Sunday, November 5, 2017

The Oaks & Ballard Old-Time Vaudeville Revue

Previously: Brigham Young's Hostile Takeover

The way things are going lately, I may have to start each post with a disclaimer just to inform new readers they haven't landed on an anti-Mormon site. Maybe something like this:

The proprietor of this blog is a devout believer in the Book of Mormon, Divine Revelation, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ as restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith. However, he has little respect for impostors in high office who claim divine appointments they have not received and spiritual gifts they never demonstrate.

Which brings us to this four-minute train wreck currently blowing up the Bloggernacle:

UPDATE, NOV 7, 2017: 
I am shocked, SHOCKED! that Church headquarters felt it necessary -for some unimaginable reason- to have this video removed from Youtube a mere two days after I went to the trouble of sharing it here! 
Unfortunately, now if you hope to have any chance to watch our venerable senior apostles nudge and snicker together incessantly, you'll have to go to the trouble of clicking on The Official Church Website Here.
Those ninny-nanny spoilsports in Salt Lake City don't seem to realize that once something is put up on the internet, it tends gain a life eternal, so some mischievous scamp reposted an abridged version mixed with the sounds of a studio audience so Oaks & Ballard won't have to giggle their way through it all alone:

What I'm reviewing here is the original four minute video, so you may want to watch that one on before reading further. This video is a short advertisement of sorts for an upcoming "Face to Face" video stream with two Senior Apostles of the Church, wherein they are preparing to answer questions sent in by teen and young adult members.

"About time!" you say. Finally, the tough questions about the way our religion is presently governed will at long last be answered by two senior apostles with a direct line to heaven; men who claim to be prophets, seers, and revelators -the same gifts Joseph Smith repeatedly demonstrated in his day.

No such luck. As a teaser for what is to come, Dallin Oaks starts off by talking about how excited he is about all the questions coming in. "I'm astonished at the places they come from!" he exclaims in wondering awe, "Here's one from Albania! Another from Australia! There's one from Texas and other foreign countries. Like Canada, and Zimbabwe, and uh, oh, let's see...Massachusetts!"

I guess no one has informed Dallin Oaks yet that this is a world-wide Church. Because like wow, you know? Massachusetts!

"The questions," Dallin exclaims with that wide-eyed manner of feigned excitement frequently seen when adults are addressing Primary children, "are coming in from all over the place!"

Russell Ballard chimes in: "And they're in-depth questions. They're questions that matter a lot in the lives of our young single adults around the world." They both chuckle merrily for no apparent reason as Ballard turns to Oaks and says mischievously, "It'll be good to see what answers you've got for all these questions."

"Get yourself ready," Oaks retorts with more laughter, as he glances down at the pile of questions in front of him, "I don't have answers for a question like 'How do I repent?' "

Wait a minute! Hold the curtain! Did he just say what I think he said?

Thank Heaven For Older Men...
I don't fault these two jokers for trying to convey a more relaxed side of themselves. They are, after all, addressing an audience of young people who they are trying desperately to get in good with. The LDS Church is losing Millenials at an unprecedented rate, as an increasing number of young people are admitting the Church simply fails to hold their interest.  This upcoming live stream project is one of many attempts to convince the rising generation that the Church is still relevant. Hence the folksy attempt by the leaders to convey a casual, down-home side of themselves to the dwindling pool of young singles who have not yet joined the exodus.

But there's a fine line between "folksy" and "cringeworthy. " This video is guaranteed to make the most orthodox Brethrenites squirm in their seats.

What I can't for the life of me understand is how a purported servant of the Lord, a man who holds one of the highest offices in "The Only True Church On The Face Of The Earth," could publicly admit he doesn't know how to teach repentance!  That was the softball question to end all softball questions, and he doesn't know how to answer it?

Not only that, but he actually laughs at the idea that someone would ask him how to repent.

Dallin Oaks uses the word "astonished" quite early in the video clip. That is the same word I've been hearing again and again from people who have watched this video.  They are astonished. The entire thing was so astonishing, one person said, that she couldn't look away.

What's truly astonishing about Elder Oaks' shocking admission is that teaching people how to repent is really Dallin Oaks' only job. "Preach nothing but repentance," The Lord repeatedly admonished the early leaders of the church in D&C 6:9, 11:9, 14:8, and 19:21.  The men given that charge were the very leaders whose mantle Dallin Oaks claims to have inherited. And yet he admits to not knowing how to teach it.

I'll make it easy for you, Dallin. In a nutshell, repentance is accomplished when a person stops doing those things that takes him further from Christ, and starts doing those things that bring him closer.

Apologizing to those we have hurt is central to repenting, but Dallin Oaks doesn't believe in apologies."The history of the church is not to seek apologies or to give them," he declared in 2015. So, of course he doesn't know how to teach repentance. He doesn't know the first thing about it.

My friend Pepper pointed out in a Facebook post that repentance is a very basic tenet of all scripture, and has helpfully outlined the process in six steps below. Anyone reading this (other than a modern-day apostle) can readily see that apologizing is central to the entire process: we are required to apologize to God, and apologize to those we have injured. But Dallin Oaks, having been trained as a lawyer, knows how to weasel out of that obligation. In a follow-up interview, he explained that he does not find the word "apologize" in the scriptures.  Elder Oaks, as one of the governors of the Church, therefore does not recognize any need to apologize for anything he or any other Church leader has ever done wrong.

Here is what the scriptures teach about the process of repenting:
1. Acknowledge you did sin (confess to the Lord and to the person you sinned against).
2. Plead with the lord to forgive you by humbling yourself before him and confess his  grace and need for Him.
3. Forsake the sin.
4 Make restitution as much as is possible for the sin to those who you hurt by the sin.
5. Forgive others of their trespasses against you.
6. Continue in prayer, service, humility, forsaking and endure to the end.
Let me offer another suggestion: someone should point Brother Oaks to a conference talk given by a general authority in Conference of October of 2003. It was titled "Repentance and Change" and the speaker was...Apostle Dallin H. Oaks.

This is what comes of our general authorities giving conference talks that have been ghost-written in advance by their staffs, then read off a teleprompter from the pulpit. They don't always recall what was in the sermons they preached.

...They Spout Off In The Most Delightful Ways
So, if these venerable Church Fathers don't know how to answer a simple doctrinal question like "how do I repent?" then what kind of questions are they preparing to answer on the big broadcast coming up on November 19th? Well, that's easy. "Decision making for this age group is critical," Oaks informs us with serious emphasis, while Russell Ballard nods his agreement, "Whether it comes to choosing an eternal partner, or choosing a major, or choosing a place to live..."

I suddenly can't tell if these two clowns are religious leaders or high school guidance counselors.

Update, November 10th, 2017:
At a recent talk given by Junior Apostle David Bednar at Utah Valley LDS Institute Building, Bednar had this to say, as reported by blogger Khaden Pettingill:
"Bednar continued his answer by explaining that we don’t ask ‘who should I marry’, ‘what career should I follow’, or ‘what we are supposed to do’"
Sounds like someone needs to clue Junior Bednar into the fact that he needs to get with the program; he's been contradicting his bosses higher up in the Quorum.

Ballard and Oaks spend another half minute spouting bromides about young people needing to stay focused on what really matters in life, and wouldn't you know it: nothing whatsoever is said about Jesus Christ mattering above everything else. In fact, no mention of the Savior shows up here at all; these "servants of the Lord" don't even pay the Lord lip service. The thing that Ballard & Oaks believe really matters for these kids guessed it: The Church.

As Russell Ballard puts it, "They really need to stay focused on what really matters in life, because we expect them to rise up and take over and direct the affairs of the Church in the future."

Well then, these kids had better choose college majors in Business Management, because twenty years from now the religion part of the Corporation of the President may be only one small subsidiary of a larger conglomerate of Investment & Finance.

Avoiding The Important Questions
Here comes the best part of this video. This is where Russell Ballard goes off script:
"I think we'd have to be honest. There may be some of these questions that there are no answers to." 
And then he gives away the entire plot:
"I think those'll be the ones we avoid."
Russell Ballard's Patron Saint.
Uh Oh. Russell Ballard just stepped in it.

Ballard gives a little awkward chuckle and throws a quick grin to the camera in that special way Michael Scott used to do on The Office when he suspected maybe he'd crossed a line.  There's a short intake of breath from Dallin Oaks as his jaw drops for the briefest of moments. Oaks quickly does his best to save the fumble, but he struggles with it as his fingers fidget nervously with the papers in front of him.

"I, uh, I gave a talk on, uh, on the plan of salvation at, at conference, and I tried to stay away from the questions we don't have answers to because the Lord hasn't revealed a lot of that." Both men chuckle nervously as Oaks finishes his thought, "But He's given us enough to go on!" A little more laughter at a joke that isn't there, and they change the subject to something else.

Okay, fair enough. I'll agree the Lord has given us enough to go on regarding that particular point of doctrine. Most of us don't need a lot more detail on the plan of salvation. We get it.

But here's the thing: that conference talk Elder Oaks gave on the subject didn't tell us anything the scriptures didn't already contain, so why bother having a leading member of the hierarchy give a talk on it in the first place? If he really is, as he claims, a prophet, seer, and revelator, why did he give a talk on a well-known topic without revealing anything new?  These guys hint that they have an audience with the Savior on a regular basis, so how come Oaks didn't just ask Jesus for a little help preparing that upcoming conference talk?

I've never heard of anyone having difficulty understanding the plan of salvation. The outline is pretty clear; seems to me the Lord has given us most of what we need on that front. So the very fact that Dallin Oaks brought that up feels like a distraction. That is not one of those hard questions that has elements within it that would need to be avoided. None that I can think of.

What concerns me is that the hard questions these days have little to do with doctrine and a lot to do with things the Church has been deliberately fudging on or covering up for the past several decades. Foremost in my mind are questions the Brethren can easily answer if they wanted to.

Let's start with asking them to be honest about their authority, gifts, and abilities. All fifteen apostles claim to have the same authority and spiritual gifts that Joseph Smith had. They continue to claim they operate through revelations from God all the time, yet they never want to tell us what is in those revelations.

They are required to take any revelations they receive for the church and convey them to the church.  That means they're supposed to publish those revelations word-for-word as they received them from the mouth of the Lord, just as Joseph Smith did, so the members can take those words to the Lord in prayer and receive a witness through the Holy Ghost that those words did indeed come from the mind and voice of the Lord. But the leaders today give us nothing. They say they receive revelations, but they never show those chimerical revelations to anybody.

How about just one revelation every six months at conference time? Granted, the putative prophet is mostly incapacitated right now, but couldn't one of his counselors read one of these revelations out loud over the pulpit?

Just off the top of my head, here is a list of questions I would ask if I had an audience with an apostle or two. If these same questions were submitted to for consideration by some of the youth of the Church, I'll bet money none of them would make it onto the air. The problem is not that the answers are particularly difficult; each of them could be answered honestly, even if the answer is "I don't know." The problem is these are questions no one in leadership ever wants asked.

Here goes:
1. You claim to have been ordained by the Lord as a prophet, seer, and revelator. Can you please tell us the date that ordination took place? 
2. We have numerous revelations from the Lord informing us that Joseph Smith was anointed a prophet, seer, and revelator. Can you show us the revelation where Thomas Monson received a similar anointing? On what date and under what circumstances did this anointing take place? 
3. Since it has now been proven from the minutes of the Council of Fifty that Joseph Smith never actually gave the Twelve Apostles authority to run the church in his absence as has been claimed, by what authority do you base your claim that authority has been passed down to you? 
4. Since Brigham Young denied he was a prophet like Joseph Smith, and also denied that he was Joseph's legal successor; and since we know Brigham Young was only elected president of the Church and the people at that time never considered him to be their prophet, where did subsequent presidents of the Church obtain the authority to be called a prophet? 
5. Joseph Smith declared that the Church, and the Kingdom of God on Earth, are two distinct and separate entities. Yet Church leaders in recent years speak of them as though they are one and the same. Can you demonstrate that you know the difference between the two? What is the role of the Church? What is the role of the Kingdom of God? 
6. Since Joseph Smith was adamant in declaring that the Presiding Patriarch is the highest office in the church, why has that office been abolished? What office in the Church do you consider to be the highest one today? Can you give us scriptural citations to back up your assertion? 
7. On September 30, 1978, during the church's 148th Semiannual General Conference, the following was presented by N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency:
"In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church." 
May we please read that revelation? 
8. May we also read the revelation purportedly given to Brigham Young where the Lord originally prohibited men of African descent from holding the priesthood? 
9. Since there are abundant contemporary accounts showing Joseph Smith vigorously denouncing the growing epidemic of plural marriage in Nauvoo while he was alive, and there is nothing but hearsay and rumor promulgated by practitioners after his death who claimed he did participate in the practice, why is the Church so willing to throw him under the bus when it makes more sense to investigate the provenance of the rumors?  
10. President Woodruff said "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray." Since this statement contradicts scripture and the teachings of Joseph Smith, would you please provide a copy of the revelation upon which President Woodruff relied for that statement? 
11. In Teachings of the Living Prophets the student manual distributed to Seminary and Institutes throughout the Church, we read, "The Lord will never permit the living prophet to lead the Church astray." That same manual quotes Gordon Hinckley as saying, "Follow the leadership of the Church. God will not let his Church be led astray." So now we have at minimum three separate statements making different claims. We are told the Lord will not let the president lead the church astray; we are also told the Lord will not let the prophet lead the church astray (they are not the same office, nor necessarily the same person); and we are now told that God will not let His work be led astray as long as we follow the leadership of the Church. 
So my question is: Which is it? The president, the prophet, or the leaders all together? And where are the revelations from God that give us these assurances?
12. Elder Oaks, you are on record as saying "it's wrong to criticize leaders of the Church even when the criticism is true." Can you please cite a scriptural source for that assertion?  If you obtained that doctrine through revelation, would you please provide a copy of the revelation so that the members can take it to the Lord in prayer and receive a confirmation that it is true?
13. For the first fifty years of this church's existence, members and leaders all routinely submitted themselves for rebaptism at least annually as a sign of their commitment to Christ. Yet today if a member of the LDS Church desires to be rebaptized for the same reason, they face excommunication from the church. Can you please tell us who changed the doctrine, the reasoning behind the change, and provide the revelation authorizing the change? 
You've Got Questions, We Ain't Got Answers 
Well, that's a baker's dozen, and you people know I could go on and on. I think it would be an interesting exercise if some of my readers suggested questions of their own in the comment section below. If you care to do so, please place your questions in quotes so we can tell the difference between your suggested questions and any regular comments you may wish to make.

Of course, none of these questions will be submitted to Elders Oaks and Ballard; I don't know if the cut-off date for questions has passed, but it won't matter anyway, because the questions that count, the questions only Church leaders know the answers to, will be vetted and discarded well before air time.

You might also be interested to know that our friend Radio Free Mormon, author of the past two posts in this space, has already created an audio review of this sneak peak in which he skewers it better than I did.

And don't forget to tune in to on November 19th for the live stream of the Oaks & Ballard Show. I doubt anything productive will come of it, but I still wouldn't miss it for the world.


1 – 200 of 209   Newer›   Newest»
Irven said...

"This video is guaranteed to make the most orthodox Brethrenites squirm in their seats."

I doubt it. You overestimate the brethrenites here.

Unknown said...

Hey Rock, I'm a YA and we're still being asked to submit questions. Would you mind if I copied this list and submitted it? Just as an experiment.

Eric Kuntz said...

33 years together...Hat tip to the Freemasons?

Sandy said...

Wonderful~ I would love to see the true story behind all the 'non-revelation' revelations from these horse's mouths.

My question is... "Why do they feel the need to use subliminal messages in their presentations. Don't they believe in the Holy Ghost?"

And Rock... the bot verification totally had me held hostage as I couldn't see all the images clearly.. WOW... I must be a bot LOL

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Have at it, Lincoln!
IT would be interesting to see if they at least make it on to the website.

dx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Today i say said...

No man, in this dispensation, has done more for the illumination on the current church, and its tithing overcharge, than Rock Waterman

MTodd said...

dx said: They have a lot of responsibility on their shoulders. Never forget that.

True, but the trouble is they’ve abdicated their important duties, like teaching repentance, for lesser things, like buying investment properties.

They think that a Face 2 Face is going to stem the tide of millenials leaving the church? They need a revelation on how to retain members. Getting such a revelation starts by admitting you have a problem (in other words, stop blaming the members that leave for your failings). Then Church leaders might recognize that the correlated crap they serve up each week is a big part of the problem.

MTodd said...

“Elders Ballard and Oaks, President Nelson has implied that the November exclusion policy, the policy banning baptism for children of same-sex married couples, was a revelation given through President Monson. Was this a revelation? If so, was it written down and when will it be presented to the Church for a sustaining vote?”

Eric Kuntz said...

Hey Lincoln...Another question to submit would be "How does the LDS Church's doctrine of the Godhead accord with Mosiah 15:1-5, in which the prophet Abinadi describes one God?

matt lohrke said...

I have a couple of questions:

"Brother Dallin:

On August 16, 1985 at a CES Symposium you related that church had acquired historical documents through convicted forger and murderer, Mark Hofmann. At this point in history, as you noted, historians and experts were still reviewing the material for authenticity. Some of the documents were embarrassing to the church and raised questions on the accuracy of our history.

You then stated: "As members of the Church, we have the gift of the Holy Ghost. If we will use our spiritual powers of discernment, we will not be misled by the lies and half-truths Satan will circulate in his attempts to deceive us and to thwart the work of God."

