without influences from church interpretation unless and until such interpretations come to one's mind/heart by the still small voice. I also think the Bible is more reliable than the popular church opinion seems to entail, and that it is a mistake to discount it so much.
4) Does how the message gets delivered affect the truth it contains?
Item 4) is partly why I said "receive wisdom if you are able." Were you open to what that preacher had to say? Did you give it an objective hearing? Your response was essentially what I had predicted. You said you got virtually nothing from it. I'd say that puts you in the category of not able to receive it, because *I* got a lot from it--whether the preacher intended what I got from it or not. It's kind of a Rorschach test. Some people turn off reception when they read my statement, while others turn it on so as not to do the predicted behavior of not receiving.
Your inquiry about my initials is paranoid. It is a ridiculous notion that never would have occurred to me until you said it.
I will have to side with the message of the last blog post that allegiance to the church is irrelevant. That is not to say I am LDS or that I am not LDS. It is to say that I do not care about such distinctions. There are many doctrines and ideas floating around in all churches, including the LDS, that I do not agree with, and many that I do, so you would be making a number of false assumptions whatever church you think I belong to.
I think I understand what you were trying to do, sort of.
Questioning the bible is a natural extension of believing that the Articles of Faith are inspired:
8 We believe the aBible to be the bword of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly; we also believe the dBook of Mormon to be the word of God.
It's also an extension of believing that the Book of Mormon is 'the most correct book'--and taking this, and other such, scriptures seriously:
34 And it came to pass that the angel of the Lord spake unto me, saying: Behold, saith the Lamb of God, after I have avisited the bremnant of the house of Israel—and this remnant of whom I speak is the seed of thy father—wherefore, after I have visited them in judgment, and smitten them by the hand of the Gentiles, and after the Gentiles do cstumble exceedingly, because of the most plain and precious parts of the dgospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, which is the mother of harlots, saith the Lamb—I will be merciful unto the eGentiles in that day, insomuch that I will fbring forth unto them, in mine own power, much of my ggospel, which shall be plain and precious, saith the Lamb. (13, 1Nephi)
40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These alast records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall bestablish the truth of the cfirst, which are of the dtwelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the eSavior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.
I objected to the youtube of the evangelical pastor, based upon his predictable use of the word "liberals"--
as so many evangelicals do (and LDS)--
trying to make spiritual points by using political catchwords--
"liberal" is meaningless and collectivist--
and is also used mostly by neo-conservatives, whom I have a hard time respecting.
So, the man exposed himself as being politically asleep before he could say anything of worth spiritually--
I discounted him for that reason; I have heard too many such evangelicals speak, and it's--
not inspiring to me--
I don't care what church you belong to, either--
whatever you believe about Joseph Smith and the first apostles--
this is interesting:
There was a powerful strain of universalism in Joseph Smith and others with whom he associated--
it died out not long after the Mormons went to Utah--
and was replaced by "the one true church" ideology--
but, here on Pure Mormonism, one of the things that draws some of *us* to Rock's blog is that *we* like to talk about the things that Joseph Smith actually did, said, and preached--
NOT what was said about him or what came later--
Universalists believe that many people can have the truth--
and that there is not 'one true church'--
I'm not the one who asked you questions, but I can certainly tell you why I was unimpressed by the youtube of the preacher--
I HAVE heard Christian, even some evangelists (though most of them are too militant for me) preachers who have impressed me--
I am 'gathering' that you are a neo-conservative; many Christians who renounce war question the Old Testament, especially the war narratives--
but if you are a neo-conservative, you would not think those parts of the Bible have been translated incorrectly--
I am not a neo-conservative--
oh, and I happen to LOVE sleepy church meetings--
especially if I haven't slept well the night before--
But the fact is that Joseph Smith's meetings were much more spontaneous--
whether or not he yelled--
or shouted about hell--
I read much of it and was fascinated--
I just ran out of time (and my eyes hurt; it's not easy to read)--
but I read the central themes--
I read where David says that Joseph said shortly before he was killed something to the effect of polygamy being a 'cursed doctrine' and would bring trouble to the saints and something about how he, Joseph, had made the mistake of being too gentle with his associates and hoping they would repent, instead of calling them to repentance.
What I read from James Whitehead is that Newell K. Whitney brought 132 to him (or the revelation on marriage), and that there was nothing in it about plural marriage--
James Whitehead lived near the prophet for several years, had dealings with only one wife (Emma) and was Joseph's personal secretary--
when he delivered the records (on Joseph's request as per his instructions written up before he died) of the church to Brigham Young and other apostles in Omaha--
he said that he felt that the 'saints' had dwindled in refinement and spirituality, and he turned away from them. He also suggested that George Miller (an early bishop, who was a brother to my ancestor) said a similar thing; George was not a polygamist, but he helped the saints go west and established a righteous posterity.
