Is Denver Snuffer why people are questioning the church?

[mattctr]

Denver offers readers his viewpoint. That's it. Sometimes he might say something worthwhile; sometimes he might not. When you all meet Jesus, I doubt you'll want to waste that experience asking Him if He's appeared to Denver or not. Personally, I don't think you'll be too preoccupied with Denver then, and you probably shouldn't be too preoccupied with him now -- either following or bashing.

Plus, I don't think having a heavenly visit or vision, although enlightening, makes anyone an authority on anything more than what was given. It took Joseph Smith years to fully understand the heavens, and he was visited by Jesus. Before we decide whether Denver has or hasn't been visited by Christ based off of his opinions on Job, history, etc., we might do well to ask if we know what qualifies one for a visit from the Lord. In other words, being wrong about Job or this or that doesn't necessarily mean he's lying about meeting Christ. Maybe it does. I just wouldn't be too hasty to assume I know how Christ decides someone is ready for that experience.

History is like a bunch of people trying to describe a car wreck from 50 years ago. You might have a few police reports, pictures of the cars, etc., but most of the conclusions you draw about what really happened are your own and likely only faintly resemble the truth. Denver's interpretation of church history is interesting to me, and I like seeing things through the unique lens with which he observes things. But while his perspective and "phases" are one way to frame the history of Mormonism and the church, they are just one way of seeing the same events and historical evidences. I wouldn't frame those same events the same way he has chosen to do so, necessarily, but I don't think it hurts to see things from his perspective. I trust that all of us humans have some of our ideas plain wrong from time to time.

To those who are struggling with various aspects of church history, a voice like Denvers may be welcomed and even faith promoting. To those who have already wrestled with and settled issues regarding the church and its history, his is just another voice that offers an interesting perspective and claim. For happy members who aren't aware of these issues, Denver sounds apostate. Maybe he is; maybe he isn't.

Frankly, whether Denver tells the truth or lies about Job, Jesus, or the Lot (pun intended) shouldn't matter all that much to anyone else because nobody should be placing their faith in him anyhow. If you find motivation to seek the Lord from reading his stuff, fine. If you don't, fine. Denver won't get anyone into heaven, but worshiping him as well as speaking ill of him might keep a few people out.

To Denver, I'd say this: Interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing your perspective on things, and I hope the best for you.

[marc]

We should sustain and follow the prophets but only insofar as we recognize the Lord's voice in their teachings by the power of the Holy Ghost, and not solely because they are appointed to be prophets. They are still men, flawed and fallible.

"What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually."--Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses p. 150

“Do not, brethren, put your trust in man [or woman] though he be a Bishop, an Apostle or a President; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. … Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or woman.”--George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. Cannon, p. 249

This is a perfect example of the the thing that keeps me from reading his books. Those who laud Snuffer, put him and his works ahead of The Brethern. It's not just your post Coachmark so don't think I'm picking on you. That message has been put across by a few people on this thread. I don't think it is intentional but it's there. It's very subtle but its there. Something smells rotten in Denmark to me.

I appreciate your candor, durangout. For the record, I fully sustain our leaders. We had stake conference just a few days ago and raised my hand to the square and sustained all of them. My testimony is unshaken and will not be by Brigham Young or Denver Snuffer. I find truth where it is presented and discard the rest. I stand on a single foundation and that is Jesus Christ. Everyone's opinion on here does not bother me in the slightest. To each their own. I accuse no man and pray that in the next life, I find that no one has accused me either.

For the record, people have been questioning the church since the day it was organized in the meridian of time. People have been questioning the Lord, Himself, and His anointed since the days of Cain. It's in our very nature to dispute and contend with one another rather than find common ground upon which to build. As Nephi stated, if there be mistakes, they are the mistakes of men. Condemn not the things of God. I do not accuse the brethren and I do not accuse brother Snuffer.

[marc]

We should sustain and follow the prophets but only insofar as we recognize the Lord's voice in their teachings by the power of the Holy Ghost, and not solely because they are appointed to be prophets. They are still men, flawed and fallible.

Coachmarc, I normally agree with you, and like your temperament in how you have responded on other threads... I have to pose a hypothetical to you...

Suppose a person hears an apostle speak in conference/reads the talk, or whatnot...can't agree with it for some reason, and "presumably" prays about it, but thinks he never feels the Holy Ghost confirm the words... or conversely, he feels the words are NOT true, but false...however well-meaning the apostle was. What is he to do?

What if the issue was on gospel doctrine? That Thomas S. Monson (any name here) is the Lord's prophet/only one will ALL the keys & right to use them? What if it is his "feeling/confirmation" that Heavenly Father & Jesus Christ never appeared to Joseph Smith?....

Heir, I understand what you're saying. I've had investigators with this kind of concern when I was a young missionary. Christ, Himself, taught us to seek, ask, and knock. He told the Nephites to search Isaiah. We have been admonished and commanded by Christ to do many things. First and foremost, I believe that if any man questions Christ, criticizes the prophet or even looks for motes in the eye of his own bishop, etc, he must first clean his eyes of any beams. In other words, it is first imperative that we purify ourselves. The Spirit cannot dwell in unholy temples. I cannot expect a man who breaks the law of chastity or the word of wisdom to receive personal revelation until he first cleans his inward vessel. If a person claims to receive an answer while his heart is still upon vain and idol things and his hands, dirty from sin and transgression, I will find his declaration suspect. Now if a person, as you say, hears an apostle speak, etc, and he is living his life in accordance with the commandments, partaking of the sacrament worthily, being diligent in obeying the Lord's words, and then prays about it as you suggest, I am confident that this person will be receptive, having clean hands and heart, to receive the answers he desires. And I will believe him. In my humble opinion, your hypothetical question is slightly flawed. Moroni makes this emphatically clear in his final chapters. As Joseph Smith once said, "light cleaves to light."