Two months later, on October 15, 1985, Mark Hofmann killed two people and injured himself with a bomb meant for a third person. The bombings were later found to be connected to Hofmann's forgeries.

In short, the entirety of the church hierarchy was deceived by a con man.

Nearly two years later, in an address given at BYU on August 6, 1987, you said: "Some have asked, how was Mark Hofmann able to deceive Church leaders? As everyone now knows, Hofmann succeeded in deceiving many: experienced Church historians, sophisticated collectors, businessmen-investors, national experts who administered a lie detector test to Hofmann, and professional document examiners, including the expert credited with breaking the Hitler diary forgery. But why, some still ask, were his deceits not detected by the several Church leaders with whom he met?

In order to perform their personal ministries, Church leaders cannot be suspicious and questioning of each of the hundreds of people they meet each year. Ministers of the gospel function best in an atmosphere of trust and love. In that kind of atmosphere, they fail to detect a few deceivers, but that is the price they pay to increase their effectiveness in counseling, comforting, and blessing the hundreds of honest and sincere people they see. It is better for a Church leader to be occasionally disappointed than to be constantly suspicious.

The Church is not unique in preferring to deal with people on the basis of trust. This principle of trust rather than suspicion even applies to professional archives. During my recent visit to the Huntington Library in Pasadena, California, I was interested to learn that they have no formal procedures to authenticate the many documents they acquire each year. They say they consider it best to function in an atmosphere of trust and to assume the risk of the loss that may be imposed by the occasional deceiver."

In your estimation, is the Holy Ghost subservient to an "atmosphere of trust and love?" You stated that if we have the Holy Ghost, we cannot be deceived. You did not attach any conditions to that statement (which I believe to be true). Is this an admission that church leadership does not have the Holy Ghost or the spirit of discernment? Also, do you mean to imply that the "True and Living Church of Jesus Christ" is held to the same standard as a local Southern California library? Do you believe that its OK for church leaders to be deceived, so long as it doesn't interfere with their personal ministries?

As related in the book "Salamander," one of Hofmann's neighbors, a sister in his ward, came to visit him while he was recovering from his self-induced injury. Hofmann had not yet arrested, but was merely a suspect. Upon leaving Hofmann's home, she said to her husband, "Oh, he did it." (Referring to the bombings). She then commented on the evil nature of Hofmann's persona. How was this prophetess able to see through Hoffman's fraud while ordained Prophets, Seers and Revelators were not?

Mark Hofmann is responsible for his own actions. However, would history had turned out differently had the deception been detected early on through the Holy Ghost?

matt lohrke said...

I have another question:

"Brethren: we read in Mosiah 8 a conversation between Ammon and King Lamoni:

'Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer.

And the king said that a seer is greater than a prophet.

And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God.

But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known.'

As an ordained seer, have you or any of the other apostles used, or have access to, the Urim and Thummin? As an ordained seer, do you have knowledge of future events? If so, have you shared this knowledge with the church?

matt lohrke said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
matt lohrke said...

Another question:


We read in D&C 132:1: Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

We then read in Jacob 2:23-24: But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

In these two passages we read that 1) the Lord justified David and Solomon's polygamy; 2) that David and Solomon's whoredoms were abominable before the Lord.

Since the Lord does not vary in what he has said, nor is He the author of confusion, and these two passages directly contradict each other, which one is correct? Do you believe God justifies whoredoms? If so, under what circumstances?

(We all know the answer this, but I'd be interested in a response)

matt lohrke said...


The Lord put the entire church under condemnation in 1832 for talking the Book of Mormon lightly. Have we brought forth fruit sufficient for that condemnation to be removed? If so, when and how? Or are we still under condemnation?"

Follow up question:

Joseph Smith said, "Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion? We have none."

Prospective converts and missionaries must witness that Thomas S. Monson is "prophet, seer and revelator," despite the fact that Brother Tom has never offered a prophecy, vision, translation or revelation.

Prospective converts and missionaries are not asked if they've read the Book of Mormon, our founding scripture, or have a testimony of it.

Does that seem weird to you? Because it seems weird to me."

Lena Hansen said...

Hi Rock,
Great post. Could you indicate the blogs that references the Oaks and Ballard video? I’ve looked, and I don’t know what blogs you are referring to.
Thanks in advance,

Dave P. said...


How do you account for the nearly 3,000 unauthorized changes to the Book of Mormon since the first printing, including altering the identity of God by inserting 'The Son Of' into Nephi's vision and creating contradictions between Mosiah 15 and Amulek's statement that there is only One God?

Why do you not tell the members the truth that the federal government dissolved the church in the late 1800s and that Heber J. Grant re-established it as a corporation in 1923? Why do you not explain that Harold B. Lee dissolved said corporation in 1973 and died mysteriously a few weeks later?

Why do you not explain why Ezra Taft Benson was given a lobotomy after his talk on calling out the church for treating lightly the Book of Mormon?

Joseph Smith explained that the Lectures on Faith are the Doctrine portion of the Doctrine and Covenants. Why were they removed and a Section contradicting Lecture 5 on the nature of God added to the D&C long after Joseph died?

Why was the original Section declaring the church's statement on marriage being between one man and one woman removed while the duplicitous Section 132 attempting to justify polygamy was added several decades after Joseph's death and despite the fact he burned said revelation?"

And so many more.

Linda Gale said...

Dave P.,

We don't hear nearly enough comments from you. Why not?

I have noticed the excellent quality of your comments in times past, and feel poorer because of the scarcity of them. Repent and be more vocal for the betterment of this forum.

goodguy100 said...

Here is a list of questions I had and wrote about in the book I just got excommunicated for writing:

What is faith? What is my faith? How do I know I have faith? Who is God and what is He like? How do I worship Him? How can I obtain a manifestation of Him to myself? What is prophecy, or a prophet, or how can I be a prophet? Should I be trying to converse with angels? What do the scriptures really mean? What is this promise of eternal life all about? Why don’t we seem to have much revelation, dreaming, prophecy, tongues, healings, etc., spoken of from the pulpits of our congregations or general conferences? If we are under condemnation, even all the inhabitants of Zion (D&C 84:52-58, see also Benson, Oaks) then WHY are we under condemnation and what is something I can identify that proves it? If we are "cut off" as a people (D&C 43:9-10, 51:2, 63:60-63), then from what are we cut off? If we have been rejected and cursed (D&C 124:28-50) as a Church unto the 3rd and 4th generation for not finishing the Nauvoo temple, what does that entail, and what can we identify to help us remove that rejection and curse now that we are in the 5th generation? If we do not possess the fulness of the priesthood because of unrighteousness, how does that hamper the Church in its effort to help people obtain the full blessings of the gospel (D&C 124:28)? Or does it? And why would the Lord say that in the last days before the millennium "those who are not apostles and prophets shall be known. And even the bishop and his counselors..." (D&C 64:37-43, Rev 2:2)? And why would the Lord usher in His millennial glory saying "upon MY HOUSE shall it [wrath, burning, desolation, weeping, mourning, lamentation, whirlwind, vengeance] begin and from my house shall it go forth […] First among those among you who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blashphemed against me in the midst of my house.” (D&C 112:23-26, Ezek 9:6)? When will Ezekiel 33-34 and Jeremiah 23 (post-restoration but pre-millennium) prophecies take place if it is not happening now while we know we are cursed, rejected, condemned, cut off, and prophesied to reject the fulness given to us from Joseph Smith (3 Ne 16:10, see also ch. 16-21)? And finally, can I truly reconcile the prophecies about the awful situation of the gentiles, us (see D&C 109:60, Book of Mormon title page, JST Matt 21) in the latter-days from Nephi, Isaiah, and Christ (2 Ne 25-32, 3 Ne 16-21) with our situation today and honestly say "all is well in Zion" (2 Ne 28:24-27) or as many say they feel "safe" in the current condition of the Church? Have we really fulfilled Moroni’s prophecy and, “transfigured the holy word of God” and “polluted the holy Church of God” (Mormon 8:32-41)? If the "seers" eyes are covered and the saints have fallen into a deep sleep (2 Ne 27:1-5) then how does that affect us and how do we wake up?

- Nelson Whiting

Radio Free Mormon said...

Beautiful job on the blog, Rock!

You hit it out of the park with this one!

Ed Francom said...

I would ask the Lord the following question: Since we know that before the world was formed, blessings were all irrevocably predicated upon obedience to a specific law. Each blessing then, has a law or procedure attached. Would you please teach me, the prophet, the patriarch, or someone in "authority" how to produce "instantaneous healing" in specific detail sufficient for home teachers to insure no member of the church, or friend of the Lord, need suffer dis ease, or evil spirits?

R. Metz said...

Nelson Whiting, I followed your link and found your interesting book. Thanks for publishing it on this blog. I am going to read it as soon as I can.
I think Ogden Kraut made up some good questions in his book "95 theses" (which can be downloaded from the internet on

Radio Free Mormon said...

Here is my question for Elders Ballard and Oaks.

"Have you seen Jesus Christ? Yes or no."

Andrew Lavin said...

The YouTube-hosted version of the video has been removed. You should re-link to the version.

Robin Hood said...

This has to be a new low for you Rock.
Sneering at apostles you describe as "fools" would have been beneath you a few years ago.

Dave P. said...

"Why did the late Joseph B. Wirthlin reveal that each apostle is required to take an oath of secrecy wherein their lives will be forfeit if they reveal what they're told- just like a secret combination- rather than testify of their personal witness of Jesus Christ, assuming they've seen Him?"

Dave P. said...

"Why do you care more about getting young single adults married before 30 in order to increase the odds they'll continue to pay a full tithe? For that matter, why are you not giving a full accounting of all of the church's tithes as required in the scriptures? Why do you use the temple recommend as a means of unrighteous dominion by threatening to revoke it from those people who associate with 'apostates' and destroy their standing in the community and possibly their livelihood?"

Eric Kuntz said...

Where is your authority is organize a church in the first place? I have searched the original versions of Sections 5, 10, 11, and 18 of the D&C (which is known as the Book of Commandments) but find no authorization from God to organize a church. I have found the Lord speaking about His 'future' church, and even admonishing them to 'wait a little longer,' but there is no commandment to organize as far as I can see. Please explain where your authority to lead a church that you claim is 'God's church' comes from.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Andrew Lavin, thanks for the heads up.
I've now added and update that links to the Church website, as well as somebody's "improvement" on the original. He added a laugh track.

Jeffrey Owen said...

It is actually shocking that Oaks said that he cannot help people answer how to repent. Not a single mention of Christ, the foundation upon which the Church claims to build. Only mentions of things that are important in life like a major, where to live, and doing those things that will lead them to leadership positions in the church. I'm utterly disgusted by that sixty seconds.

Dave P. said...

I didn't get the chance to get the Youtube page to see if they had comments enabled on that video or not. If they did, I'm sure they had plenty of questions from there alone.

This whole thing is made of fail for them and is the pure "We're still relevant, dammit!" trope in action.

Dave P. said...

Looking at the Youtube link itself, it apparently got taken down due to a copyright claim!

"This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Intellectual Reserve, Inc.."

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Dave, That's strange that the Church'copyright department would imply that it shouldn't have been up in the first place. It had been my understanding that the corporation put it on Youtube in the first place, in order to help spread the word.

I regret not looking to see if comments had been diabled; I'm sure they were. Also curious to know how many views it had.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

It'll also be interesting to see how long it takes Intellectual Reserve to take down the Studio Audience version. They may even decide the one at isn't doing them any good.
Anyone who misses the chance to hear the whole thing can hear the complete audio at Radio Free Mormon.

Radio Free Mormon said...

As soon as I heard about this promotional video last week, I contacted Bill Reel and asked him to save it as soon as possible.

I am so glad he did!

Robin Hood said...

I find it interesting that some here have jumped on Elder Oaks' comment about helping someone to repent. Because in the very next sentence (which these people choose to ignore) he clarifies his statement by clearly pointing out that this is a personal matter, not something to be discussed publicly.
The question was not "how do WE repent?" or "how should WE repent?" etc, it was "how can I repent?". Elder Oaks was quite right to respond as he did because, as you know, repentance is a very personal matter between an individual and the Lord, and sometimes with the help of others.
It is not a one size fits all.

Eric Kuntz said...

"I don't have answers for a question like 'How do I repent?'" Might be the most honest statement he ever said.

Dave P. said...

I was thinking about that today and had the inkling that another layer of this whole thing will not be Oaks and Ballard referring people to the scriptures (which do answer the question of "How do I repent?") but want more and more people to think they they are the only ones they need to listen to. This is of course something that the corporation has been building up to for years in its efforts to replace God with itself.

As such, that begs an additional set of questions: "Brethren, why the incessant calls for blind obedience to church leaders when Nephi declared that he who puts his trust in the arm of flesh is cursed and Joseph Smith called blind obedience the greatest of follies? Elder Ballard, why do you tell people to implicitly trust all of their leaders when said leaders have been responsible for many of the financial scams that members in Utah have been victim of in the past few decades? Also, Elder Oaks, have you proven that you can be trusted in any way after taking a position on the Utah Supreme Court to avoid being tried for fraud over tricking the Church Geologist out of nearly 2 million dollars while President of BYU?"

Football Mom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Eric Kuntz said...

True prophets teach nothing BUT repentance. So the fact that he has no idea about how to counsel someone on how to do it, might be eye opening to some.

Football Mom said...

What is uncomfortable about Elder Oaks' response is that that IS his calling as an apostle, as declared by the Lord Himself. Of course repentance is personal, but the steps given aren't and it is his calling and duty as an apostle to teach those steps. Pointing to the scriptures would have been an easy way to answer that question.
I would think questions such as what major one should choose, where to live, etc... are way more personal, but he doesn't mention that those are personal questions.
It may not have been what he intended, but it was definitely odd in how he responded to the repentance question.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Dave P, I'd like to learn more about that business between the Church geologist and the two million dollars.

Dave P. said...

Wish I could edit these things. As an addendum to the question to Ballard above, "The very same scams that you spoke about during General Conference but did not reveal that said local leaders have been perpetrating."

It's been a while since I've thought about Oaks dodging being charged, I'll refresh my memory and get back to you.

Eric Kuntz said...

"But behold, your days of probation are past; ye have procrastinated the day of your salvation until it is everlastingly too late, and your destruction is made sure; yea, for ye have sought all the days of your lives for that which ye could not obtain; and ye have sought for happiness in doing iniquity, which thing is contrary to the nature of that righteousness which is in our great and Eternal Head." Samuel, a prophet of God calling the Nephites (Mormons) to repent

Dave P. said...

My numbers were too high earlier. Rather than ~$2 million, it was $1.4 million.

Here's a brief timeline courtesy of Church Geologist Clyde Davis's son:

In 1953 the Clyde Davis family moved to Tucson where he was the LDS Institute Director.
In 1953 Clyde became partners to Safford, Arizona attorney Guy Anderson and Saford Farmer Alf Claridge.
In 1953 Clyde, Guy and Alf stake the mining claims across the canyon the the Morinci Phelps Dodge Copper Mine (largest in the world).
In 1966 Guy and Alf donate 50% of their ownership to the BYU (rather than the University of Arizona law school).
In 1974 BYU President Dallin Oaks and Clyde get a $12 Million check from Phelps Dodge as a down payment to a Royalty agreement to the mining claims. Clyde's percent of the $12 Million was $1.4 Million, but all he got from Guy Anderson was a new suit and a job in Provo, Utah at the BYU. Clyde was furious and declared war with Dallin Oaks from that day forward!

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Ah yes, Dave, I recall hearing about Clyde Davis getting the short end of that. Didn't realize Oaks was involved, but of course, he was pres of BYU at the time.

dx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
R. Metz said...

DX 9.37PM- The best comment I found on this blog so far; thanks.

Dave P. said...

Unfortunately that is a very lazy approach. It's the same kind of attitude of voting for the "lesser of two evils" in an election, because evil is still evil. So long as the members/electorate allow rotten church leaders or elected officials to hold any kind of sway or power over them, they will never relent.

The greatest scam of both the corporate LDS church and any form of government is they've convinced the members/people that they are necessary all while slowly and steadily robbing the people of their agency and possessions and falling more and more into Satan's original plan. Note how both of them take the same approach of claiming to be the ones to save the people, replacing God with themselves.

The church as an organized institution (and certainly as a corporation) is not needed. The only thing necessary is the baptismal authority, and no one needs to be "confirmed" onto a corporate record in order to baptize one who repents and comes unto Christ, and those are the people who are the church in His eyes. (Note that the modern confirmation is not found anywhere in the D&C.)

In terms of the civil side, Joseph Smith said it best, "Teach the people correct principles (and doctrine) and let them govern themselves," significantly reduce the scope of government back down to its Constitutional roots, and apply Section 133 to every single elected official to hold them accountable for their actions and make them afraid to overstep their bounds. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."

Oh, but wait, that would actually require most people to, you know, act and do something when they're currently content to sacrifice their liberty and responsibility in the name of safety, of which they deserve none as a result.

Let people continue to be added to the corporate records of the LDS church if they wish, but thinking that God will come and fix everything for us is why Paul ripped the Thessalonians a new one in the New Testament.

Eric Kuntz said...

Actually us Mormons are what Isaiah refers the 'Souls of no light'

10 Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God. (Isa 50:10)

19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isa 8:19-20)

We give only lip service to God and the scriptures, but we 'follow the prophet', like lemmings. We follow the stringent rules of the sacred Church handbooks with military precision. We are recalcitrant, stubborn, and stiff-necked souls who trust in the 'arm of flesh' rather than God.