HOW we have been misled--
it all seems to go back to Brigham somehow--
Men who didn't want to live polygamy tried to stay in the midwest--and found it difficult to find others with whom they could 'commune'--
David Whitmer does imply that Joseph 'did' polygamy, but he doesn't try to prove it--
makes *you* wonder if he heard this from Joseph or if he believed the conspirators--
he did believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, and he had powerful, obviously, feelings about the Book of Mormon--
if my eyes were better I would have finished it; I did read the last few pages--
The apostate LDS Church had nothing to do with bringing forth the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith did that, not Brigham Young.
I believe I would have been as good or probably better a Christian even if I had never been born into or heard of the LDS Church. It has taken me half my life to unlearn the falsehoods the Church has taught me and untangle myself from it. Now I am finally wonderfully free to learn the truth directly from God and the Scriptures, without having to worry about going against false & unrighteous leaders & false prophets who expect blind obedience and acceptance.
While I agree we all need a Savior, for no one is perfect, I believe we are only forgiven of our present ignorance & failings if we are continually doing all we can to awake & learn & stop supporting evil, as we find out about it.
And I don't agree that God wants people in all different religions or to support socialism if we can avoid it.
I believe that God tells everyone the same basic things about such things as what Church or no church to belong to, what kind of education is ok for their children, what kind of medical treatment is good, etc. They would all have the same basic beliefs in those things.
But in things like clothes, profession, where to live etc, they would of course be varied for there is not one right outfit or one right place to live or one right profession.
And I don't believe there is any way we can know for sure if someone else received 'true' revelation about the # of children they should have, for it's even hard for the couple themselves to know for sure, no matter how sure they may feel. Only in the next life will we know if we or others received true revelation or not.
Most everyone, good or evil, right or wrong, believes their revelation and inspiration came from God, even if it didn't.
And I believe we should share our beliefs, especially when they are based on what Christ, Joseph Smith and other 'true' prophets have taught, in order to try to discuss & reason together so we help each other not be deceived to support evil.
I believe that we should always try to convert others to the truth, if we believe we are right, as long as we are open to the possibility that we may be wrong and if we aren't right then hopefully someone will convert us to the truth.
I believe that should be the aim and the best use of sites like this. To reason together to learn & discern truth from error, right from wrong & devils from saints.
oops, it may have been David Whitmer who admired George Miller and quoted him as having struggled with the 'apostles'--
but he still went West; this verifies what I know from family journals, that not all the faithful saints lived polygamy--
George and his brother were close and believed the same things--
I realize that not everyone lives near native American run casinos--
but in the part of the country where *I* live (and the part I moved from over 10 years ago) they were BIG--
and most of the 'victims'--
most of the addicts--
I believe we can serve others, and teach them about Christ, share the Book of Mormon and be good examples far better if we are not members of an apostate unrighteous Church with false leaders & doctrines.
I believe there are other Churches out there doing far more to promote Christ's teachings then the LDS Church ever did, even though they don't even have the Book of Mormon.
@anonymous--9:17 (August 28)--
Turley and Jensen. Jensen I am familiar with; the Turleys I know aren't in church leadership (not in Utah)--
Can you give me a link or tell a little more?
The Swiss pioneers (Mormon) generally avoided polygamy--
a woman I know who is descended from Brigham Young (and had little respect for him, actually--told me about how many of his descendants were 'rotters')--
married a descendant of Swiss pioneers; his family devoutly refused polygamy--
but wouldn't live polygamy--
so I am very curious about this--
the Swiss, interesting people--
wish I were part Swiss--
No one is saying that there aren't good people in every religion, but that if they have the Spirit they will eventually become of one mind and one religion.
I kind of think we've been 'around this block' before--
and we're not going to agree--
I rather get the idea that you haven't had much association with Godly non-Christians.
My belief that Father in Heaven loves all His children profoundly--
leads me to feel that He will find a way to make certain that all of His Children eventually know the truth--
and that is the beauty of the plan--
and in that I rejoice--
which is why I don't worry if people are not LDS or--
some other kind of Christian or even if people have left the LDS church--
I guess the understanding or belief about the atonement of Jesus Christ which each of us has--
is not exactly the same.
You have your perspective; I have mine.
Worldviews (as in, do you have non-Christians in your family and among your friends whose lives are exemplary?)--
and life experiences can be very different.
Did you see this?
Joseph Smith and some of the people he taught were actually Universalists--
which means that he believed that God worked through all religions--
yes, this seems to contradict the First Vision--
but we do know there were more than one version of that, as well--
and that the Christian religions that existed during the time of Joseph's early youth were condemned by the Lord--
probably more than other religions in the world at that time--
Universalists don't believe in exceptionalism--
I find that exceptionalists ("one true church", "one true nation", "one true people")--
don't usually agree with me--
maybe you are not an exceptionalist, or maybe you haven't thought about it--
but generally speaking exceptionalists have a very different worldview from universalists--
I had a very hard time with Mitt Romney, who was very much an exceptionalist--
most of my LDS friends were shocked that I had no respect for him--
but I really couldn't find any respect for him--
but I'm not a social conservative; I am a libertarian--
social conservatives tend to try to 'change' other people--
libertarians tend to leave other people alone--
so I'll leave you alone--
and . . .