30 And again I would exhort you that ye would come unto Christ, and lay hold upon every good gift, and touch not the evil gift, nor the unclean thing. 31 And awake, and arise from the dust, O Jerusalem; (Mormons)
yea, and put on thy beautiful garments, O daughter of Zion; and strengthen thy stakes and enlarge thy borders forever, that thou mayest no more be confounded, that the covenants of the Eternal Father which he hath made unto thee, O house of Israel, may be fulfilled. (Moro 10:30-31)

matt lohrke said...

I agree with Dave P - I'm not convinced being IN the church is better than NOT being in the church right now. Its fine to be with a community of believers, so long as what the community believes is True.

If one wants to stay with the church for the solidarity, safety nets, strength-in-numbers kind of thing, then sure. Stick with it. There's no denying the church does many beneficial things.

Yet, for faith to function properly--faith necessary for salvation--it must be centered on capital-T truth. Unfortunately, modern LDS theology is a strange brew of truth, myth, legend, priestcraft, half-truths, falsehoods and straight up lies. I suppose for some people this is enough. But for many, if not most, who awoken to their awful situation, it's not enough. I don't see the church ever moving up from the telestial realm it currently occupies. I sincerely hope it does, but I'm not optimistic.

We can walk with God (hopefully), or follow the prophet....

R. Metz said...

Dave P says (November 9, 2017 at 5:34 AM): “that is a very lazy approach” .
I wonder what Dave P is referring at. Is it at what dx says? (November 8, 2017 at 9:37 PM) In that case Dave P should read dx a little more carefully, because this approach is far from lazy. In fact I find it much more intelligent than collecting questions that you want an answer for from leaders of the LDS church in order to ridicule them. But maybe Dave P is not referring at that; I suggest he explains himself a little better, for a meaningful discussion.
Dx says “The truth is contained in the LDS church, if you spend the time to find it” and “the truth is all still there for us to find with effort.” (you see: with effort; that is not lazy). The only problem I have with this statement is where it says “the LDS church”, because this church is completely out of order at present. Instead of LDS church I would say Mormonism. Where else must we find truth? Katholicism? Protestantism? Islam? Hinduism? Bhuddism or whatever creed? The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob speaks to Israel and Israel only (not to be confused with the state in the Middle East that carries that name of course). That is what the restoration was all about– and still is. So if you would take the effort to take a closer look at what dx is saying you would perhaps understand what he is trying to communicate, and could we perhaps have a discussion. I think we should be engaged in exposing false doctrine instead of ridiculing present or past church leaders.

Dave P. said...

If dx was referring to the "LDS Church" as the corporate entity that it is today, and is also by the name it is most recognized, then yes my comment stands as it is because of the corruption found within the corporate structure being the cause of the muddy waters similar to within Lehi's dream.

It doesn't matter what nuggets of truth are to be found within the LDS church culture. If you dive into dirty waters even looking for a pearl, you yourself end up dirty. And the scriptures have shown that the Lord doesn't cleanse those waters, He tosses them and everything in them away before starting fresh.

Similar analogies are found both within the Old Testament and Book of Mormon as God told people to get out of Sodom & Gomorrah, Jerusalem, the lands of Lehi-Nephi, etc. lest they be destroyed with the wicked or killed by them.

Remember that the top-down structure of the corporate entity is about control. Control over the members' lives and decisions in order to scare them into remaining "worthy" in the corporate image. To join the corporate LDS church is to willingly submit to that power structure in one way or another. More people need to get out in order to destroy that power and watch the death throes from afar. The corrupt will never relinquish power willingly, but they sure as hell will take as many as they can with them.

Eric Kuntz said...

"I think we should be engaged in exposing false doctrine instead of ridiculing present or past church" Where do you think false doctrine starts?! It starts WITH the leaders. That's the ONLY place it can be exposed.

R. Metz said...

You guys still don't understand. We are and should be looking for truth no matter where it comes from, like the Apostle Paul said. And no more truth can be found than in Mormonism. I am not interested in any church; it is just that this LDS church has inherited Mormonism (and has squandered it, I have to admit). That is what I (and dx if I am not mistaken) was trying to explain. So what if this church is a one-man corporation. So much the better; that makes it easier to determine the flaws in it.

Vincent said...

This whole situation could be easily described as the blind leading the blind.

Eric Kuntz said...

The ones being led are blind of sure, but the 'leaders' are not just hapless blind fools, they know exactly what they are doing. These wicked men are actively leading the people astray with their fraudulent, wicked and deceptive doctrines.

The prophet Jeremiah does not hold back the rancor he has for these men:

Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture!...

Mine heart within me is broken because of the prophets...

For both prophet and priest are profane; yea, in my house have I found their wickedness, saith the Lord.

I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem (Salt Lake City) an horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah.

...from the prophets of Jerusalem (Salt Lake City) is profaneness gone forth into all the land.

Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of the Lord. the LATTER DAYS ye shall consider it perfectly.

I have NOT sent these prophets...

I have heard what the prophets said, that prophesy lies in my name...

I am against the prophets...

Behold, I am against them that prophesy false dreams...

...they shall not profit this people at all.

And the prophets shall become wind, and the word is NOT in them...

The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; AND MY PEOPLE LOVE TO HAVE IT SO...

see Jer. 5

Alan Rock Waterman said...

I've added another update to the original post concerning David Bednar directly contradicting some of the things his seniors discuss in the video.

matt lohrke said...

For what it's worth, in researching the Mark Hofmann/White Salamander fiasco, I came across this talk given by Brother Dallin regarding criticism. This idea of not criticizing church leaders seems to be one of his recurring themes. Perhaps its of his own volition or maybe he's getting direction from people above him.

Anyway, this talk was given in August 1985, just over a year into his calling as apostle. It's titled "Reading Church History" from a CES symposium.

"Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who “speak evil of dignities” (Jude 1:8). Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As President George F. Richards of the Council of the Twelve said in a conference address in April 1947, “When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24)."

Brother Dallin also doesn't seem to understand Jude 1:8 correctly:

"Speak evil of dignities.—Like the murmurers in the wilderness. By “dignities,” or glories, are meant unseen powers worthy of reverence. The Greek word is rare in the New Testament; only here, 2Peter 2:10, and 1Peter 1:11. Earthly dignities, whether ecclesiastical or civil, are not included. (Comp. the doctrine of Menander, Irenæus, I. xxiii. 5.)"

Unless, of course, he sees himself as an "unseen power worthy of reverence." Where George F. Richards got his idea from, one can only guess.

Anyway, this may or may not be interesting to the good folks here.

Vincent said...

Good point Eric. The leaders are blinded by their own doctrines, having lost the Light of Christ.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Matt, I'm guessing Brother Dallin confused the word "dignities" with "Dignitaries" a class of V.I.Ps he seems to think himself a part of. Thus he doesn't like people who, in his view, "speak evil of dignitaries."

matt lohrke said...

Probably true. ;)

Dave P. said...

'course don't forget that he's a lawyer, a profession known for twisting the meaning of words, by trade.

Another intentional warning from the Book of Mormon to beware of lawyers.

matt lohrke said...

100% true - I've always been puzzled with the idea of BYU's law school. As you said, the BOM has not one good thing to say about the profession.

I have to hand it to Dallin. He's a very skilled rhetorician.

Lilli said...


I used to think the Mormons had more truth too (for I use to believe it's falsehoods and claims), then I studied what Christ actually taught, which is quite opposite to most of what the Church preaches and practices. I have found most any other Christian church out there teaches far more truth and closer to what Christ actually taught than the Mormon Church ever has.

For instance, my question to the leaders would be why they encourage members to marry or remarry, when Christ and his apostles clearly taught against both marriage and remarriage or any form of polygamy, serial or concurrent.

It seems the Catholic Church did pretty good trying to follow Christ on that topic, where they have many members who choose to not ever marry, which Christ and his apostles taught was the best road in this life, but which not everyone is willing to do.

Yet the LDS Church never mentions those scriptures, that 'it's not good to marry' in this life, like Christ and his apostles taught.

Truth is eternal and right in any age of time. So Christ's teachings are just as relevant today as in his day. If He or his true disciples were here today they would be saying the same thing, that it is not good to marry, as the world is slowing realizing today.

matt lohrke said...

DeeLyn - can you refer me to the scriptures in question, please?

Lilli said...


Matthew 19:9-12 for starters.

Jeffrey Owen said...


Do you have any other scriptures to support the idea that Christ taught everyone that marriage is not a good thing? Because it sounds like the ones you referenced are specifically referring to eunuchs. In fact, in verse 11 it specifically says that this is NOT for all men, it then specifies the eunuchs in the next verse.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

I'm a Eunuch, and I'm happily married.

...Wait scratch that. What I had was just a vasectomy.

Never mind.

Lilli said...


I don't know if Christ referred to 'not marrying' elsewhere in the Gospels, but I believe those 2 statements are more than adequate to understand his meaning and message. Not to mention how we can see in society today that many people are rightfully learning to not trust the institution of marriage and thus more are now staying single because there is no protection in marriage anymore, if one spouse might not stay loving and respectful or society allows divorce and serial or concurrent polygamy.

Christ was all about protecting women and children, and men too, from getting into risky marriage situations or coming into societies that aren't righteous.

And his Apostles were also just concluding that Christ was teaching that it's not good to marry (rather than get stuck in an unhappy marriage for their whole life, since Christ didn't allow for any divorce or remarriage or polygamy), for again as we see today and thru out history, most marriages are unhappy, for 1 or both don't keep their vows of love, faithfulness and respect, etc, which greatly effects the children then too.

If most or even 50% of airplanes crashed would it be wise to get on one?

And Christ's statement is clear, that some make themselves eunuchs (which it seems he meant 'choosing to remain single') for the Kingdom of God's sake (to help the world advance morally and spiritually) before introducing a concept like marriage, which only a righteous society or people can honor and succeed in.

Lilli said...

Also, it doesn't seem that Christ meant this teachings was 'not for all men/people', but rather it seems he was saying that 'not all men/women are willing to accept this teaching' (and remain single for righteousness sake).

For to understand Christ's teachings we can't isolate 1 verse but must take it all in context with all other things he and his apostles said, like it's not good to marry, etc. Then we get the whole picture of what he was trying to teach.

The word eunuch had different meanings, sometimes it meant choosing to stay single for life.

Bottom line is Christ was right, marriage is only wise or works in a righteous society or with righteous people who will keep their vows, otherwise He is right, it's not good to marry, mostly for the children's sake.

Jeffrey Owen said...


I find it a strange conclusion you've reached. Paul the apostle also said in First Timothy 4:3 that some would stray from the faith in the latter days "forbidding to marry" among other things. As far as ease of interpretation from a biblical standpoint it doesn't get much easier than that I feel. So I guess I respectfully disagree with the conclusions you've drawn.

Colt H. said...

Just to offer a little bit of constructive pushback, I think that the indignation on display here is off mark and missing the point. Anybody with an inkling of a sense of humor would see that that's what Oaks was attempting.

I can understand lightening the mood, but to come out of the gates with it especially with what's at stake, is a bit tone deaf. What that says to me is that answering questions from millennial's or the youth of the is a joke to them. They know the scriptures well enough in their current capacity , but to take such a flippant attitude in what should be something more sacred and official doesn't show so much a lack of knowledge of teaching repentance, as it does a complete lack of professionalism on their part.

Lilli said...


I guess it depends on who we choose to follow, I personally believe Christ over Paul, though I grant that Paul's teachings do sound better and much easier and are far more popular than Christ's.

But I'm not surprised that Paul taught that for he also taught other things contrary to Christ's teachings for he didn't seem to follow Christ, no matter what he claimed. Many of his teachings reveal he was still very influenced by the false and corrupt customs of his day. The culture back then did not respect the sanctity of marriage or the rights of women, nor did Paul it appears.

Paul may have taught some true things, as all false prophets do, but, as Christ taught, it's the things Paul taught that were contrary to Christ that reveals he was not a true prophet or follower of Christ.

The prophet that Christ did confirm was indeed a true and even the greatest prophet was John the Baptist, who it appears stayed single. I believe if there were a true prophet today he would probably be single or at least encourage people to stay single, until society becomes righteous.

Matthias said...


I'm not sure if your just a diehard feminist or if you were once the victim of abuse. If it's the latter you have my sincere sympathy.

It seems you are very confused. I can understand your disdain for polygamy, but attacking the institution of marriage is really impossible to justify.

You are twisting Christ's words to fit your own mistrust of all men.

I'm sorry not all men abuse women. In fact most don't. Quite frankly a man can be very wicked without abusing his wife. The very idea that God would forbid people to marry is blasphemy. God married Adam and Eve and blessed them and told them to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.

Without marriage and children God's purposes would be destroyed. This is why Satan tries to convince people that marriage is bad and that they should limit the size of their family or have no children at all.

You have to remember that the word of God in the Old Testament is Christ's word to. The scriptures are crystal clear that marriage is ordained of God as is the rearing of children.

Oh and the apostle Paul was not a false prophet. Neither was Moses, Abraham, Jacob, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Joseph Smith, and a host of others.

The scriptures are silent as to whether or not John the Baptist was married. It is not reasonable to assume he wasn't married. We just don't know.

Please stop attacking men and especially the prophets.

Dave P. said...

Also note that Jesus Himself was married. The marriage ceremony where He turned the water into wine was His own. He also had to be married in order to become a rabbi.

The D&C is also clear that anyone who forbids people to marry is not of God. However, there is nothing against those who choose not to marry.

Emerson said...

This is in response to DeeLynn.

Reading your comment brought 1 Timothy chapter 4 verse 3 to mind but I'll include 1 and 2 for context.

Now the spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2. Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared as with a hot iron; 3. Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

The JST adds the underlined word as which is the only difference from the KJV which doesn't change the basic meaning. I am certainly open for enlightenment but my understanding of this has always been that it is out of line to forbid people to marry.

It would seem that a religion strictly adhering to a non marriage policy and chastity at the same time would gradually shrink in membership from lack of population unless, of course, new converts reinforced the ranks. However, at some point it would seem possible for the group to die out. (There are only eight Shakers left in a town in Maine, for instance.) If all Christians were to follow this discipline the time would come when none would be left to be the salt of the earth or the light on the hill which were also directions given by the Lord. ( Matthew 5:13,14)

Thank you very much.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

I have seen the video at I am inactive and have been for years. But I think you
are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Wight for the interview and then comment.

Anonymous said...

Rock...we have come full circle in this movement. The very things you criticize the LDS church for (which are absolutely valid)...we now do in this movement with Denver. We pretend Denver is speaking with the Lord regularly one can quite say when he saw Christ Face to Face last...or all the experiences Denver has had, or exactly HOW the covenant was received...or how were the scriptures commanded by the Lord again? Was that face to face? etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

We have become the very thing we left. If you ask Denver to share these things...he will tell you they are too sacred. Go ahead...ask him.

The blog post below has questions I doubt anyone can answer without doing a lot of mental gymnastics or without trying to justify Denver and Stephanie. She hasn't received her Second Comforter - and yet...this movement hopes they will rise up to Christ.

Lilli said...


I was addressing what Christ and his Apostles taught, not what I think. If you would like to give your interpretation to those teachings I would be curious to know why you think they taught against marrying.

But I believe in Christ's teachings on how to discern true prophets from false ones, by whether they keep and preach Christ's commandments or not. So I do not believe any of those men you listed were true prophets, for why would I follow or trust unrighteous men? I don't believe they followed Christ but just the opposite. Christ taught us to only follow him, not any mortal or prophet.

And I don't believe Christ or God wrote the Old Testament or even most of the NT, for it and it's authors are mostly contrary to the teachings of Christ and that's how Christ said you know. I believe mostly false prophets wrote the OT, for they didn't keep or usually even teach Christ's commandments, and commandments and truth never change from one generation to the next.

And as we are seeing today, God can't further his purposes with an unrighteous society. Thus until society becomes righteous I can see why Christ and his Apostles taught to not marry.

Lilli said...


It's to be expected that Timothy, JS and most others would preach things contrary to Christ, for as Christ taught, few will agree with, follow or teach his teachings, especially things like staying single in order to help further the Kingdom of God (by fixing society before adding more to it, so then the Kingdom of God can really flourish).

Christ's teachings are very hard, he even said they are impossible without God's help, and so they are not well received. The teachings of Timothy, Paul, Moses, JS or BY, etc, were much easier and far more pleasing to the natural man and thus well received by many.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Dave, you may have a point with your comment above Nov 11 at 3:50. Oaks being a lawyer (and a weasley one at that) may have counted on his audience confusing the word "dignities" with "dignitaries" hoping they would read the scripture as warning them against speaking against dignitaries.

Wouldn't surprise me with this guy. Remember, Oaks is the guy responsible for this whopper:

...Which I addressed here:

Jared Livesey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jared Livesey said...

Is it logically or physically impossible for a literal eunuch - a male without testicles - to be both married and sexually active?

(It seems to me the clear answer is "it is both logically and physically possible for a literal eunuch - a male without testicles - to be both married and sexually active.")

Is it possible for Paul and Joseph Smith to be consistent with Jesus's literal words, even if they are in conflict with metaphorical, allegorical, nonliteral interpretations of Christ's words?

If it is possible that Joseph and Paul are consistent with Christ's literal words, then why make out there to be a division between Paul and Joseph and Christ where there is not necessarily one?

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Truth Seeker,
You are indeed correct that SOME people in the Remnant Movement are trying to make Denver fit into the very role we criticize the LDS church for doing. But you can't put that on Denver. Denver repeatedly denounces anyone looking to him for guidance as their "prophet." He said he has NO respect for anyone who follows him or calls him or herself a Snufferite.

Let's remember that this awakening occurred before most of us had ever heard of Denver Snuffer. As much as some would like to see him as the leader of a movement, he wholeheartedly rejects any such role and makes no claim to it.

I read the blog you linked to, but if it's aimed at criticizing Denver Snuffer for not living up to some people's expectations, it's off point and irrelevant. Denver Snuffer didn't start this movment, he doesn't lead it, he doesn't direct it, he doesn't officiate in it, and he absolutely, positively has no leadership position within it. That's the way he wants it, and that's the way it should be.

The Lord directed him to give a series of ten presentations up and down the Wasatch front to teach people what it would take to become a Zion society. He LEFT immediately after the last lecture so he would not be expected to take questions. Why? Because he had fulfilled his assignment: all the answers his audience would need were to be found in the scriptures.

He doesn't convey revelations from the mouth of the Lord because the Lord never asked him to. He had nothing to do with directing the Restoration scriptures, nor is his hand in the project for the guiding principles.

He spoke at the Boise conference because he was invited to. He provided a prayer with questions HE had for the Lord regarding some concerns about how the Fellowships were having trouble. He read the answers the Lord gave to HIM regarding those questions; they were not commandments to the audience given by the Lord through Denver. They were helpful, it's true, but to think Denver's role is to Convey the Lord's will through revelation simply is not borne out by the evidence.

Listeners can take from that answer what they wish, or ignore it. It was revelation to Denver.

I don't actually know anyone who considers themselves "followers" of Denver Snuffer, but if there still are some, they'd better pull it together and stop. It's difficult to shed some of our traditions we grew up learning in this Church, but we have to get rid of the idea that we need any kind of leader. Denver Snuffer is a close friend of mine. I call him when I can't remember where a source I'm looking for is, because he seemingly knows EVERYTHING in the scriptures and Church history documents, often down to the page number. I receive information from Denver; I receive friendship, but I NEVER take direction from him and he never offers it.

Denver Snuffer has moved on, anyway. He has very little to do with any fellowships. His calling now is to teach the Restoration to protestants, and he is having exceptional success in that area; his last lecture, in Dallas, resulted in some 3200 Christian Ministers changing their minds about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. That's where the Lord needs him, and that's where his labors lie now.

Dave P. said...

The whole thing with Denver Snuffer is far too many people forgetting that it is their own task to come unto Christ, but the natural man is still strong because they want someone else to lead them and, more importantly, someone else to blame when they don't meet those pre-defined characteristics.

Same thing happened with Christ. He didn't fit the mold of Messiah that the Jews had come up with.

Anonymous said...

I could easily reflect back what you just said and parallel it to the LDS church. Here's a sample of what you said about Denver that could be restated to defend the church:

"The Lord directed (President Monson) to give a (general conference talk). He LEFT immediately after the last lecture so he would not be expected to take questions. Why? Because he had fulfilled his assignment: all the answers his audience would need were to be found in the scriptures."

What about this one:
"He (Pres. Monson) doesn't convey revelations from the mouth of the Lord because the Lord never asked him to."

Let's change gears a bit. You say that Denver doesn't want to be looked to as a leader.

You said: "As much as some would like to see him as the leader of a movement, he wholeheartedly rejects any such role and makes no claim to it."

Here's a rough re-quote of things Denver says...see if they sound familiar:

"I'm nobody - don't follow me...but the Lord gave me the new name of David (you's only THE most important name before Christ in...the Davidic Servant) - BUT its such a bad name. I was so depressed to get such a name." (And please don't tell me that people in this movement don't secretly hope he's the Davidic Servant. It just ain't true.)
"I won't start a church. Don't follow me...but here's how you are to run women's councils and baptisms and tithing and fellowships..."

You said: "Denver Snuffer is a close friend of mine. I call him when I can't remember where a source I'm looking for is, because he seemingly knows EVERYTHING in the scriptures and Church history documents, often down to the page number. I receive information from Denver; I receive friendship, but I NEVER take direction from him and he never offers it."

...So there IS an inner circle. You berry rucky Rock!

You said: "Denver Snuffer has moved on, anyway. He has very little to do with any fellowships. His calling now is to teach the Restoration to protestants, and he is having exceptional success in that area; his last lecture, in Dallas, resulted in some 3200 Christian Ministers changing their minds about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. That's where the Lord needs him, and that's where his labors lie now."

-Good to know people are duking out the Guidelines and Standards while he's moved on. (Side note: I'd love to know how Denver found out some 3200 ministers changed their minds about Joseph Smith. Was there a survey to get that info?)

Anonymous said...

The facts:
-Denver started the movement. We are adults. Let's not kid ourselves that in spite of his pleadings...his ACTIONS spoke louder than his words. I have no doubt he didn't want to be the object of adoration. But he still showed up to meetings. Gave rules and standards to abide by. Wrote book(s) and encouraged the obtaining of your Second Comforter. Revealed his new name is David and is called such at gatherings. Denver says "No! Don't look to me! But here's how you organize a council, or fellowships, or tithing...or a Temple fund..." Actions speak louder than words.

-His wife has not received her Second Comforter so how could he expect to help teach people how to rise up the Holy Mount and meet the Lord face to face?

-Denver isn't talking with the Lord face to face but for a few times. Yet there is an entire movement that believes he is speaking frequently with the Lord (sounds like because you are such good friends you know better. But we haven't had that privilege). They believe Denver came up with these scriptures to fulfill prophecy. And now you are telling me that, "He had nothing to do with directing the Restoration scriptures, nor is his hand in the project for the guiding principles"?! So the scripture project was organized by men, presented to Denver and then he decided to make a covenant from it? What is the story here...because Denver said that those who don't make THE covenant he offered will face, "pestilence, famine, and destruction". I wish I was in the inner circle to know that story. Because Denver won't tell the masses how the Lord came to him (Denver) and told him the scriptures were in the plan all along.

-He has received some visions and he says that he has interacted more with the Savior more than Joseph Smith (which after such a boast he quickly downplays it with a self-depreciating comment that it's "probably because he's a slow learner"). For anyone who is paying attention to the psychological gymnastics Denver contorts you will see those comments for what they are. It's called a humblebrag, a boast couched in self-deprecation. It's false modesty of a plea intended to be met with both awe and sympathy.

Deep sigh.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Truth Seeker,
(Deeper Sigh.)

Your attempt at comparing Denver Snuffer with Pres Monson is flawed. Have you forgotten Monson sits comfortably by while his lackey's ask the congregation to sustain him as their prophet, seer, and revelator? When has Denver directed or permitted such a sacrilege?

The Lord told Denver that from thenceforth HE -the Lord- would call him "David." I asked Denver, "So are we supposed to call you David now?"

He answered, "heavens no! That's just what He calls me."

There is a long tradition in this church of the Lord calling people by something other than the name on their birth certificates, and I see that as the Lord's prerogative. After all, he probably knew each of us by a different name before our parents got ahold of us. God can call me Seymour or Herman if he likes; it means nothing; it gives me no authority over others, and I don't see where the Lord calling Denver by another name has bestowed authority to Denver over anyone, either.

I don't know why you would think it's important to you what the Lord decides to call Denver unless Denver tells you the Lord has specifically labelled him your leader. Otherwise, you're reading more into it than is there.

So some people secretly hope that given name means he's the Davidic servant? Well, time will tell, won't it, because nothing has been said about that as yet. And if it does, it means he will be a SERVANT, of the Lord, not the head honcho over a collection of very autonomous fellowships. You'll recall that the very purpose of the Ten Lectures was to remind believers what would be required if they hoped to build a Zion society, and number one on that list is that there will be NO LEADERS. Zion is incompatible with a hierarchy of any kind. So why would Denver teach Zion then hope to become the leader of Zion? You'll forgive me, but your logic escapes me.

(Continued Below)

Alan Rock Waterman said...


I wouldn't jump the gun on this Davidic servant conjecture, because it wouldn't put Denver in any position to be compared with LDS leadership, except in the minds of those who can't tell the difference between a name and an appointment. Besides, I'm not sure the "Davidic Servant" will be named David. He would be a servant after the manner of David; but I could be wrong. The point is, you're the one jumping to conclusions here.

(I do believe Denver IS serving the Lord, especially knee-deep as he is in spreading the message of the Restoration to those who heretofore have rejected the Everlasting Covenant of the Book of Mormon precisely because it has been seen for so long as proprietary to the "Mormon" Church. That is changing now. But all of that is happening "outside" the view of those of us with backgrounds in the LDS Church, so I don't see why the concern you have about him taking a leadership role with the rest of us that he isn't even around to cultivate.)

I am puzzled by your inference that I'm part of some "inner circle" because my wife and I have had a few dinners with Denver and Stephanie, and Denver and I speak on the phone now and then. You must think I'm a very important person! I phone a number of Mormon scholars, historians, and scriptorians when I can't put my finger on a specific quote I've read somewhere and need to be reminded where I saw it. Does that make them all prophets, seers, and revelators just because they know which volume of the DHC to refer me to, or it it maybe because they've spent more time studying things of import than I ever have?

Connie feels one reason Denver has found our friendships so valuable is precisely because she and I don't hold him in awe. To us Denver is a regular guy with plenty of flaws who's just trying his best to follow Christ, like us. It seems to me it's you who thinks more of him than he does of himself.

I don't even know whether Denver's wife Stephanie has received her second comforter because I haven't thought to ask her, but you seem to think there's something wrong with Denver if he hasn't taught his wife to have experienced everything he has. He can't be the leader you THINK he's supposed to be because his spouse hasn't had the same experiences he has? Again, you are holding him up to be something he does not claim to be and does not want to be, and then you chastise him for not being it.

Allow me another sigh.

Yes, Truth Seeker, I AM telling you he had nothing to do with directing the Restoration scriptures, nor is his hand in the project for the guiding principles. Go back and read how it came to be. Someone who knew Denver approached him and told him that he (this other person) had joined with a group of scholars and researchers in an attempt to pull together the most accurate and early scriptures in the LDS canon. Denver happened to mention that he had heard of some others attempting the same thing, and suggested they compare notes. Denver made his conference room available for the two groups to meet in, but he contributed nothing else. Why? BECAUSE HE IS NOT IN CHARGE OF WHAT OTHER PEOPLE CHOOSE TO SPEND THEIR TIME ON.

(Continued Below)

Alan Rock Waterman said...


Denver has been completely hands off The Guiding Principles project as well. Why would you think he wants his hands in all the pies? Granted, many people wish he would get involved, because they think it would make things easier on them; they feel they wouldn't have to pray for their own inspiration if Denver would wave his magic wand. But this is not his project. Once proposed, the Lord agreed it was a necessary thing for there to be some simple principles to guide the fellowships, but that discovery came to Jeff Savage and the others who prayed for guidance to compose it before it was affirmed to Denver.

As for the covenant, perhaps you are not aware that the Book of Mormon, which is supposed to be the covenant scripture for the Church, was never put to a covenant vote by the members. The Doctrine & Covenants was, but the Book of Mormon was not. Indeed, as Damon Smith has shown in his 5 volume "Cultural History of the Book of Mormon," After Joseph's death the Book of Mormon was virtually ignored by the Saints until the late 1880's and then used mostly as children's stories. It's time the condemnation was lifted, and that starts with recognizing the covenant.

At the Boise conference, this vote was taken, but not by Denver. Denver did not preside. Denver spoke by invitation. He did not conduct, officiate, or run the meeting. He was a guest. Several women spoke before he even got there. It looks to me as though the meeting was conducted by women. There have been other major gatherings where Denver was not a guest, not a speaker, and not even invited. So where do you get this idea Denver has some kind of leadership role when he isn't even on the stand at many of these gatherings?

(Continued Below)

Alan Rock Waterman said...


You write that Denver instructed those gathered for the lectures "here's how you organize a council, or fellowships, or tithing...or a Temple fund..."

You seem to have entirely forgotten that the purpose of the Ten Lectures was to remind the Saints what the SCRIPTURES and Joseph Smith teach us as to how things should be done; Denver didn't pull this stuff out of his butt. Therefore, his teachings on tithing -how it was to be collected and disbursed, came from the teachings of the early church, not from the teachings of Denver Snuffer. Same with Fellowships, the method of which hearkened back to Nauvoo and before that; first century Christian fellowships where people met in each others homes, not in buildings of wood and stone. Sacrament? Again, Denver pointed to what the scriptures teach. Re-baptisms? Again, Scripture, and the history of the church all the way up to about 1885 Utah when members and leaders were rebaptized again and again as a matter of routine until the practice petered out. Fund raising for a temple? Perhaps some time in the future when and if the Lord reveals it, and will be done according to our existing scripture. Show me a commandment Denver made up himself that wasn't already directed to the Church through Joseph Smith. There are none. Denver pointed to our existing scriptures and showed where the church -all of us- have been neglectful.

I don't know what you're talking about with your charge that Denver is running women's councils, unless it was his suggestion that in order for a man to exercise his priesthood OUTSIDE his own home, that man should be sustained by 7 women willing to vouch for his character, including the man's wife. Without such a sustaining, any man has a right to exercise priesthood within his own home, but not outside of it.

Sounds to me like common sense, and again, people can do as they wish. This question was asked of the Lord at a time when the question of women and the priesthood was a very hot button within the church (Kate Kelly was excommunicated merely for asking the leaders to take the question before the Lord for an answer.) Denver did take the question before the Lord, received an answer that the time was not yet (something to do with Adam and Eve.) Denver then suggested that it be up to the women whether a man can be permitted to exercise priesthood. He offered it as a suggestion to the Lord, the Lord said, in effect, that was a good idea, and Denver offered it to the body of believers. It's not a commandment. But what it does do is assure that no man can use his priesthood to Lord it over women, IF individual fellowships adopt the principle. They don't have to, but if they do, no man exercises priesthood among them without their consent. Seems reasonable to me.


Alan Rock Waterman said...


Finally you ask how Denver knows about the 3200 Christian ministers changing their minds about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Well, how do you think he knows? He's in contact with them. Did I not offer you a link? He has addressed crowds in L.A. and Dallas so far, and soon he will be speaking in Atlanta. With more to come.

Meantime, you may find this interesting: a baptist preacher who teaches from the Book of Mormon without apology:

If I were you, Truth Seeker, I'd spend a bit less energy bemoaning the fact that Denver Snuffer fails to live up to your straw man opinion of him and give the man the benefit of the doubt when he speaks. When he says he doesn't want followers, it's a bit disingenous for you to contradict his words simply because you want to believe something about him other than what he says.

If you're so all-fired convinced he's not making a good enough prophet to suit you, maybe you should dig a little deeper and find some REAL evidence to show whether or not he's even making such a claim, rather than just spouting random thoughts you can build false assumptions out of. Try looking for that smoking gun; you know, something similar to what the Brethren teach about how important it is that the members look to them for safety. If you can find a direct statement from Denver Snuffer declaring himself the prophet, seer, and revelator of some New Restoration Church, or even a revelation where he places himself in the place of Joseph Smith in the way the modern Church leaders do when co-opting section 21, "For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth," Well then maybe you'll have something to go on.

Start digging a little deeper if you're looking to find the truth. Either that, or find yourself a more accurate moniker. "Truth Seeker" doesn't quite fit you.


Eric Kuntz said...

Mormonism has produced a host a whole string of false prophets. SNUFFER is just the latest in the line.

12 But ye have profaned it, in that ye say, The table of the Lord is polluted; and the fruit thereof, even his meat, is contemptible.

13 Ye said also, Behold, what a weariness is it! and ye have SNUFFED at it, saith the Lord of hosts; and ye brought that which was torn, and the lame, and the sick; thus ye brought an offering: should I accept this of your hand? saith the Lord.

14 But cursed be the deceiver, which hath in his flock a male, and voweth, and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing: for I am a great King, saith the Lord of hosts, and my name is dreadful among the heathen. (Mal 1:12-14)

24 A wild ass used to the wilderness, that SNUFFETH up the wind at her pleasure; in her occasion who can turn her away? all they that seek her will not weary themselves; in her month they shall find her. (Jer 2)

6 And the wild asses did stand in the high places, they SNUFFED up the wind like dragons; their eyes did fail, because there was no grass.

7 ¶O Lord, though our iniquities testify against us, do thou it for thy name’s sake: for our backslidings are many; we have sinned against thee. (Jer 14)

Eventually, all of these false prophets will be SNUFFED out by God Himself.

Anonymous said...


Thank you for your thoughtful response. It is something I really appreciate about and love about you. The first time I got to see you and your beautiful wife was at the Mesa when you spoke and then on the mountain the next day. Your blog has been VERY influential to me on my journey. You have a wit unlike any I have found anywhere. Even this post I am commenting on made me bust up before I forwarded it on to some friends who appreciate your humor. And you have a gift for taking a ton of information and consolidating it into topics that anyone can understand. You opened my eyes repeatedly to key components of inconsistencies in the church. You are someone I hope to be with when things hit the fan.

It's common to feel that anyone who disagrees with us isn't seeking truth. I think you get that a lot on your blog from people that think you are off in left field. You and I share something in common - we feel a desire to point out inconsistencies in spiritual teachers.

I see Denver differently than you do. I see someone who has changed over time. Someone who SAYS one thing and DOES another...inconsistencies. Just like the church. I feel like those who will see it - will see it. And others will not see it. And that's okay. But I feel I am to point out those things irregardless. I will just use one example you gave to end my point on inconsistencies:

You said: "The Lord told Denver that from thenceforth HE -the Lord- would call him "David." I asked Denver, "So are we supposed to call you David now?"

He answered, "heavens no! That's just what He calls me.""