Just finished reading the pamphlet and checking out its sources such as the Book of Commandments and early D&C.
This changes everything for me. Seriously.
Something has clicked. I feel like a weight has been lifted off my shoulders. I've always had a strong conviction about the veracity of Book of Mormon, but mostly phoned-it-in on other stuff. I often wondered why so many present-day doctrines are just not in there at all.
The Book of Mormon always has and still does give me that tingly sensation on the back of my neck when I read it. D&C has always been more of a "blah" or an "OK, that's cool" or occasionally "hmmm, lemme get back to you on that one."
It's time to reread and rethink everything from a new perspective. What do the scriptures actually say when you have the present-day doctrinal filters turned off?
I don't believe Joseph thought that more than 1 church was the 'true' church, even if he thought God did help people in all religions to eventually come to the 'whole' truth and the true Church.
I would have to say that I'm a 'one true church' person, though I believe the 'physical' true church has been taken from the earth, and will be restored in Zion.
But I believe that all those who are true believers in Christ and truly live his teachings are part of his 'spiritual' Church, and God leads them all & teaches them all the same principles & doctrines through his Spirit, just as a prophet would if he were on the earth.
I also would never vote for Romney, for I don't believe he stands for true freedom and the Constitution or God's laws.
But then again, I don't know of any politician since Joseph Smith that I feel I could righteously vote for or support.
Good for you! When we start to see the real truth about church history we must rewind back to our only real & true foundation 'Christ' and begin again to look at every single doctrine, practice and person by testing them against the teachings of Christ and the Book of Mormon.
Prove all things and only hold fast to (only believe) that which is good, true and in harmony with Christ.
It gets worse regarding D&C 20. History as to its provenance has been altered (Recall that the introduction implying that it was a revelation given *through* Joseph Smith, was written by a committee headed by Bruce McConkie, a far from accurate source.)
Ever wonder who the "we" is referred to in Section 20? Daymon Smith shows in chapter 6 of "A Cultural History of the Book of Mormon" that D&C 20 consists of a mish-mash of previous texts written by any number of early leaders, including Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Rigdon, Pratt, Whitmer, and "everyone else who rose to leadership before it was formalized for publication:
"The published text of the Articles and Covenants (as D&C 20) is a patchwork of theologies, administrative procedures, and liturgy taken from other texts....a work in progress stopped by publication...It is a textual diagram of the mess that was Mormonism during the early 1830s, as Smith and Cowdery saw their church transformed by Restorationists."
As Daymon documents in his book, the Rigdonite theology of "Restoration of Ancient Things" came from the Campbellite tradition of whom these early Mormon converts were disciples. "Restoration" as spoken of in the Book of Mormon meant something quite different from restoring the church after the model of first century old world Christianity. But these early converts saw that word "Restoration" and imposed their own interpretation on it. That view, promoted by Campbell, held that it was necessary for the church to adhere to the pattern of the first century Christian church with its officers, apostles, teachers, deacons, teachers, and priests. (You may recall that model was easily taken over and corrupted by designing men withing 300 years. I wonder why anyone thought the devil could not infiltrate it a second time?)
Rigdon championed a church of top-down leadership with himself at the top. (It is widely believed that Sidney Rigdon invented the office of High Priest himself, as "Elder" is supposed to be the highest office in the church.)
And so it was that in its first year of existence, the church began to go astray from its Book of Mormon roots, because the members largely ignored the Book of Mormon in favor of forming a more Protestant Reformed denomination.
It's absolutely amazing to me how these leaders can actually expect anyone to unquestionably follow leaders when these leaders who spoke have to know themselves how fallible and often evil such local leaders can be.
Yet the Church never mentions the fact how so many leaders fall off the wagon or that they even can, they just keep demanding blind obedience as if they are perfect.
What's even more amazing and sad is that most people fall for it.
Also, it's pretty hypocritical and even humorous that church leaders are judging Denver Snuffer, when they themselves preach and practice far more and even worse falsehoods that are completely contrary to the teachings of Christ, then Denver ever did.
I think the church leaders don't want people to follow Christ directly, but only want people to go through their 'official' interpretation of his Gospel, which is totally skewed. For if people start following Christ directly and gain a relationship with him, then they soon start seeing how wrong and corrupt the Church leaders are and have been since Brigham Young.
Wow!! Thank you for the link to An Address To All Believers In Christ. That's a side of the story that I've never heard before! It definitely cleared up the whole "prophet, seer, revelator" thing going on in the church.