That is a prime example of Denver's behavior. He SAYS we aren't supposed to call him 'David'...but what he DOES is the opposite. He is introduced as David at the gatherings and conferences. He does ZERO to stop or correct or teach people differently. It feeds an already hungry appetite for those in this movement.

Like I said, people who are willing to see it will see it for what it is.

And lastly...the the Truth I seek is Him - Christ directly. Like you.

Matthias said...


I'm not convinced Christ and his apostles taught people not to marry. My guess would be that the few verses that could potentially be interpreted that way have become corrupted before they made it into the Bible.

If Christ did in fact say what it says in reference to Eunuchs then there's obviously something missing. Perhaps whatever explanation that went along with that statement was removed by the Catholic church or Satan (take your pick) before the Bible was compiled.

It's not a big deal to me, because I accept the Old Testament, Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price, and the rest of the New Testament as scripture. All of these books clearly advocate marriage as a devine institution, even for the ungodly.

You on the other hand have painted yourself into a corner with your insistance of only accepting the words of Christ in the 4 gospels. Well actually you don't even do that. You pick and choose which of his sayings in the gospels you will believe, because you claim that the writers of the gospels had their own agendas and aren't reliable either.

For example you deny Christ's words were he referred to the woman of Canaan as a dog and told her he was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel.

One more thing. You claim Isaiah and Abraham were false prophets, yet in the four gospels Christ clearly refers to Isaiah as a prophet and Abraham as a righteous man. He refers to Moses as being a prophet, too. He frequently quotes from several Old Testament prophets as well.

You seem to have some kind of prophet phobia because you think true prophets point to themselves and not Christ. You might want to read Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel, and the 12 prophets again. They all point to the Lord and not to themselves. They also appear to have kept his commandments, so really your entire case against these guys doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Well, Truth Seeker, first allow me to apologize for being so abrupt with you earlier. I admit to a certain frustration with people who think Denver Snuffer has the same kinds of ambitions we see in the Church. It's true some people in this movement WANT to see him as their leader, they NEED someone to follow. They can't shake the idea that there is only ONE being we should be looking to, and that is Jesus Christ. But that's the product of our conditioning in the church. We deserve to get over it.

I think you are judging Denver by the way others react to him, rather than his actual words. He has long given up trying to correct other's thinking. I believe I know him well enough to know his feelings on these matters because we talk about this idolatry nonsense quite often. All he can do is shrug and move forward, because if he wasted time trying to correct others misconceptions about him, he would get nothing else done.

The only suitable response I can offer is this: If I REALLY TRULY thought Denver was someone I should be following, wouldn't I be bragging to the rooftops, "Hey, look at me! I'm one of Denver Snuffer's Best Friends!"? Well, I'm not bragging, because I see him as a man, not a demi-god.

I don't see anything wrong with Denver reporting that the Lord likes to call him David. So what if others want to call him that, too? How does that make him special to you or to me? How does that appoint him leader of the movement?

It doesn't. He has his role the Lord has called him to, and it does not include managing or governing the Remnant. He has been instructed to teach the Christian world about the Book of Mormon, and that Joseph Smith deserves to be recognized as one of the great Christian thinkers. He is succeeding where the Church has failed for a hundred years, so why fault him for doing what the Lord has instructed him to do? As long as he does not try to impose his will on anyone, or issue commandments he expects to be obeyed, how does that make him at all comparable to the leaders of the LDS Church, who demand we look to them for safety and instruction?

I've seen Denver do little more than point to the direction of Jesus. When Someone asks him what shall they do, he points to Jesus. "Don't look at me, look over there."

I have a difficult time understanding what you have against him. He's not even a charismatic preacher; just a guy trying to convince others that Christ is their salvation.

The gist of your argument from the beginning has been that Denver Snuffer is similar to the LDS leaders. I just don't see it. Anyway, I'm ready to bury our differences and recognize that we just disagree on this.

(And Eric, I assume your search for variations of the word "snuffed" is meant as humor. If not, I'm worried about you my friend. You're reaching way too hard.)

Matthias said...


I totally understand why you get irritated when people harp on Denver. I don't blaim you one bit. You obviously firmly believe that Denver is called of God and is doing his work. If people kept attacking a close friend of mine who I considered to be the Lord's servant I would get a little annoyed, too.

At the end of the day each of us have to decide for ourselves who we will believe.

Let me ask you this. Just because Denver is different than President Monson, and just because he appears very sincere and much more like a biblical prophet than the brethren, does that make Denver a true prophet?

Just because Monson does not display the fruits of being a true prophet, he still preaches service, love, and following Christ. He never ever points people to himself, always to Christ, the church, or the scriptures.

Where does Denver point people to? To Christ, the scriptures, and remnant fellowships.

They may be very different in many ways, but there are similarities.

I really do wonder why in the world Denver told people that the Lord gave him the new name David unless he wanted people to think he might be the Davidic Servant? I can't for the life of me think of any other reason.

Anonymous said...

That's another good response. Thanks, Rock.

I've read and listened to nearly everything Denver has done. I have always prayed to understand what he's saying. Things had begun to shift after his 40 years in Mormonism talk. Then this covenant was, the way I understood it, from God through Denver and anyone who didn't take it wouldn't receive the promised protection from the Lord.

Denver: "No one is required to accept the Lord’s invitation. But if accepted, the covenant needs to be kept. No one other than the Lord will enforce the covenant. But He has at His disposal lightning, pestilence, famine and earthquakes. (D&C 43:25.) He has warned of a coming time when there is burning, desolation and lamentation. (D&C 112:24.) He has always planned to have covenant people survive that with His protection.

"Anyone who objects to this is free to continue on without accepting God’s offer. They are free to attempt to persuade others to also reject the covenant and remain alone without God’s protection in the coming difficulties. But their opposition cannot prevent it from happening for others who choose to accept the Lord’s offer to gather them as a hen gathers her chicks."

You said: I've seen Denver do little more than point to the direction of Jesus. When Someone asks him what shall they do, he points to Jesus. "Don't look at me, look over there."

I have a difficult time understanding what you have against him. He's not even a charismatic preacher; just a guy trying to convince others that Christ is their salvation."

I view it differently. Now Denver has set up a covenant that, according to him, if I don't take it...I don't have a prayer to be protected from what is coming. To me that is doing a helluva lot more than point the direction of Jesus. It sets up Denver as one who speaks with God and tells us what God is saying. Accept that, the covenant, and his scriptures as THE way to be saved. Sincerely, how do you see it differently?

From Denver: “I hope those who are opposed to this will allow those willing to enter into a covenant to go on in peace. We allow all others from any other of the various sects of Mormonism, to depart from us in peace. I hope that those willing to adopt the covenant are likewise given the opportunity to depart in peace.”

To go in peace would mean you allow others to walk away without casting stones at them. Bullying via name calling those who didn't feel to take the covenant would be the opposite of departing in peace.

From Denver: “In the end, it is better if only a very few receive covenant status who are united in mind and heart than to have a larger body that includes the FEARFUL, the DOUBTFUL and the SKEPTICAL.” (that's name calling 101)

Denver is doing a lot more than pointing a finger to Jesus. I think Denver means well...but he set himself up as an intermediary to avoid being destroyed as soon as we had to accept his scriptures, his covenant...and his answer to the covenant.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

MC and Truth Seeker, I think I'm beginning to figure out where the misunderstanding is coming from. You guys appear to be under the impression that this covenant was something recently revealed through Denver, when in reality these were always the prophecies; we had them since the days of Joseph Smith. Denver is doing nothing more than reminding the church what had been revealed previously in the early days of the Church. We are only now taking seriously the Lord's promises to His covenant people.

I also think you are misinterpreting the whole protection angle. The Lord is not saying those who do not accept the covenant will be destroyed. It is only necessary that there be SOME group, no matter how small, say 30 people or so, so that there can be a place of refuge for tens of thousands of others when the real tribulation hits. It's not like everyone who doesn't accept the covenant will be wiped off the face of the earth. Did you really think that's what Denver was saying?

I myself didn't even know if I was going to accept the covenant until the very last minute; I actually thought there was a very good chance I wouldn't. But that wouldn't have changed my standing in the fellowship I belonged to. I would have been as welcome as ever. At the last minute, I was inspired to enter into it, and I did.

But what of those who did not? Are those in our fellowships who weren't ready consigned to outer darkness? What about all the good people who are members of the protestant churches in my area? What of those still attending the local LDS wards? Is everyone doomed except a very small number?

It's not an either/or. Zion will not likely be built where I'm living now, but at least for the time being I feel a sense of protection where I am at. That does not mean that all the people around me are headed for outer darkness; it means there is special protection that I don't quite yet understand.

All this is based on too many Restorationist scriptures to go into fully here, but that's my take on it. I think You good people have decided Denver pulled some new prophecies out of his butt when all he did was remind us of the importance of lifting the condemnation from one small corner of the church that has darkened the entire church for a hundred years. Someone or some group of someones were required to take the first step. Look at it this way: had the Nauvoo Saints lived up to their responsibility, just that small number alone could have saved the entire nation from the wars, pestilence, and problems that overtook it shortly thereafter. America went through unnecessary tribulations because the Saints failed in their role. It only takes a few to make the covenant to become Saviors on Mount Zion for many, many more.

I'll remind you that Denver has moved on to his new role of helping the Lord Set his hand a second time to gather his people. He has no interest in managing, directing or ordering the Remnant. We are capable of faring for ourselves, and all because SOME accepted the new and everlasting covenant, i.e. the Book of Mormon. Denver is not needed to prod us along anymore; we have access to the same scriptures Denver has.

I believe we are witnessing a transfer of sorts, as the LDS Church continues to reject the Book of Mormon, the protestant world will be picking up the baton. Here is the evidence of that process already in play:

matt lohrke said...

Interesting observation on the Protestants. I'm inclined to agree. We have completely rejected the BOM. I remember during my mission in Spain coming to the realization that Spanish Catholics believed in the Bible, just not what was IN the Bible. Mormons treat the BOM no differently. The Lord has given us 185 years to get our act together and we choose not to.

I'm sure everyone here knows these references, but they bear repeating:

"...for the Lord will have a place whence His word will go forth, in these last days, in purity; for if Zion will not purify herself, so as to be approved of in all things, in His sight, He will seek another people; for His work will go on until Israel is gathered (this idea seems completely lost on the modern church), and they who will not hear His voice, must expect to feel His wrath. Let me say unto you, seek to purify yourselves, and also the inhabitants of Zion, lest the Lord's anger be kindled to fierceness." -- Joseph Smith in a letter to W.W. Phelps, 1/14/1833

I recently found this zinger from Brother Hugh:

“…the Latter-day Saints, who lean too far in the other direction, giving their young and old awards for zeal alone, zeal without knowledge-for sitting in endless meetings, for dedicated conformity and unlimited capacity for suffering boredom. We think it more commendable to get up at five a.m. to write a bad book than to get up at nine o’clock to write a good one; that is pure zeal that tends to breed a race of insufferable, self-righteous prigs, and barren minds. One has only to consider the present outpouring of “inspirational” books in the Church that bring little new in the way of knowledge: truisms and platitudes, kitsch and clichés have become our everyday diet. The Prophet would never settle for that.” -- Go to any given day and you'll find no mention of the BOM, but you will find "sharable quotes" and memes.

Books by Brother Thomas, the Prophet:

The Christmas Train: A True Story
A Future as Bright as Your Faith
Be Your Best Self!
One Little Match
In Search of the Christmas Spirit
Christmas Gifts, Christmas Blessing

"And now I, Nephi, cannot say more; the Spirit stoppeth mine utterance, and I am left to mourn because of the unbelief, and the wickedness, and the ignorance, and the stiffneckedness of men; for they will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be." 2 Nephi 32:7.

Sometimes its hard not to get down about all of this, but I'm also incredibly optimistic and excited to see the beginning of the God's work in the last days. I'm sure there will be many difficult days to come, but I think we're pretty fortunate to witness it, and maybe, in some small way, be part of it.

Matthias said...

The church has a lot of problems, but rejecting the Book of Mormon is not one of them. Most active LDS read the Book of Mormon regularly both individually and as a family.

Much of what is written in the book is taken lightly or even ignored, but a lot of it is still being put into practice. Typically most LDS find inspiration in the admonitions to do good and the promised blessings for keeping the commandments. At the samw time the warnings are all too often ignored as are some of the commandments contained therein, such as studying Isaiah or seeking the mysteries of God.

LDS cherish the milk in the book, but avoid the meat. That doesn't mean they reject it.

Jared Livesey said...

And what are the commandments of Jesus Christ as contained in the Book of Mormon, MC?

Eric Kuntz said...

"Much of what is written in the book is taken lightly or even ignored..."

Amen Brother.

Matthias said...

Well Log there's a whole bunch of commandments in the BOM.

Faith, repentance, baptism, Gift of the Holy Ghost charity, humility, chastity, trusting in God, caring for the poor, the 10 commandments, taking the sacrament, preaching the gospel, excommunicating apostates, searching Isaiah and the other prophets, seeking after the mysteries of God, preaching without being paid.

That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there's a lot more.

Jared Livesey said...


Is "give to him that asketh thee" one of the commandments of Jesus Christ contained in the Book of Mormon?

For brevity's sake, if you would please confine your answer to a simple "yes" or a simple "no," that would be helpful.

If your answer is "yes," then is that commandment applicable to all men (see 1 Nephi 13:40-41 and 3 Nephi 15:1), again restricting your answer to a simple "yes" or a simple "no?"

Matthias said...

Yes it is a commandment of Christ and I would say that yes it applies to all men unless God says otherwise

... I feel like your setting me up for something

Jared Livesey said...


Would you agree that construing Christ's commandments as delivered in the Book of Mormon nonliterally is merely one way of rejecting them?

For example, is "be generous" an accurate restatement of "give to him that asketh thee?" For clarity, a restatement is accurate if it can be substituted without loss of meaning in place of the original statement.

Matthias said...

And here comes the set up...

To your first question I would say that distorting or misrepresenting Christ's commandments is a way of rejecting them.

I don't fully understand your second question, but "being generous" and "giving to him that asketh thee" are not the exact same thing.

I will say that when someone in need asks you for assistance you could give the bare minimum or you could give generously, so the two can certainly be related.

Jared Livesey said...


Let's take another commandment Christ gave in the Book of Mormon - "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

Would you agree that teaching people to lay up treasures for themselves upon earth - treasures being anything we keep away from others on earth, where moth and rust can corrupt, and thieves can break through and steal - would be a way of rejecting Christ's commandment?

And if Christ's commandments in the Book of Mormon are, in fact, rejected in these ways - construing them nonliterally, substituting other precepts or commandments or teachings in their place, and teaching men to break his commandments - can we truthfully say that the Book of Mormon is, in fact, being rejected?

Matthias said...

Does the church in fact teach people to lay up treasures for themselves and not share with others?

Jared Livesey said...

Well, let’s answer the prior question first.

If Christ’s commandments in the Book of Mormon are rejected by construing them nonliterally, substituting other precepts or commandments or teachings in their place, and teaching men to break his commandments, then can we truthfully say that the Book of Mormon is, in fact, being rejected?

Matthias said...

I suppose it would depend to what degree one is breaking the collective commandments in the Book of Mormon and teaching others to break them.

Another factor is whether or not one is knowingly breaking the commandments contained in the Book of Mormon and to what degree one is knowingly teaching others to break them.

In the D&C the Lord said that the church was under condemnation for taking the Book of Mormon lightly, not for rejecting it. This is what many of the saints today are still guilty of, not rejecting the Book of Mormon.

I've answered your questions, now how about answering mine?

Does the church in fact teach people to lay up treasures for themselves and not share with others?

Here's another question about "giving to him that asketh thee." This is a scripture you like to throw out a lot. What exactly does this commandment mean?

Does it mean that one has to give everything one has to anyone who asks for it, even if they don't need it and one does?

Or is it another way of saying that we out to give assistance to those who ask and not judge whether or not they are worthy of it?

Jared Livesey said...

The answer to the question I asked would be either “yes,” or it would be “no.”

As for what the Church teaches, that’s up to you to investigate and come to your own conclusions.

As to the meaning of Christ’s commandments, the best way to learn is to in all sincerity do what you understand Christ to be commanding and he will pour out his spirit upon you and you will gain understanding of them until you understand them all, and more besides those which are written.

I will note that the priests of Noah, it seems, while professing to teach the law of Moses (Mosiah 12:28), apparently were instead teaching the value of a worldly education in order to get ahead economically (Mosiah 24:5-6).

And I will also note that salvation requires casting aside one’s wisdom, learning, and riches (2 Nephi 9:41-43). It would seem that teaching a congregation to obtain all the worldly education they can with an eye towards economic self-sufficiency and teaching that they should build up stores of money and goods in order to obtain temporal security would be contrary to the function of priests of God, which is merely to teach the commandments of God (Alma 13:1, 6), wouldn’t you agree?

Craig Morris said...

Mosiah 4:26,27

I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.

And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order.

Matthias said...

So let me get this straight. You expect a simple answer of yes or no from me, but you won't answer my questions at all.

The reason you expect a simple yes or no to your carefully crafted questions is so you can back me into a corner. It won't work.

I'll answer your last question and that will be it until you answer mine.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with the brethren encouraging people to get an education or learn a trade.

It's certainly true that in the world we live in today one generally has much better prospects of being able to support one's self, one's family, and to be in position to help others if one has an education or some type trade, craft, or skill.

The scriptures allow for the desire of riches if one's desire is to help others. So if the brethren or telling people to get an education so they can have the means to bless the lives of others they are teaching the commandments are they not?

That's not to say that those LDS (the brethren included) who seek for riches for the purpose of living a lavish comfortable life and who are unwilling to help others are not in need of repentance, but does the church actually teach people to lay up treasures for themselves and not share with others?

Unless you can clearly show that the church is directly and blatantly contradicting or distorting the commandents you refer to there is no point in discussing the matter further.

All wait for a simple yes or no response to the questions I asked you in my previous comment. I'll tell you what, go ahead and explain your yes or no answers.

Jared Livesey said...


I explained how you can get the answers yourself. I’m not trying to win an argument. I’m not even trying to argue with you. My questions have to be carefully crafted so as to not admit a third option in what are, by their nature, perfect dichotomies.

But I will leave you with some questions to ponder. You needn’t answer them to me, for I am not your judge.

You admitted you do not know what it means to “give to him that asketh thee.” Is it because no one has yet told you Christ’s commandment, “give to him that asketh thee,” means “give to every man that asks you” (Luke 6:30), and that the Lord has commanded his people to give to every man that asks them?

Have your teachers not taught you to lend to all comers, without asking for what you loan them to be repaid?

Have your teachers not taught you to not store up for yourself food, money, or any other worldly good in this world, but instead to give all your excess substance to the poor?

Have your teachers not taught you to yield when you are sued without fighting?

Have your teachers not taught you to not ask for your stuff back when anyone takes it?

Have your teachers not taught you that you cannot pursue wealth and serve God simultaneously?

Have your teachers not taught you to refrain from judgement, whether of other sinners or of those who ask you for your substance?

And, in fine, have your teachers not taught you to keep the commandments of Jesus Christ?

And if your teachers have taught you to keep the commandments of Jesus Christ, then how is it you don’t understand what they mean? Why have you not asked your teachers what they mean?

Has the Lord been slack in his promise to give you his spirit as you keep his commandments, as stated in the sacramental prayer for the bread?

How is it that you do not know what these things mean?

Jared Livesey said...

And, more troubling, MC:

If you have been ordained to both Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods within the Church, then you have been in a teaching position more than once in your life, unless I am mistaken, whether in EQ or whatever quorum you are in, as well as in home teaching, and possibly on a mission.

Have you taught others to do all these things, to keep these commandments of the Lord Jesus Christ as found in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon? And if you have not taught others to do all these things, to keep all these commandments, what have you been teaching them instead?

Matthias said...

Vintage Log. Evasive as always. No wonder we never get anywhere.

I'm not trying to win a debate either. I asked you relevant questions in order to determine what those commandments mean to you, not because I'm clueless as to what they mean. I could take a guess at how you understand those commandments, but what's the point. It's easier to discuss points of doctrine if both parties are clear as to what they mean so there's no confusion.

But since you refuse to provide a straight answer I guess we're done.

Jared Livesey said...


Did the Lord command “give to him that asketh thee?” Yes, or no?

If yes, then which particular word is of issue to you, that your teachers have not taught you to understand it?

Matthias said...

Yes the Lord did command to give to him that asketh thee.

But what is the Lord saying here.

Does it mean if a man asks me to give him my house I have to give it to him even if I need my house to provide shelter for my family?

Does it mean that I have to give up my employment that I need to support my family just because someone desires my job?

Does it mean I have to give someone my first born child if they ask me?

Or is this commandment saying that I need to help those who are in need according to the means that I have to help them and not turn them away?

Jared Livesey said...

The Lord is saying “give to him that asks you,” or, as rendered in Luke 6:30, “give to every man that asks of you.” No more. No less. The point at which you choose to break this or any other commandment of Jesus Christ is up to you - it’s part of the test.

Abraham withheld not the son of promise.

The Lord and his disciples were homeless bums.

D&C 98
11 And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good, that ye shall live by every word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God.

12 For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith.

13 And whoso layeth down his life in my cause, for my name’s sake, shall find it again, even life eternal.

14 Therefore, be not afraid of your enemies, for I have decreed in my heart, saith the Lord, that I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy.

15 For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me.

Matthias said...

Why do I even bother with you. You are unwilling to answer my simple honest questions.

You're such a hypocrite. You keep harping on the Lord's command to give to him that asketh, but you won't GIVE me a straight answer when I ASK you for one.

The only excuse you have for not being straight with me is if you consider me to be a dog or a swine, unworthy of your pearls. In which case you better watch that you are not judging me unrighteously.

I guess I have to be more wise and not engage in your little games anymore. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me mutiple times, shame on me.

Jared Livesey said...

What isn’t clear about the Lord’s command to “give to every man that asks of you?”

Does it involve someone asking you for something? If yes, the Lord says give to him.

That commandment covers *all* your questions of that type.

Since every last one of your questions of that type is answered by the rule “give to every man that asks of you,” what is there to discuss?

You have been fully answered.

Matthias said...

You still won't give a straight answer and continue to try and force me to read your thoughts or interpret the scriptures for you. I asked for a yes or now response and you refuse to give me one. Your still breaking the very rules you claim to play by.

So here's a simple yes or no question for you. Either you'll give me what I ask for or you'll refuse.

If someone you know to be a human sex trafficker, who forces underaged girls to perform sexual acts, asks you for your daughter does the law require that you give him your daughter?

Yes or no?

Jared Livesey said...


I am not forcing you to read my thoughts, neither have I asked you to interpret scripture for me.

There is no interpretation here. You either give to every man who asks of you, which you have acknowledged the Lord has commanded of you, or you do not give to every man who asks of you. There is no middle ground.

I think if you’ll review the standing requests of your community - called “laws” - you’ll find that you have already been asked not to give girls to sex traffickers. Since you most likely have competing requests for how you should distribute your daughter, you will choose to grant the requester whose reward you value most highly.

Since “give to every man that asks of you” is the Lord’s command, and you have acknowledged that it is the Lord’s command, my “thoughts” are irrelevant. When I asked which particular word of the commandment - “give,” “to,” “every,” “man,” “that,” “asks,” “of,” or “you,” - was confusing to you, you declined to mention a single one, so I infer each of these words is indeed understandable by you, and you understand what the combination of the words means. So you’re not confused on what the commandment means.

Why, then, are you asking me what the commandment means? Is it because you want to keep the Lord’s commandment more perfectly, or, as your reviling of me as a “hypocrite” would tend to suggest, because you want to find occasion to accuse me over the Lord’s commandment you neither believe, keep, nor teach?

Matthias said...

And while your pondering your next carefully crafted evasive answer here's something else to ponder. Jesus and his apostles were not homeless bums. They were travelling without purse or script as required of missionaries. The apostles still owned their fishing boats, houses, etc. Else how could John have taken the savior's mother into his own home?

Some of the commandments you keep accusing everyone of breaking are actually just the Lord's command for missionaries to travel without purse or script. This is what is meant by "take no thought for tomorrow."

3 Nephi 13:25 makes it clear that the Lord is addressing his 12 disciples only. This is consistant with the JST and D&C as well.

Matthias said...

At least you finally answered. Still not in a simple yes or no as you demanded of me, but we're making some progress.

Okay so here's a follow up question. What if there was no laws in this country against underaged forced prostitution, would I now be required to give that person my daughter?

Or how about this. What if I don't know what the person's who is asking for my 10 year old daughter wants to do with her. Am I then required to give her? She is mine after all and someone asked me for her.

Or what about this one.

Lets say my daughter and I are at the store and she asks me to buy her a toy or candy. Does the law require that I give it to her?

Or what if I know someone asks me for money to buy meth. Does the law require me to give him the money?

No I'm not trying to accuse you over God's laws. I'm trying to see exactly were you stand on this law you keep asking me about.

I already know what the law means. It means helping those in need or those who claim to be in need according to the means I have available to me. Is this the way that you interpret this commandment?

Jared Livesey said...


I accuse none of breaking any commandment.

Let me be more clear so that your contention on this point may cease. For the duration of their ministry, which apparently ended with their lives, Jesus and his disciples were living as homeless bums. They left all and followed him.

“Take no thought for the morrow” was to all who followed him in Matthew 6, even if 3 Nephi 13:25 was spoken directly to the twelve disciples he chose in Bountiful. If one rejects the commands Christ gives to his disciples, how can one be a disciple, or a follower, of Christ?

Jared Livesey said...


We discussed earlier how nonliteral interpretation, substitution of other commandments, precepts, or teachings, and teaching men to break Christ’s commandments, were all forms of rejection of Christ’s commandments and also forms of rejecting the Book of Mormon in which these commands occur.

You said: “I would say that distorting or misrepresenting Christ's commandments is a way of rejecting them.”

You also say: “I already know what [“give to him that asks you”] means. It means helping those in need or those who claim to be in need according to the means I have available to me.”

“Give to him that asks you” means “give to him that asks you,” or, as rendered in Luke 6:30, “Give to every man that asks of you.”

Jared Livesey said...

For those who might otherwise not keep Christ’s commandments for fear that their bestest friend, the human sex trafficker, might invite them on his yacht to the high seas where there is no law and ask you for your daughter to offer to his customers as fresh meat and then have to give her to him, there is no need to fear the Lord’s commandments.

Neither your children nor your spouse are your property. You can’t give what isn’t yours to give, and none of us owns any of us. And you are already commanded to not do to your daughter what you would not wish were done to you by the Golden Rule, the law of the Celestial Kingdom, from which the Lord’s command, “give to every man that asks of you,” is derived. When your bestest pal, the sex trafficker, asks you on his yacht on the high seas for your daughter to pimp out, you may grant him his request, or you may grant God’s request to not do your daughter evil. Choose then whom you will serve by whomever is offering you the reward you value most highly.

Lot was confronted with a similar situation when the angels came to him.

Choose ye this day whom ye will serve.

And if you will refuse to give your house to someone on demand, then you value your house more highly than the reward God is offering for the keeping of his commandments.

That’s your choice to make.

Matthias said...


Your a sly old fox. I'll give you that much. Your precious teacher Denver Snuffer has taught you well.

You won't give a straight answer, just like any old crafty lawyer.

Rather than outright accuse people of breaking the commandments, you jab at them with carefully crafted questions that suggest just that.

You accuse me of following corrupt teachers and being one myself. It doesn't matter if you word that as a question. It's an accusation.

When asked simple honest questions to which a simple honest answer is requested, you hide behind more crafty questions and veiled insinuations.

At least I have done my best to fully answer your cunning questions.

Christ never said we had to give everyone anything and everything they ask for. Which I'm assuming is how you interpret the command to give to him that asketh.

(I have to assume that's the way you interpret it, because you won't ever give a straight answer.)

Why do you refuse to just plainly lay out what you believe? Why must you hide behind carefully crafted questions? Are you scared of being shown to be in error or are you trying to lay a snare for me? Which is it?

Jared Livesey said...

I believe Christ commanded all mankind to “give to every man that asks of you.”

Matthias said...

And what does that mean? Can you please explain that clearly?

I know what all the words mean. What does that commandment mean? I've given you my interpretation. What is yours?

Anonymous said...


Considering "give to every man that asks of you", how do you view the 5 wise virgins?

Matthew 25

8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our lamps are gone out.

9 But the wise answered, saying, NOT SO; lest there be not enough for us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.

Looks like Jesus taught us not to give to everyone that asks of you. This was His parable you know. God tells us to give to every "man" that asks of us. So that means if a "woman" puts up a petition to us, we don't have to. Right? Cause you're taking Him literally...right? Hmm...let's think more deeply.

Consider Matthew 22:

35 Then one of them, which was named Log, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

If you love God with all your heart, and with all your soul and with all your will be One with Him. You will have His heart. And He will abide with you. You will do as He did (and does) and give to every man, and every woman, that asks of you.

Does the Lord give to you when you ask of Him?
Does He always give you exactly what you ask for?
If you as for bread does He give you a stone? (Matt 7)

When someone puts up their petition to us, be it a child at home, a beggar on the street, or Log petitioning for answers he doesn't fully understand - we give to those that ask of us.

What do we give?

It may be money. It may be time. It may be intercessory prayer. It may be that the the Spirit instructs you not give what they petitioned you for (yes, when a beggar has petitioned me the spirit has prompted me to empty the contents of my very full wallet as well when petitioned by another beggar, the Spirit instructed me not to give the money for which they were asking but to instead pray for them).

When you do HIS WILL, you will know perfectly what it is they require. As clear as the noon day sun. Because you will not to do your own will, but the will of him that sent you (John 6:38).

Matthias said...

Thank you Truth Seeker. Very well said. I couldn't agree more.

Jared Livesey said...

MC: I do not interpret the command, which is understandable as it reads, and needs no interpretation. Give to every man who asks of you. There’s no discussion, no interpretation needed: you either give to everyone who asks of you, or you do not give to everyone who asks of you. You did indeed give me your “interpretation,” which is different than the command, and is therefore a substitute for it, a mischaracterization, as we discussed earlier.

“TruthSeeker”: If someone asks you for something, the same standard of judgement, or measure, by which you apportion, or mete, what you give to them shall be the same standard of judgement by which heaven apportions to you what you ask. If you give little, you get little. If you give only words, you get only words. If you give all, you receive all.

One of the most frequently repeated promises in all of scripture is “Ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.”

For every one that asketh, receiveth.

But, as James said, let him ask in faith, nothing doubting - for if otherwise, let not the asker think he shall receive anything from the Lord.

And if you do not keep his commandments, among them “give to every man that asks of you,” then you do not have faith, neither do you love the Lord.

It so happens that the reality symbolized in the parable of the 10 virgins by the oil is nontransferrable by its nature.

Jared Livesey said...

I also believe the following passage.

2 Nephi 9:41-43
41 O then, my beloved brethren, come unto the Lord, the Holy One. Remember that his paths are righteous. Behold, the way for man is narrow, but it lieth in a straight course before him, and the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name.

42 And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them.

43 But the things of the wise and the prudent shall be hid from them forever—yea, that happiness which is prepared for the saints.

Matthias said...


Obviously that commandment is not clear to you since you can't explain what it means.

All you can do is quote the scripture and say that it is clear.

Perhaps asking you to "interpret" it was a poor choice of words. Can you expound on it? Can you teach what it means? Either you can't or you won't.

Jared Livesey said...

I can. If someone asks you for something, give it to him.

That's all there is to it.

Anonymous said...

"If you give only words, you get only words"...let's hope so. HE is the WORD. (John 1:1)

MC - Never wrestle with a pig. You end up with crap up the wazoo but the pig loves it!

Log views the gospel through a glass darkly. Instead of covenanting with God directly, he desired a man (Denver) to make a covenant for him. Instead of fulfilling the scriptures he reads, he required new scriptures to be made for him. Instead of becoming a Temple, he is saving to build one. Instead of giving to all men liberally - he is judging them. He is a prime example of the remnant movement. Instead of meeting the Lord face to face, he chose to send Moses up the mount and come back with a covenant instead.

Matthias said...

Finally an answer. It only took 24 hrs.

So according to your understanding, it doesn't matter what someone asks you the Lord requires you to give it?

It doesn't matter if you need it to cover your basic needs and the needs of your family?

It doesn't matter if you know that person will use what you give them to harm others or themselves? Like buy meth for example?

What if someone asks me for a crowbar and the spirit reveals to me that he intends to use it to break into someone's house, am I required to give it to him?

What if I'm a bishop or justice of the oeace and someone asks me to perform a homosexual marriage for them, am I required to perform it and mock God?

And am I required to buy my kids all the candy and toys they ask me to?

I could come up with hundreds of other scenarios that are problematic to how you understand that verse.

Jared Livesey said...

The Lord commands "give to every man that asks of you." All of your questions are answered by reference to the commandment.

This is not "my understanding." This is the literal command: "give to every man that asks of you."

Apparently, you find the literal commandment of the Lord problematic.

No man shall be compelled to be saved. It is your right to disbelieve, disobey, and lead men astray from the Lord's commandments.

Mosiah 15:22-27

22 And now, the resurrection of all the prophets, and all those that have believed in their words, or all those that have kept the commandments of God, shall come forth in the first resurrection; therefore, they are the first resurrection.

23 They are raised to dwell with God who has redeemed them; thus they have eternal life through Christ, who has broken the bands of death.

24 And these are those who have part in the first resurrection; and these are they that have died before Christ came, in their ignorance, not having salvation declared unto them. And thus the Lord bringeth about the restoration of these; and they have a part in the first resurrection, or have eternal life, being redeemed by the Lord.

25 And little children also have eternal life.

26 But behold, and fear, and tremble before God, for ye ought to tremble; for the Lord redeemeth none such that rebel against him and die in their sins; yea, even all those that have perished in their sins ever since the world began, that have wilfully rebelled against God, that have known the commandments of God, and would not keep them; these are they that have no part in the first resurrection.

27 Therefore ought ye not to tremble? For salvation cometh to none such; for the Lord hath redeemed none such; yea, neither can the Lord redeem such; for he cannot deny himself; for he cannot deny justice when it has its claim.

Matthias said...

Well I guess I'm going to hell then, because I won't buy my kids all the candy and toys they want. Maybe I'll see you there.

I guarantee you that you aren't homeless and that you wouldn't give soneone your first born child under any circumstances other than an angel or God himself commanding you to do it.

Don't kid yourself. You wouldn't give me your house, your car, all your money, all your clothes, all your books, and all of your future earnings just because I asked you to.

If you think you would then go ahead and send it over.

We both know that "give to him that asketh" is not to be interpreted that strictly. It means giving what you are able to give when asked.

The commandment says "give to him that asketh", which of course only means to give what you can. Following the spirit is key, too. The law is there to set us free not put us in bondage.