I especially liked his explanation of why we get the answers to our prayers that we want to get. I get so tired of hearing people argue their position by saying that the Spirit told them this book was inspired by God or the Spirit confirmed that that person isn't a prophet. "The Spirit" can confirm our current beliefs and stubbornness all day long if we let it. Now when I get an answer I didn't want to hear or I get revelation out of the blue that goes against my current beliefs? That's when I really start to take notice and think the Holy Ghost might be trying to tell me something.
Thanks again for the article link. I can't prophecy to the truth of it one way or the other but it gave me a lot to think about!
Thank you for clarifying your thought process for me.
In the first paragraph of your latest comments, you give a number of reasons why you posted the UHF&D sermon. You said…
“There were calls by commenters for more lively and ad hoc church meetings.”
Apparently you did not comprehend what the articles and comments, posted on this blog, were saying about church meetings. They were not calling for … “more lively and ad hoc meetings.” What they were calling for is to be fed spiritual food instead of watered down soup or “fried froth” as President John Taylor referred to it.
The very next sentence you say…
“There were calls by commenters for softer views on this rule here or irrelevance of that practice over there.”
Again it is apparent that you do not comprehend what is actually being said. What this blog is about is to evaluate beliefs and practices within the churchy and try to come to an understanding of which ones apply to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and which are the philosophies of men. Paul said to "prove all things" and "hold fast to that which is good."
Your next sentence says…
“There was an increasing aversion to the Bible and a growth in Mormonism insularity in the nature of comments over many months.”
This comment puzzles me. I would admit there have been a few comments which could be interpreted as such, however I would not call the opinion of a few persons as being a trend. In fact, if you responded directly to them, you could get a better understanding of what they are meaning. And who knows? Maybe you would see that they are not totally discounting the Bible. They just think the Book of Mormon is more accurate and complete.
Before responding to your comments about what I and the other commenters on this blog should have learned…"receive wisdom if you are able." I am going to respond to your accusation that I am paranoid. First I am going to quote again what I actually said.
(Going back to your first comment you started by saying..."I think you all need a wake up call." You are making an unrighteous judgment here because you know very little about any of us who post on this blog. This is unless -HF stands for Heavenly Father. Are you Heavenly Father?)
There is no indication of paranoid thinking here. I was making a valid point about your lack of knowledge of the persons you are judging so harshly. Only God (not you) knows each person well enough to make these kinds of judgments. Do you get it now?
Now I will address the sermon by the HF&D preacher. I watched the video twice. I carefully listened to every word. I did not learn anything new! I have heard this type of preaching numerous times. He did not bring any new information to my attention. If you go back and read the main parts of my comments you will see what my opinion is regarding, this preacher’s and your, interpretation of the scripture you and he quoted. Obviously you have ignored the main body of my comments which were in response to yours.
I hope and pray that you will go back and read what each individual has said. Then respond directly to that person and not lump everyone into a collective.
I think it's important to keep in mind the basic commandments--
that's why those who preached polygamy did so much damage.
If they wanted to condemn themselves, fine--
if they wanted to have a cultural/social experience (ICK!), then they were just doing what many other corrupt civilizations had done--
but to PREACH that a person would be more righteous if he/she did that--
they didn't just condemn themselves. There were Mormon pioneers who held steady and didn't live polygamy and still went west and remained faithful--
so, *I* think, and this is just my opinion, that if something comes even close to 'breaking' one of the basic commandments, and *we* get an answer we should do it--
that's when *we* have to ask ourselves if we are 'in tune'.
I had an ancestor who skirted around polygamy by praying. I wonder how many of them really prayed about it.
It's human nature to try to cover up feelings of guilty by assuring everyone that they have done the right thing--
if Jesus said it was wrong, then it is wrong any time--
if a person is told by the Holy Ghost to do something that is uplifting and never, at any time, disobeyed a direct command from God that can be found in the scriptures (and I'm not talking about Leviticus here, though I know LDS who do follow that dietary code pretty closely)
then that person is probably quite safe.
Yea, the story of my great-grandfather who emigrated from Sweden via Denmark (where he was doing an apprenticeship in blacksmithing and locksmithing when converted by the missionaries, and where he fell in love with the boss's daughter, marrying her on the ship while crossing the ocean to alleviate a shortage of blankets), in later years in Utah the story was that the local brethren approached him with a "calling" to take another wife due to the success and prosperity of his business, and his heavily accented response was "No tanks, I haf all de troubles I vant vif de von I got." Having met and known a very fiesty Danish woman in my local community (Not LDS), I can imagine exactly where he was coming from.
Vat dus dis haf de do wit circling da vagens?
Alan: I hope you are doing alright. You've been kind of quiet . ..
@JRGS I have an idea of what you went through in Primary. Last week, my wife and I were were teaching in Primary about Jesus wanting us to show love to others. We included loving strangers by opening the door for them. Helping someone at the grocery store that dropped their oranges. Three of the children in our class have mothers teaching my daughter in the Laurel class.