If you give me literally everything you have, how will you feed and clothe your children, which God has entrusted you with?

How will you be in a position to help the poor and the needy around you if you give me all you have just because I asked you for it?

You are in error my friend. You are looking beyond the mark. The Pharisees did the same thing.

Jared Livesey said...

"We both know that 'give to him that asketh' is not to be interpreted that strictly. It means giving what you are able to give when asked."

Certainly if you only have nothing to give, you can only give nothing. That goes without saying.

The commandments of the Lord are what they are. You either keep them literally, or you literally do not keep them.

You are free to revile me as a hypocrite. You are free to claim me to be in error. You are free to declare the Lord's commandments to be problematic. You are free to substitute other precepts, commandments, or teachings in their place, and you are free to agree with those who do likewise.

"The law is there to set us free not put us in bondage."

Free from sin, sure. However...

Mark 10:44 And whosoever of you might wish to become the highest will be the slave of all.

Matthias said...

Amen Truth Seeker. Great description of Denver Snuffer and the remnant movement.

Your right, I need to stop contending with the likes of Log. I guess I can't help myself. I just get so darn irritated with their constant carefully crafted questions and thinly veiled accusations.

You're right there's no point. I've been contending with them for several years and I've gotten nowhere. You'd think I'd get smart and give it up. I guess I just keep hoping one of them will snap out of it.

Craig Morris said...

Jesus taught using hyperbole. He went over the top to make his point and sometimes did not intend to be taken literally (for example his statement about cutting off your hand) and I think the literal interpretation of "give to him that asketh" may be such a case. Even so Log's point is well made. He reminds me that I am not free enough with my substance and need to help those in need more than I do and consequently my soul is at risk. Thinly veiled or not his accusation is correct. I care more about my stuff than I do the poor. I wish this were taught plainly in the church and that I was reminded more often that I need to repent and take care of other people. What Log has written motivates me to be more Christlike and I thank him for it.

Jared Livesey said...

The Lord was not speaking in hyperbole, but in language a child can understand.

He meant "give to every man that asks of you" literally.

He meant "do not build up stores of treasures for yourselves upon earth, where moth and rust corrupt, and thieves break through and steal" literally.

He meant "build up stores of treasure for yourself in heaven, where moth and rust do not corrupt, and no thief breaks through to steal" literally - which is done by instead of putting your stuff into storage or in your savings account or 401k or Roth IRA, you distribute it to the poor.

He meant "If any man shall strike you on one cheek, turn to him the other also" literally.

He meant "Do not turn away any who ask to borrow from you" literally.

He meant "Do not ask for your stuff back from anyone who takes it" literally.

And so on. Be careful, therefore, of how you handle the commandments of the Lord.

JST Matthew 5:21-22
21 Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so to do, he shall in no wise be saved in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach these commandments of the law until it be fulfilled, the same shall be called great and shall be saved in the kingdom of heaven.

22 For I say unto you, except your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

gruden said...

OK Log, you've made your point clear. Now what I would like to see is some personal examples you can provide where you followed the injunctions listed and gave someone what they asked from you, particularly situations where it was not easy. Real-life examples of spiritual teachings in practice are usually very edifying to most of us.

Zebedee said...

Hey Log,
Can I have your car please? Your newest one of course, I don't want a junker. Oh, and can you make sure it's full of gas.

Jared Livesey said...


I only own a junker which cannot be legally transferred except to a junkyard.

And now Gruden has also had his request fulfilled.

Matthias said...


I know you probably consider me to be your enemy, because of our heated debates over various points of doctrine and theological issues.

I have to say that even though I don't agree with you that every last word in the scriptures aught to be taken literally with zero wiggle room, by all indications you seem to be trying very hard to live what you preach. For that you have my respect.

Dave P. said...

Had to run to the airport during the actual Face-to-Face yesterday. Did the lawyer and used car salesman actually dress up like clowns for it?

matt lohrke said...

Dave P - was casually strolling through the #ldsface2face hashtag on the twitter during the event.

Lots of fluff questions, lots of fluff answers.

From LDS church twitter:

"We patiently wait upon the Lord, and don’t get uptight because we haven’t had our prayer answered the first time or the first year that we have asked it."

"Don’t be afraid to get good advice from parents, friends, and professional help. Trust in the Lord through your own faith and prayers in calling down heavenly help as you move through these phases of life"

"We need to be cautious not to label ourselves or to label one another. The most important label any of us can carry throughout our lives is I am a child of God . . . that is the label that stays with us throughout our lives.”

“We love you. We have no higher desire than to see you on the pathway of eternal life and to feel your joy at the blessings of the Lord.”

Q: How can we achieve balance between the worldly life and spiritual life?
A: “People who keep the Sabbath day have a built-in heavenly balance that helps them.”

"Q: How can I stand up for my standards w/o offending others who have different views?
@BallardMRussell says “I’d say relax and just enjoy the gospel and share it with a smile on your face.”

“The contest is not between a family and career. And it’s not between family and education. Women can have both. The question is timing in the individual circumstances. “ @OaksDallinH

Radio Free Mormon said...

I listened to the Face-to-Face event last night.

I actually laughed out loud when Elder Oaks said to not get "up tight." I think this was his attempt to sound hep, dude. Kind of like a couple of conferences back when Elder Holland referred to the "local love-in."

The two things that leaped out to me was Elder Oaks saying everybody has the right to revelation, but if it contradicts what the brethren say, it is from the wrong source.

Also, one or both of the apostles later vowed that the church had never hidden anything from its members about its history or doctrine, that that is not the Lord's way, and that we should trust them on this.


Just wow.

Eric Kuntz said...

13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

2 Cor 11

Dave P. said...

Oh, but RFM, those things are "sacred" rather than hidden.

Probably a good thing I missed out on it directly.

Jared Livesey said...

Joseph once wrote, in the first FAQ for the LDS Church back in 1838, the following.

First--"Do you believe the Bible?"

If we do, we are the only people under heaven that does, for there are none of the religious sects of the day that do.

Second--"Wherein do you differ from other sects?"

In that we believe the Bible, and all other sects profess to believe their interpretations of the Bible, and their creeds.

Third--"Will everybody be damned, but Mormons?"

Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness (TPJS, p.119).

Joseph was quite clear in his teachings that by "believe the Bible" he meant "believe the words of the Bible literally."

"Everything that we have not a key word to, we will take it as it reads" (TWoJS, p. 187).

"What is the rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely as it reads" (TPJS, p. 276).

Apostasy is not falling away from the priesthood.

Apostasy is falling away from the Lord

Men fall away when they proclaim themselves his people while disbelieving his commands and not doing them nor teaching them, but doing and teaching other things in their place.

If you want to know where the angels and the miracles and the theophanies have gone, consider well the words of the commandments of Jesus Christ as found in Luke 6:20-49, Matthew 5-7, and 3 Nephi 12-14, and keep them as they are written.

He will not receive anything else.

Zebedee said...

"Will everybody be damned, but Mormons? Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness."

Unfortunately, these damned non-Mormons will have plenty of company, because many if not most Mormons will be right there with them. According to Nephi: "they [we] have ALL gone astray save it be a FEW, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they [the few humble followers] are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the PRECEPTS OF MEN."

We're all screwed unless we forsake our damned idolatry, stop listening to the damned precepts of men, and follow the Lord and Him alone.

Jared Livesey said...

That's why I don't laugh when people ask me for my car when I repeat the commandments of the Lord and explain he meant exactly what he said, Zebedee.

It's not a joke.

To follow Christ means to execute his commandments literally and continually.

Luke 6:46-49
46 ¶ And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:

48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

matt lohrke said...

This is something I've really been struggling with: how does one exit the world and survive? I find myself wondering what would happen if enough people truly did first seek the Kingdom of God by shirking off "the world."

The hard part, though, is shirking off the world, but only in the sense that we are all so tied into the inherently evil financial system. But is it my own lack of faith that prevents me from wholly trusting the Lord that He will provide, or can anyone truly escape the constraints of the modern world? Where does one go where the boot of the government isn't on your neck?

I don't know the answer.

Underdog2 said...


I believe the tyranny and despotism of all governments must be destroyed. Daniel 2 paints the picture well.

Otherwise any real attempt at Zion would be crushed in its infant stage. The devil reigns with blood and horror, buying up armies and navies and false priests that oppress. The devil's main tool of oppression has been government.

Therefore government must be destroyed as the Nephite government was destroyed previous to Christ visiting.

Or, Zion must be able to defend herself with the power of God, thus becoming a place where all nations fear her.

matt lohrke said...

Underdog - obviously scenario #2 is preferable. I don't know how it happens, though. It eventually will happen, but that will require a heavy reckoning.

I'm currently in the north end of Utah County -- the so-called Silicon Slopes. There's such an excess of gluttony and wealth here. It's terrifying. We're building more and more shopping centers, car dealerships, and tech companies that do nothing to improve the world in any material way. The housing market is artificially inflated. Consumerism is the name of the game. The funny thing is that some people view this "progress" as a sign of righteousness when in reality its just another form of slavery. They day of reckoning in Utah will be severe, I think.

You're right about the Nephite government, but it will come as a result of war on American soil, followed by disease and famine, and ultimately natural disasters.

How do we get by in the meantime?

Jared Livesey said...

Until there are enough who follow Christ to establish Zion, why not perform an experiment upon the word of Christ?

You don't have to do what I do - be the suicidal moron who teaches Christ's commandments publicly. In private, covenant with the Father in mighty prayer that you will obey his law, and keep his commandments... and then do it, without fail, from that point on.

Oh, it's interesting. And it will be unpleasant at times. You will learn the mysteries of the kingdom as he pours his spirit upon you. You will understand the finer points of his law and commandments. And the reality behind the presentation of the endowments will be brought about in your life.

This is the grand adventure in the gospel, the strait and narrow way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

But until one acts upon the commandments of Jesus Christ in faith, willing to eat the persecutions and privations and punishments of the world rather than break his commandments, it's all mere words.

matt lohrke said...

Log -

Thanks for the encouragement. Appreciate it. I've only been "awake" for about three years now. It's been a time of great growth and often greater struggle. I've had some choice experiences and demonic encounters. I guess that's part of the process as even Christ faced that challenge.

I think in some ways some of the mysteries have been unfolded--pure revelation, as it were--to varying degrees. That's exactly what makes the modern world such a drag. Once you get a little taste of the Light--when the seed begins to grow--absolutely nothing else compares. Lehi was right. I often describe Truth as a narcotic. It really is! And I agree, I don't think Nephi was exaggerating when he said few be they who find it...

Anyway, I hope the day comes sooner rather than later because its getting to be a real bummer out there! ;)

If anyone ever wants to throw together a support group dinner, I'm game. ha.

Underdog2 said...

Part 1 of 2


Scenario #2 is preferable for sure, but with the BoM warning that any nation who possesses this land that rejects Jesus Christ (the people/ government of the U.S.) will be annihilated in a genocidal fashion, and with the Sept 2017 Boise prophesy by Denver that this nation will be destroyed by fratricidal and genocidal warfare, I don't see Scenario #2 playing out.

Perhaps there could be a hybrid scenario playing out, where Zion begins to take root before the war that wipes America out.

In that case, let's say a location is chosen, and let's say temple construction commences, and a gathering starts, I find it virtually impossible to conceive of a condition where the corrupt U.S. government (or at least the Deep State run by modern Gadiantons) will "live and let live." I would expect the people to be assaulted physically and legally. Legally first, and then physically. Think the Bundy's. They tried to make a courageous stand for property rights. They sit in jail now, though they appear to be winning the legal battle in some or most of their cases. The Brand Davidians come to mind too. You know what happened to them.

Now imagine a movement by God happening somewhere in the Rockies. Think Alma's small number of converts. He was teaching in private, but still discovered by King Noah and Noah used the full power of "the state" to attempt to destroy Alma's people, as they sought the Lord. Mind you, many of those people, like Abinadi, had gone back to the land of Nephi to reclaim the holy temple. Those who seek Zion seek a temple too. That's the common denominator. Zeniff and Abinadi's attempt ended with the fiery murder of a true prophet, and the persecution of another prophet who had to flee into the wilderness. Granted, God helped them escape by causing the Lamanites/ Amulonites to fall asleep. God's power was shown forth to preserve Alma and his people.

In a scenario in the Rockies where the word gets out that there's a prophet among the people and he's preaching the establishment of Zion and the New Jerusalem (call it a "Zionism", i.e, some type of Jewish conspiracy), with the mainstream Mormon Church's influence and control over the western state governments, and along with the Deep State running the alphabet agencies of the federal government, does anybody really think Satan won't use the power of the state to levy false charges and arrest or kill the tiny group of remnant "Zionists" who just want to worship God according to he dictates of their own consciences?

For Scenario #2 to work, God would have to intervene against the U.S. government or state government police and para military forces. What conditions would have to be met for this type of divine intervention?

And let's say divine, defensive intervention DID happen (again, before America is destroyed). Would not this be a sign or a miracle to the faithless that there was something to Denver Snuffer? "Gee, since our military can't destroy them, maybe the 'Snufferites' whom we've been ridiculing were on to something. I think I'll NOW believe."

We know faith created by seeing miracles isn't real faith.

Therefore, I'm left to conclude that Scenario #2 cannot happen BEFORE America is destroyed. God hasn't chosen to use public miracles up to this point, and therefore it's a probable conclusion that He will stick with that line of thought.

America must be cleansed (i.e., destroyed) and in its ashes, the remnant of Jacob shall go forth and trod under feet the bones and ashes of those that walked before, as prophesied in 3 Nephi.

Underdog2 said...

Part 2 of 2

3 Nephi 25

1 For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

2 But unto you that fear my name, shall the Son of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth and grow up as calves in the stall.

3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of Hosts.

3 Nephi 16

15 But if they will not turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, I will suffer them, yea, I will suffer my people, O house of Israel, that they shall go through among them, and shall tread them down, and they shall be as salt that hath lost its savor, which is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of my people, O house of Israel.

16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, thus hath the Father commanded me—that I should give unto this people this land for their inheritance.

3 Nephi 20

16 Then shall ye, who are a remnant of the house of Jacob, go forth among them; and ye shall be in the midst of them who shall be many; and ye shall be among them as a lion among the beasts of the forest, and as a young lion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he goeth through both treadeth down and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.

3 Nephi 21

12 And my people who are a remnant of Jacob shall be among the Gentiles, yea, in the midst of them as a lion among the beasts of the forest, as a young lion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he go through both treadeth down and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.

DC 87

And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.

matt lohrke said...

Underdog -

Appreciate the comments. I agree that there will be a massive civil war at some point. Look at the way the government and media play different ethnic groups off each other. The anti-European (Gentile) sentiment is growing exponentially every day. It's now "controversial" and "problematic" to simply say, "it's ok to be white." Europe is in the process of being overrun and occupied with assistance and encouragement of the EU. France, Germany and England will Muslim majorities in a generation or two, if we last that long.

I also agree that America must be destroyed. If we take the BOM as the model for the future, we only need to look at what happened to the Nephites prior to Christ coming to Bountiful: A war unlike anyone had ever seen (fratricidal civil war), disease/famine, natural disasters.

I'll be honest, though, I'm on the fence with Denver. I think he's done a lot of great things, restored a lot of great knowledge and information, and it doing great things by taking the BOM to the Protestant world. But at this point that's as far as it goes. Will that change? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know. I also think that the Lord will ask different things of different people. For some people, the covenant may be the right thing. For others, maybe not. I think He will ask some people to stay in the church and others to leave. Lehi was asked to leave, Mulek was lead out (undoubtedly there were others we don't know about yet), but Jeremiah was apparently required to stay and was taken into captivity in Babylon. I don't think his statement that America by be destroyed by war is anything new. He's right, but I don't believe its new. If I recall correctly, Joseph said something along the line that America would be cleansed through war and the ten tribes would come in to inhabit the Promised Land. (Anyone correct me if I'm wrong on that).

I think it's also very likely there will be multiple covenant groups. I'm glad you mentioned Alma. Every time I read it I'm in awe of what happened. Limhi entered into a covenant with God and was delivered. He was then desirous to join up with Alma and his people, another covenant group, but didn't know where they were. It wasn't until they all met up at Zarahemla that they became one. I can very easily see something like that happening again.

What I have a hard time with is how does one knowingly participate in a wicked and evil system that actively subverts God? Are we held accountable for be willing participants? Or having gained more light and knowledge, what responsibility do we shoulder? Do we make individuals covenants with God like Limhi and trust He'll ease our burdens while wait for deliverance?

Sorry, I get a little carried away on stuff like this.

You're a good dude, Underdog. I enjoy your comments and insights.

Eric Kuntz said...

There is no actual fence sitting:

10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

1 Nephi 14

Matthias said...


Since there are only two churches, the church of the Lamb of God and the church of the devil, which church is the church of Lamb of God today?

If it is not the LDS church, which church is it?

From where I sit it's either the LDS church or it is no church. It seems to me that the LDS church is still the Lord's church even though it has become corrupted.

What do you think?

R. Metz said...

MC, you are right, it is the LDS church. No doubt about it, because only this church believes in additional scriptures: BoM, D&C and PoGP; no other church does, and no other church will ever accept the Prophet Joseph Smith. It is out of the way, as you say, but there will be a setting in order at one time.
Did you see what D&C 18 vers 20 says, BTW? "Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil". That's a good one for this forum, don't you think?

Jared Livesey said...

D&C 10
67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.

68 Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.

Matthias said...

MrHFMetz, yes I believe you are correct that D&C 20:18 is very fitting for this forum.