The message my daughter got was how bad the show "Modern Family" on TV was and that they should not watch it because of the homosexuals on it. Essentially, the lesson seemed to teach the girls to be homophobes. They also learned that a woman having a job was against gospel principles. (I know it is great to be a a stay-at-home Mom but, not everyone wants it or can have it. However, it is not a gospel principle.) To me, they are teaching the kids to have contempt for others.
It is disheartening that I have to correct the teachings on the way home from church. These were not teachings of Jesus. it felt the opposite of what we taught their children. It is like they talk "too much". Instead of teaching how great motherhood is as a role, they have to dismiss others instead. They need to just stop before giving their negative opinions.
As seen from this example, people can easily slip into false doctrine and spread it unwisely.
These women are nice people. The leadership has failed them. (It has failed my daughters too but, I knew that). This is leadership on multiple levels. I believe that extrapolated the lesson from a Russell Ballard talk from what I can understand from the YW web site.
An example of leadership failure is thoughtful excited members like JRGS want to teach the Primary about Jesus. The kids know if someone is excited to teach them. Too many times, the replacement is a corporate church drone is boring to the kids.
I have read your latest post with interest. Particularly regarding the Australian family. Alarm bells started to ring very loudly for me when you mentioned they were "connected" (for want of a better word) with Denver Snuffer. I have just finished reading his latest book Passing The Heavenly Gift, and I believe him to be a seriously misguided individual. In fact, I would go so far as to say that he is really, really bad news.
These people, whatever their concerns about the church, should, in my view, stay well away from him and his teachings. It will only end in tears.
Good try! Maybe we should ALL go get that book by Denver Snuffer and read it for ourselves and then be inspired by the Holy Spirit and make our own judgements. Isn't that the way it should go anyway. Readers would be crazy to take your or anyone else's advice on something without verifying it for themselves. I have a copy if anyone would like me to pass it on.
Is reading detrimental to us? Only if taken in small quantities!
I'm still here. I may not always respond, but I read the comments every day.
As for my health, I seem to have turned a corner since that little episode, and not for the better. Whatever that was about, it seems to have drained quite a bit of juice out of me. I'm more enervated than ever; it's hard to find sufficient energy to do much more than look after Connie. But we're both still here!
Here's how you can tell when a commenter is one of the new Internet Missionaries:
He or she weighs in first with a complimentary statement, then follows that with a warning to stay away from certain concepts or ideas. Third, they never, ever explain what it is specifically they object to. Just stay away; that's the message.
I received one or two of these at the end of my piece on tithing, warning all good latter-day Saints to shun the information contained therein, even though everything I wrote was doctrinal. Had he articulated anything regarding what exactly he objected to in the piece, I might have been able to go back and make corrections.
The above comment from Robin Hood is typical. Stay away from Denver Snuffer's book! I've read, he says, and it's dangerous. Stay away! Don't look!
Sorry Pal, but as "Me" above said, "Good try." The Book of Mormon tells us that everything that testifies of Christ is good. Denver Snuffer testifies of Christ. Further, the things he has written in his book confirm the prophets both ancient and modern who have warned us that we as a church are in need of repentance. If you can show me what's so bad about that, I'm all ears.
Are there really internet missionaries that do what you are saying Rock? It seems like a waste of time. Arguing over the internet is usually fairly wasteful unless both sides are actually open minded and willing to change - which is just about never, except for the original post - comments don't have much mileage.
Why does every post you make seem to denigrate in the comments to a discussion/argument about polygamy?
I used to hang over at LDSFF years back. It was a fun site, but the bickering and pride became such that the message was totally lost. It became a contest of who knew what and how much more they knew of it than the next person.
Some of the ideas offered here are fantastic. Some a little less so, even a little immature or sophomoric if you will. But like Mr. Snuffer says in a latest post, paraphrasing... The gospel is about an idea, not a thing.
This arguing over points of doctrine to show who is right, tends to make it about "things" if you will, and is a good thing to nip in the bud before the blog goes the way of some of the others. Keep it about the idea of the Gospel, the more excellent way to live. (imagine that said in a bill and ted voice!) :-)
We come to better terms and understanding about doctrine through voicing and experimenting, but for the love of God people, please stop bringing up polygamy in every single thread.
(A) The second commandment enjoins respect for the Lord's name. The name of the Lord is holy, and not intended for the flippant usage you display here (e.g., "for the love of God people").
(B) Polygamy is relevant to Mormonism, especially its roots. It is both controversial and confusing still today, and will probably remain a recurring topic of any open discussion about Mormonism. Perhaps you have found a definitive answer to this topic, or would just like to ignore it because it's uncomfortable or boring to you. Evidently, that's not the consensus.
(C) I think this is an excellent blog among the the best out there, including the discussions in the comments, so your criticisms seem unwarranted.