Rather than spending every waking second looking to tear down the LDS church and the active membership because the church has been corrupted, why not attack the church of the devil?

Instead of attacking the LDS church for denouncing homosexuality, or for only understanding the scriptures at a primary level, why not attack what is truly evil in this world? Why not write blog posts about the evil of abortion, the rampant immortality in the world, the redefining of God made genders, the sin of graven images, the love of money, etc?
Why not attack the hypocracy of the Catholic and Protestant churches?

Why not attack the many false prophets who have come among the LDS people claiming to be the one mighty and strong?

No, sadly all anyone here wants to do is attack the LDS church for even the most minor offenses, promote Denver Snuffer (a false prophet), or both.

Is the LDS church corrupt? You bet, but there are bigger fish out there to fry. There's nothing wrong with pointing out and discussing the problems, but that shouldn't be our main focus.

With all of its problems, what the church teaches is still much better than what society teaches.

Listening to people here you would think the Brethren are more corrupt than the Clintons.

Underdog2 said...

The Clintons don't portray themselves as having the keys of salvation. So they have not one person duped into thinking they know the way of salvation.

On the other hand, the Brethren do portray and present themselves as true messengers and millions follow them (men in white robes) in forbidden paths in the dark and dreary wasteland (1 Nephi 8).

Millions of victims v. zero.

So yes, the Brethren are absolutely more corrupt.

Matthias said...

Are you seriously suggesting that the Brethren are more evil than the Clintons?

What the Clintons and others have done has millions and millions of victims. Just think about the kind of damage their advocacy of abortions has done. Millions and millions of innocent babies murdered each year, which means millions of murderers.

Now I think one could certainly make the case that the Brethren have not done enough to condemn abortion, but to say they are worse than the Clintons is a little ridiculous.

The leaders of this nation have led the people much farther astray than the Brethren have.

In my opinion the honest and faithful LDS who following the teachings of the church will end up in the terrestrial kingdom, which is not bad place to be.

The Clintons and others like them are leading people straight to the depths of hell.

Let's not get things confused. Let's not be so overzealous in exposing the problems in the church that we loose site of what is truly evil in this world.

Underdog2 said...


The Lord used the word "corrupt" here, saying to Joseph about church leaders: "all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Yes the Clintons are corrupt, and are murderers. Real bad guys and their influence causes others to engage in similar corruption. That's truly bad.

But the Brethren make their followers and converts children of hell.

The Lord says this of the Brethren:

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."

More quotes of Jesus from Matt 23:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.

28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

The Clintons don't look clean or whited on the outside. They look criminal.

I honestly see no comparison.

And forget not DC 76:98-102. Telestial beings are described there. Not looking good at all for Brethrenites.

Matthias said...

Is Christ referring to the current Brethren in those verses or the Pharisees of his day?

I do think there are a number of similarities between the ancient Pharisees and the Brethren today, but I don't believe it is an apples to apples comparison.

There were also righteous Pharisees in Christ's day such as Nichodemous.

I don't believe those verses in D&C 76:98-102 refer to the faithful saints in the church who are trying very hard to live the gospel to the best of their understanding, sincerely praying, reading their scriptures, serving and loving one another, etc. You conveniently left out vs 103 which reads:

"These are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosever loves and makes a lie."

That verse is in no way describing the faithful saints I know.

How many LDS do you know who claim to be of Enoch and not Christ? Or even President Monson and not Christ?

You have a lot of gaul when you presume that the faithful LDS will not be gathered with the saints or caught up to the church of the firtborn. You would do well to let Christ determine that.

Look I'm not saying it's okay what the Brethren are doing and that many members of the church aren't caught up in Babylon, but where do you suggest people go once they discover the church is on the wrong track?

Should they run after Denver Snuffer or some remnant fellowship?

Should they join an FLDS society?

Should they attend a protestant church?

What should they do?

There is no other church of Christ go to right now.

It's either stay with the church until the Lord sends the one mighty and strong to set his house in order or go it alone.

That's probably something each person will have to decide for themselves.

Craig Morris said...

Small errors and minor drifts away from the doctrine of the gospel of Jesus Christ can bring sorrowful consequences into our lives. It is therefore of critical importance that we ... make early and decisive corrections to get back on the right track and not wait or hope that errors will somehow correct themselves. The longer we delay corrective action, the larger the needed changes become, and the longer it takes to get back on the correct course—even to the point where a disaster might be looming.

-- Dieter Uchtdorf

dx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lilli said...


About the idea 'it's not good to marry', I can see why you don't think Christ really taught or meant that, for I didn't either til I studied it, for it's so contrary to what LDS are taught or what's taught in most churches and you're right that it's counter to many so called scriptures.

But we could also say that most of Christ's hard teachings are contrary to other scriptures and seem wrong today and are rarely taught in the LDS or any church. It seems all churches ignore or soften Christ's teachings with more pleasing doctrines of men. Only a few prophets in the scriptures seem to have really taught or followed Christ's teachings, like maybe Daniel, John the B. & others. It doesn't take mental gymnastics to determine if they were true or not, for Christ only taught a dozen or so basic concepts/commandments, so it's pretty simple to see who followed them or not.

Bottom line is, we have to reason out & test all scripture ourselves to know if it's true or right or not, we can't just rely on or trust some idea or doctrine some prophet or even Christ claimed was true. We test their ideas by what we know deep down in our hearts. For God gave us all a knowledge of right & wrong in our conscience (which is easily dimmed or lost by ignoring it). Christ just reminded us what we already know deep down or could figure out by living the Golden Rule and studying history or statistics, etc. For truth is just science,'this behavior always brings that effect'.

You say words may have been left out to clarify Christ's meaning, but I believe Christ taught clear truth, that in unrighteous societies, it is not wise to marry. Especially for women, for things like polygamy were rampant in his day, like today, not to mention the inequality & disrespect of women in general back then. Do you not agree with Christ's disciples that it's better to stay single than to get stuck in an unhappy marriage? And since most are unhappy, Christ was just trying to protect women, future children and men too, from unrighteous spouses & situations.

Marriage means children. Do you think God would want people to bring children into a society that is in horrible bondage, like in Christ's day? Wouldn't God rather have people change society and gain freedom before bringing children into it all? Or if you were a slave in the 1700's, would you think it wise and good to bring children into such? I wouldn't. I believe Christ was teaching self restraint for future children's sake, til society was safe, righteous & free.

Marriage is a wonderful divine institution, even the highest ideal, but what Christ meant is that marriage is only safe & wise or usually works if spouses and society are righteous. The world seems to be realizing that and for good reasons more and more are not marrying. It seems the Adversary wants people to marry and perpetuate an unrighteous troubled society. Perhaps society can only change if we refuse to marry and we restart things on higher principles. Like fasting helps cleanse the body, even though food is a good thing. A marriage fast can help cleanse society if done for the right reasons.

It seems the Catholic Ch. obviously knew of and tried to teach Christ's principle that 'staying single is a good thing' (nuns & monks). They may not have fully understood or practiced it perfectly but at least they tried to follow it. It's a lost teaching today.

And despite what pro-Abraham authors claimed Christ said about Abraham, I doubt you would think you could do what he did and still be considered good or righteous, especially by your wife. So it's obvious Christ was quoted incorrectly and that Abraham did not follow Christ. Why would we think Christ would always be quoted correctly?. Since very few liked what He taught. Truth, commandments & standards for righteousness never change. If God ok'd polygamy for even 1 person, then it would always be ok for everyone, etc.

Matthias said...


You can believe what want and are free to pick and choose which statements attributed to Christ in the New Testament are true.

You want to hold my feet to the fire with an unclear passage about eunuchs, but you reject clear statements by Christ in the four gospels.

I think you are on very shaky ground. But like I said, you have the right to believe whatever you want to.

You'll have to forgive me for accepting more than cherry picked statements by Christ as scripture, especially when Christ himself frequently quoted from the Old Testament.

You do realize that if everyone remained celebate until the world was perfect, none of us would be here.

I don't expect you'll be willing to reevaluate your position so we'll have to agree to disagree I guess.

Linda Gale said...

Dear DeeLyn,

The passages you cite of Paul's words in the New Testament are in relation to the coming destruction of Jerusalem, and only that coming destruction. Do you really think he is telling people forever after to never go back to their houses to retrieve their goods, or the laborer in the field to never go back to get his outer coat he laid down to facilitate his range of motion in carrying out his physical labor?

Woe be to those who can't on a moments notice flee the coming Roman army. That's all Paul is talking about. That epistle was written to the Christians in the time before the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. Being pregnant, or a nursing mother, holds people back who need to flee in order to preserve their lives. If you aren't married, then you have only one person to look out for and that is yourself, which is a simpler way to travel in haste.

When reading scripture, it is imperative to consider to whom the scripture is written and the context in which it is written. Lots of Bible scholars tell us to read the preceding 50 verses, and the following 50 verses in order to get the context correct. I think that is the only way to understand what is really being said in the chosen passages cited.

Do you think that we are never to eat apples because of the commandment given to Adam & Eve in the Garden of Eden?

I am not trying to chide you, but to explain that perhaps proof-texting is not a healthy way to order your life, or call upon others to live their lives.

Blessings on you DeeLyn.


Lilli said...


I am not aware of what passages you are referring to, for I don't think I talked about any of Paul's words in the NT. Perhaps you are thinking of someone else's post. I was only addressing what Christ and his disciples said while conversing with each other in Matt 19:10-12.

Lilli said...


That is just fine to agree to disagree. for I understand that discussion rarely changes either person's mind. For no matter what is presented, it seems we all tend to only believe and gravitate to the teachings and prophets that teach what we are personally willing to live.

But we all must cherry pick in the scriptures and decide which teachings we agree with, for the Bible contradicts itself over and over all the way through, and one can find passages by so called prophets to support almost anything in the Bible or even BoM and D&C, etc.

Even Christ contradicted himself over and over in the NT and everyone must cherry pick from his teachings to support their favored view. That's how we know Christ was not always quoted correctly, for he would have been too smart to contradict himself and would not have wanted to confuse us and make his teachings impossible to discifer.

We must even cherry pick with the teachings of LDS Church leaders, for you can again find support for almost anything from some leader or prophet of the Church since they also contradicted each other over and over thru the years on most subjects.

And why would it be bad if an unrighteous civilization came to an end because no one was willing to marry and bring children into this world? Wouldn't that be a good thing and God could just restart things again with a clean slate and hope for better? Like he pretty much did in Noah's day because of wickedness?

God and natural law seems to like to start societies over with a clean slate every now and then when unrighteous civilizations self destruct and end, even in the BoM as well as the Bible. That seems to be a good thing, though God would rather we get it right so that doesn't have to happen.

Eric Kuntz said...


It's my understanding that the creation of the Mormon Church (LDS) has been one of the greatest frauds ever known to be perpetrated upon mankind.

Many commenters on this blog (including it's author) understand that something is wrong with the LDS Church, but they don't look back any further than Brigham Young to find the source of the problem. Joseph Smith is revered as a figure and "has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it."

But here is the truth of the matter...Smith was NEVER instructed to organize a church. That's it. The LDS Church, was never authorized by God to be created.

You can search the “original” documents before all of the revisionist changes, and you won’t find a command from God anywhere to organize a church. Search the “original” versions of Sections 5, 10, 11, and 18 of the D&C, but it’s not there. What you will find is The Lord speaking about His future church, and even admonishing them to “wait a little longer,” but you will not find a commandment to organize one.

The church of the Lamb of God is still a future event. We need to patiently wait on the Lord.

Matthias said...


Thanks for the clarification. It sounds like you agree with David Whitmer who believed that Joseph's only prophetic calling was to bring forth the Book of Mormon.

I disagree with that conclusion, but I understand and even respect why people believe that.

Dave P. said...

The original BoC clearly states that Joseph Smith was told he would have the gift of translation to translate the Book of Mormon and that he would have no other gift, nor should he pretend to have any other gift.

Matthias said...

Yes the original BoC does say that. So was Joseph Smith a fallen prophet and a liar then?

Eric Kuntz said...

4:2 And now, behold this shall you say unto him:–I the Lord am God, and I have given these things unto my servant Joseph, and I have commanded him that he should stand as a witness of these things, nevertheless I have caused him that he should enter into a covenant with me, that he should not show them except I command him and he has no power over them except I grant it unto him; and he has a gift to translate the book, and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift. (BOC) chapter 4.

After JS finished translating the BOM (the one thing he was directed by God to do), looks like he did a lot of pretending.

I think JS was just a false prophet. To be a fallen prophet he would first have to have been a true prophet, which he never was. But yes he was a liar, and a very good one at that.

Matthias said...


Just by way of clarification, you do believe that Joseph Smith was called by God to bring forth the Book of Mormon right?

That would make him a seer, which according to the BOM is greater than a prophet.

While I understand your concerns with Joseph Smith, I disagree with your conclusions.

I see a lot of evidence that the Lord was working through him years later.

For example, how do you explain all of the appearances of angels during the dedication of the Kirtland temple?

Or how do you explain that Joseph Smith correctly predicted which state the civil war would begin in and that the confederacy would call on Great Britain for help?

Or the fact that he predicted that Jackson county would be completely destroyed, and then it was by order 11 in the civil war?

Or the fact that he healed a withered man's hand at the time the baptismal font was dedicated in Nauvoo?

Those are just a few things that can't possibly be chalked up to being a really good liar.

Eric Kuntz said...


Yes, you are correct I believe JS was only given one gift by God, given only one work to do, which was to bring forth the BOM.

Seer: In the BOC, God says he gave JS a gift to "translate the book". God never calls him a seer as far as I know. Yes we have D&C 21:1 in which he is called a seer but this 'revelation' was not received through the seer stone. JS used the seer stone to translate the BOM and to receive what is now know as D&C sections 1-20. Everything after section 20 is from what I'll just call a 'questionable' source and leave it at that.

I'll have to get back to you on some of your other questions.

For what it's worth, I had many of the same concerns as you. But for me I came to a point in which I had to decide to put my trust in God's word as contained in the BOM and the Holy Bible or continue to trust in men.

Eric Kuntz said...

Lets' look at D&C 110:

The first time this 'event' was ever published was November 6, 1852 in the Deseret News. The first time this 'event' was included in the D&C was in 1876. Joseph Smith never spoke about it in his life. There are no Kirkland period diaries, letters, newspaper articles, sermons, etc where this alleged vision is ever mentioned.

This story came from the 1836 journal of Joseph Smith. It's the final entry in that journal and was written by Warren Cowdery (older brother of Oliver). Nobody has a clue where this journal entry came from or where Warren received his information. It's a total mystery.

Matthias said...

Yeah I agree there's definitely a bit of a mystery surrounding D&C 110.

It's certainly interesting that there is no record of Joseph or Oliver ever mentioned the visitation to anyone, besides Warren Cowdery.

Warren Cowdery was in charge of keepin Joseph's journal so it is very likely that he got that account from him.

There's really only 3 options when it comes to D&C 110.

1. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery had this experience and were commanded not tell anyone, other than Warren Cowdery, who was to write it down and not tell anyone either.

2. Joseph, Oliver, or both made this story up and told Warren to write it down.

3. Warren is a liar.

Options two and three don't seem logical to me. None of these guys would have had any reason to invent a lie like that and then not tell anyone. If they made it up, they would have told people about it.

Any thoughts?

R. Metz said...

It is option one. There is an interesting lecture from Fair Mormon that deals with it, also mentioning D&C 110 and Warren Cowdery. So if you some spare minutes you could spend them there. Here is the link

Eric Kuntz said...

To believe option 1 is true would be a huge leap of faith with no evidence. You would have to blindly trust in the arm of flesh. This is something the scriptures clearly warn against.

Just from a practical analysis, it doesn't smell right. Why would God provide this incredible visitation to Joseph & Oliver of Jehovah, Moses, Elias, and Elijah giving them important keys and wonderful promises and then tell them, "oh and by the way, keep this just between us, but you can tell your older brother Warren, and tell him to write it in Joseph's journal to be discovered decades later."

Also you have to believe that Oliver actually kept his mouth shut about it...his whole life. Realistically, Oliver would not have been able to refrained himself from writing about it in grandiose and elaborate prose which would be famous in the church to this day. So for me, Cowdery’s silence on this matter is deafening. His failure to say even one word on the topic condemns the possibility that it actually happened.

Matthias said...

I agree option 1 is the answer. It's the only logical conclusion based on all of the evidence.

On a side note, Denver Snuffer's flip flopping on D&C 110 is very strong evidence that he is a false prophet. First, he questions it's accuracy and essentially accuses Warren of being a liar. Then after ruining the faith of his faithful in regards to D&C 110, he decides the experience did happen, but not they way Warren recorded it. So what does Denver do... he pulls a revelation out of thin air correcting D&C 110.

It's a wonder that the remnant's heads haven't fallen off yet, because they must be spinning fiercely.

Matthias said...


I agree that it takes faith to accept option 1. I don't know that accepting that the experience is true is putting one's trust in the arm of flesh.

I think if the Lord had expressly commanded Oliver not to talk about it, he would have been able to keep his mouth shut.

Since you don't believe the visitation really happened, what do you suggest happened?

What motivation could they possibly have had for recording a lie in a journal and then not telling anyone?

Eric Kuntz said...

option 4

Top Church brass needed a way to justify the practice of sealing families together forever by Melchizedek priesthood power as part of the Temple ceremonies and so this 'vision' was 'discovered'.

Eric Kuntz said...


Just to be clear, I don't think JS or OC can be blamed for D&C 110. I think it was created sometime after them by someone (maybe Warren, but who knows) and put into Smith's journal.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 209   Newer› Newest»