I don't think Rock (Alan) has done that. No, Rock doesn't need defending--
but I am one of the ones who tends to bring polygamy up quite a bit--
I have strong opinions about it (I don't think it was ever inspired, no matter who did or didn't 'live' it)--
but, unlike many in the church today, I thought the persecution of the FLDS was unjustified. I think that it's a personal choice (though a bad one) that should never have been elevated to a religious observance or spiritual requirement--
So, it seems as though you haven't been reading (unless there is a wild argument going on up above that I haven't read yet)--
because Rock says little about it; in fact, at one point he said he was sick of discussing it, and I am afraid that *I* brought it back--
There comes a point at which people have to agree to disagree, and I am very willing to agree to disagree about polygamy--
but if someone asks me--
I might tell them what it is that I believe.
I am a little puzzled by your attack on my post. I am not an "internet missionary", whatever they are. I really have read Bro. Snuffer's book (how many others here have?), and I believe what I said. In fact, I have read some parts of the book twice in order to make sure I understood what he was saying. His interpretation of certain scriptures to support his views is questionable to say the least.
I believe the Book of Mormon warns us about people like Bro. Snuffer.
A question for you Rock: What country does Robin Hood come from? Did a serving Bishop recently email you? You disappoint me.
@ Robin Hood--
I'm not Rock, and I have not read Snuffer's book, because I'm not interested in it--
I just don't think it's my place to 'warn' people--
I think it's important to let people read whatever they want to read (or don't want to read)--
and let them come to their own conclusions--
The word 'warn' is used in the Book of Mormon, mostly for the saving of lives--
sometimes it is used as a warning of iniquity (to repent)--
I have often thought that Brother Snuffer has over-reached (this is just my personal opinion, because I am wary of people stepping over lines)--
but I think that, if he has over-reached, anyone else is over-reaching to 'warn' anyone else about him.
It's kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.
I just wanted to make it clear that there are people on here who don't 'read' Snuffer or follow him who value his right to speak and say what he wishes to speak and say and who value the agency of others to listen to him (or not)--
just for what it's worth--
I don't speak for Rock--
I think it's important for people to share their beliefs and opinions, but 'warning' others can be presumptuous--
I agree with you about Denver, but then I would say the same things about all leaders of the Church too.
I don't believe Denver nor any LDS leader really preaches or practices the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
So I think it's quite ridiculous for the Church to be judging Denver, judging by their own apostate behavior & teachings they don't seem to want to acknowledge.
One great thing about Denver though is that he teaches some vital truths about Church history that the Church doesn't seem to want to admit, even if I don't agree with his interpretation of history, at least he is willing to talk about it all, unlike most members & leaders.
First, ditto what "Me" and LDS DPR wrote above.
Second, the reason I responded as I did to your comment was that it was all criticism with no substance. You warn others away from Brother Snuffer with a vague assertion that he is trouble, but give us no idea what it is about his teachings that are troublesome. Personally, I feel those who are motivated to read his book are probably already more informed than the average member, and intelligent enough to discern truth from error. If you have any specific concerns after reading the book, your thoughts are welcome here. What I don't find of any use are vague warnings to stay away without giving a reason. That is the M.O. of the new Internet Missionaries; you'll forgive me for coming to that conclusion.
I myself am constantly being told I am a danger to the church, so you can see why this is a hot button issue for me. No one who makes that accusation ever seems to want to elaborate. How can I correct any errors of doctrine on my blog if my accusers refuse to point them out?
As I write this, a section of Snuffer's book "Passing the Heavenly Gift" comes to mind which could apply to this controversy between us. Snuffer documents the fact that at the time of the succession crisis, even those who followed Brigham Young did not believe him to be Joseph's legal successor. Brigham himself made it clear he was only a placeholder until one of Joseph's sons could take his rightful place.
When the boys grew up and came to Utah, they packed the chapels. But their message was one of warning. The Saints, they declared, were being led astray from the doctrines and teachings taught by their father. The immediate response of Brigham and the Church hierarchy: "Don't listen to those boys. They are in apostasy."
My thinking would be that instead of ad hominem attacks on Joseph and David, (not to mention the almost constant catty dismissals of their mother's statements), the Brethren would have better served the church by refuting what it was Joseph and David were teaching. Then the Saints could compare and see whose teachings were closer to those of the founder of the faith.
You say the book of Mormon warns us of people like Brother Snuffer, yet my reading of the Book of Mormon is that it warns us that in the last days we would collectively drift from the truth and embrace false idols. Snuffer's book documents how that apostasy has been taking place throughout our 183 year history.
It appears that elements within the leadership of the Church today would prefer the members continue to believe the church hasn't changed since Joseph's day, but Snuffer is harshing that groove. Accept Denver's book or dismiss it, but it is certainly food for thought.
Even if one were to assume Denver Snuffer is the anti-Christ, the focus of your first post was one of guilt by association regarding the Australian family. You said "Alarm bells started to ring very loudly for me when you mentioned they were "connected" (for want of a better word) with Denver Snuffer."
No one is "connected" to Denver Snuffer. He vigorously eschews followers or disciples of any kind and does not wish to be anyone's guru. All he does is share his findings and experiences. He is not looking to form a movement.
I can certainly think of a better use of words than "connected" In my piece I mentioned that Andrew Gore happened to attend a lecture given by Denver Snuffer. How does that make the family "connected" to him? Last year I attended a Christmas pageant at a nearby megachurch and I enjoyed the program very much, but it would be a stretch to say I was connected with that church.
When I see a review of a book the reviewer didn't like, I expect him to tell me what it was about the book he disagreed with. Okay,you disagree with Snuffer's take. Tell us more. I'm fine with your attempt to warn us away from Denver Snuffer. Just give us your reasons why.
"An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy, more precisely an irrelevance."
You say things such as ..."Alarm bells"..."I believe him to be a seriously misguided individual"..."I would go so far as to say that he is really, really bad news."... "stay well away from him and his teachings. It will only end in tears." ... "His interpretation of certain scriptures to support his views is questionable to say the least..."I believe the Book of Mormon warns us about people like Snuffer."
If you are sincere in your judgements of what Denver Snuffer says, then will you please pick a couple of your concerns from the book and explain why you think "he is really, really bad news".
In my view the book is of little value to anyone interested in truth, other than those interested in Denver Snuffer's "truth".
He admits he is not an historian and that historians are far more qualified then him, but then goes right ahead and attempts to be an historian. He fails to understand that historians have to at least try to look at things objectively, but he doesn't do this.
He uses clever statements to cover himself and appear not to be confrontational but it is obvious his Stake President hasn't fallen for it and neither did I.
As I read the book a very confrontational undertone became apparent to me. He thinks he is 100% right and therefore anyone who disagrees with him is wrong.
He repeatedly used phrases which betray his distain, such as "proud Nauvoo descendents" when referring to church leadership and Utah pioneer stock generally. He points out that only one or two of the current church hierachy are not descended from (proud) Nauvoo. What has that got to do with anything!!! Is he really suggesting that we judge someone by their ancestry? I thought that was done away with in 1978.
His interpretation of the identity of the Gentiles in the last days contained in the Book of Mormon is incorrect in my view, although I know there are some here who will disagree on that point. It is obvious to me that those scriptures are referring to the non-covenant (therefore non-Israel) people of the US, and probably Europe and it's offspring of nations too.
He claims that it is referring to the latter-day church (not the gentile population at large) as there would be no reason to warn people in a book that they would never read. This is where he is selective in his use of historical information for he must know that Joseph famously prophecied that this gospel will "sound in every ear". That prophecy alone brings his whole argument into serious question. Every gentile will hear it and most will reject. Those who don't will be numbered with Israel and be saved.
Now, he must know of Joseph's prophecy, almost everyone in the church does. So, he has either deliberately ignored it because it doesn't fit with his argument, or he hasn't noticed it and has made a rather glaring error.
He seems to think the church claims or teaches us that no changes have been made to the church since the restoration, but doesn't give any evidence for this statement. I am personally well aware that changes have occured and I don't know anyone in the church who doesn't know that. It's a strawman argument which struck me so obviously when I read it. More skilled writers are usually able to disguise this method more successfully, but it just jumped out of the page at me, almost from the very outset.
I could go on for hours picking this book apart, almost page by page, but frankly I am far too busy. I wish I had made notes as I read it, then I would be able to provide a great long list of issues with this work. But, it was a significant sacrifice for me to put aside the time to read it in the first place. I won't be doing it again.
Unfortunately there are people in the church who have "itching ears" and who will be deceived by this man.
if you approached your review with less pride yourself perhaps folks would listen. You seem just as confrontational and your comments about Denver having to be right, sounds like you have the same problem. I'm not interested in getting in to anything with anyone, but if you are going to start your sentence with "In my view the book is of little value to anyone interested in truth, other than those interested in Denver Snuffer's "truth" you lose any credibility. You do not bring the spirit with you so i can't value what you say. So please unless you are going to approach your comment with some form of respect, start your own blog and hack away over there.
It seems to me that Denver may have touched on a sensitive spot, maybe you have descendants from Nauvoo?:-) But to that point, not having any pioneer lineage, it does seem that those that do, are very proud of it. Why come to this blog anyway? doesn't appear that you are interested in what Rock is saying, perhaps you are checking up on him...
I am told that Denver did NOT write The Doctrine of Eternal Lives, it was someone other person.
Just an FYI.
At least I have taken the time to read the book. Therefore I am qualified to say "in my view", since I have one.
I come here because I really like the stuff that Rock writes, and I agree with him quite a lot of the time. I have found his insights extremely useful to me in my personal ministry.
But that does not mean that I have to agree with everything on here or be silent.
I was prepared to post a couple more observations regarding what I believe to be Bro. Snuffer's narrow and inaccurate interpretation of scripture, but it would probably be a waste of time.
My initial statement regarding this book was criticised because I only expressed an opinion and didn't give any examples. Therefore I took the time to post some examples and I am accused of pride.
I find this all rather odd.
Easy there Robin, don't get your tights in a bunch. you can say " in my view" that isn't what i was saying, sorry for not being specific. What I didn't clarify was everything after that, the " little value to anyone interested in truth, other than those interested in Denver Snuffer's "truth"", that's the pride and attitude i was talking about. But I'm done with this. you've made your point. If you find it odd, perhaps you ought to take a look at your delivery. I'm interested in truth, but not when it's some commenter that insults and then can't understand why they are being criticized. If you would've left off the comment after "In my view" think it would've been better received. And you are right , that if you are going to continue to insult or make snide remarks when you post inaccurate interpretations that Denver has made, then yes it will be a waste of your time, unless you plan on bringing the spirit. but perhaps it's just me...sorry to start anything. take care Robin.
You were interested in who has read the book. I have read it. That is why i was initially interested in what you had to say....
LDSPer Aug 29 @ 10:36am
I understand Daymon to be suggesting: that they (High Council or LDS apostles) still insist on using medieval jurisprudence when they (High Council or LDS apostles)should know better, and that may be why they (any in Heaven) are wise enough to stay away from LDS apostles.
First, please accept my apology regarding the tone of my responses to you. I did not think my responses were an "attack" on you as you previously stated, but in re-reading them I can see that my tone may have seemed adversarial toward you. That was not my intent. My intention was to get you to articulate your objections, and you have done so.
You are indeed more qualified to comment on the book than I am, for I read about a third of the way through before some new book came along and captured my attention. I intend to finish "Passing the Heavenly Gift" once my current studies are finished, but I was impressed with what I had read so far.
That having been said, it's likely Denver expresses views I will differ on. It's my understanding, for instance, that he accepts D&C 132 as a bona fide revelation. I am inclined to think the strange circumstances of its coming forth years after Joseph's death show all the signs of a forgery and a fraud. If, as others have suggested, Snuffer believes the leaders circa 1890 were wrong when they caved on the polygamy question, that would be a major area of disagreement between us. But it's still rare to find the devout member who is aware of the unsettled questions regarding that issue, so it's hard to blame him for accepting the conventional view of our history.
I'm glad you enumerated some of your own differences, Robin Hood. My own opinion is that we, the members of the LDS church, are indeed the class of gentiles Mormon and Moroni focused their warnings on. I believe it because Moroni addresses those of us who have received the book. The rest of the world has not.
I also held the view we were literally of the House of Israel until quite recently. I am currently wrestling with the possibility that I may have been wrong about that all these years, and that we are indeed outsiders. (We can be adopted in, but we likely are not literal descendants of Abraham by way of Ephraim, Mannasah, Dan, and so on.)So although I would have stood with you on that issue just a few months ago, I'm rethinking what the scriptures actually teach.
(Here's a cheat: No matter what the reality is for the rest of you, I still get a pass because I'm Jewish on my mother's side. And if there is anything to Hirschman and Yates' thesis in "When Scotland was Jewish," I'm of Judah on the Paternal side too, as well as Ephraim. So ha ha, I'm still an Israelite no matter what.)
At any rate, I'm bothered that Snuffer's stake president is violating Church law and procedure by initiating disciplinary action. He is not allowed to do that unless two fellow Saints have filed a complaint claiming false teaching. And even then, Joseph Smith was wary of kicking people out because they erred in doctrine.
Ironically, violating the procedures the Lord laid out for such cases seems to me evidence prima facie that the Church leadership is in apostasy right there. Our leaders are big on preaching obedience, but they seem to reserve the right to be disobedient themselves when it suits their mood.
I never listen to the opinions of people who won't identify themselves as an actual named individual. "Anonymous" doesn't cut it Mr. or Ms. Anonymous. And anyway, let's just say that it takes a prideful person to know a prideful person, because it takes pride to accuse somebody of the same sin. Who are you to judge anybody but yourself? Answer that!
Indeed, you’re right..who am I to judge... guess I was annoyed, which is never good. It does take one to know one, and for that i apologize...it's a different day, I was being very prideful, who am I to say anything...not my place or my blog. Thanks for bringing me back to reality this is a blog after all. As for being Anonymous, I have that as an option to select, so I choose to remain that way....but you are right there as well, it doesn't do me much credit. I've been humbled.... It's funny I've been reading this blog for well over a year now and have always thought your comments were very spot on...so having my "humble pie" from you is well, an honor :-) good day to everyone here. don't think you'll be hearing from me again. Robin Hood, for what it's worth, say what you need to say...who cares what some Anonymous person has to say.
Post a Comment