[tmac]

We are persecuting Denver for something like that now too? His play on words with wwjd? 8-| (-| Oh my. I think its time for me to bow out of this thread now. Good luck to the honest seekers.

Hear, hear, TBS. Me too. All this thread proves is that there are still many on LDSFF who would argue, debate and discuss anything for pure sport. And I've done plenty of it too, but not any more. The needless spirit of contention is one of the biggest reasons I have started completely avoiding most parts of the forum. Aside from participating in Amonhi's threads the last couple days, I've been doing my best to avoid the contention. And this thread is another good reminder. So I too am done here. I second TBS' best wishes to the honest seekers. Adieu.

[Steve Clark]

My personal belief is that Denver Snuffer is not why people are questioning the church. I started questioning the church before I ever heard of Denver Snuffer, and I am grateful I came across DS's blog when I did. He helped me see why it's valuable to stay in the church despite its problems, and he helped me realize that I have some great personal responsibilities separate from whatever happens with the church.

This describes me, also. I have found more answers to questions I had for a long time but didn't dare ask.

Specifically what questions? Thanks.

Off the top of my head, here are is a list of questions about which I feel satisfied I have an answer, or I don't feel the same anxiety about and am content to not worry.

1)If we claim that the thing that sets us apart from the rest of the world is a living prophet/seer/revelator, why can't I think of a good example of prophecy/vision/revelation coming from the church leadership in my lifetime (born in 83).

2)The Book of Mormon speaks condemningly regarding those who are not entertaining angels (wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain.), and we claim to have the keys to the ministering of angels. Why have I grown up in the heart of the church and shared many intimate conversations with people expressing our most personal accounts of our testimony, yet never heard of a single first-hand account of someone to whom an angel ministered?

3)Where is the lost city of Atlantis?

4)Why doesn't the church speak out on the issues which I feel are so important? (unjust wars, secret combinations, etc.)

5)Why are there conflicts with our current practices and doctrines compared to the revelations Joseph received? (Word of Wisdom being a prime example)

6)What is Zion?

7)What is the fulness of the Gospel contained in the Book of Mormon - the book that doesn't mention anything about washings/anointings/endowments/sealing to spouse/degrees of glory?

[Steve Clark]

Suppose a person hears an apostle speak in conference/reads the talk, or whatnot...can't agree with it for some reason, and "presumably" prays about it, but thinks he never feels the Holy Ghost confirm the words... or conversely, he feels the words are NOT true, but false...however well-meaning the apostle was. What is he to do?

I can directly relate to this hypothetical. I have prayed about specific things I learned in church and received confirmation they are not true. What did I do? I concluded that since a small part was false, the whole thing must have been false and left the church never to return disregarding my many previous witnesses about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Er...wait, no I just accepted that there are incorrect things taught and disregarded them. No sense throwing the baby out with the bath water. I remained active in the church and decided to be more vigilant in seeking truth.

[Original_Intent]

I'll post an opinion about Denver as someone who has not read his books, but I have read a few of his blogs, and he seems very much on the same page as John Pontius and "Amonhi".

And that is that like anyone else he is not infallible, he has some valuable insights and also his own personal views, some right and some wrong. If you are willing to let the spirit teach you, I think all three of the above have a lot to offer. Heck, if the spirit is your guide, you might even gain something from some of the nonsense that the rest of us post.

I think that like just about anything, people who post about Denver, Pontius or "Amonhi" often reveal much more about themselves than they expose about those whom they write.

I know as I have read "Following the Light of Christ..."I have reached places where things stop making sense. It is not that the words or the writing is hard to understand, it is that the spirit withdraws. And it is not that the spirit withdraws because of the subject matter, but I get the strong prompting of "you aren't ready yet, focus on what you have already learned and come back to this later." Interestingly, I was talking to someone at work who easily read through "Following the Light..." but now is reading Pontius' other book (don't know title) and he is experiencing the same thing...I am not discouraged by this, I take it as a very promising and positive thing and a great blessing. Someone else might have the same experience and simply say "I felt the spirit withdraw while I was reading, therefore I do not think it is good." I'm not judging them or putting myself up - I'm just saying people can have the same experience and depending on where they are they may learn a different lesson. Usually both learn the lesson that THEY need at that time, if they indeed have taken the spirit as their guide.

In short, my answer to the question is "yes and no". I would say that Denver is a polarizing character. I believe we will see many such in upcoming times. People will either be drawn to or repelled and their will be different messages and different messengers, some serving one master and some another. The sifting is both and exciting and a frightening time. It's real and the consequences, as always, will have eternal consequences!

[Original_Intent]

Suppose a person hears an apostle speak in conference/reads the talk, or whatnot...can't agree with it for some reason, and "presumably" prays about it, but thinks he never feels the Holy Ghost confirm the words... or conversely, he feels the words are NOT true, but false...however well-meaning the apostle was. What is he to do?

I can directly relate to this hypothetical. I have prayed about specific things I learned in church and received confirmation they are not true. What did I do? I concluded that since a small part was false, the whole thing must have been false and left the church never to return disregarding my many previous witnesses about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Er...wait, no I just accepted that there are incorrect things taught and disregarded them. No sense throwing the baby out with the bath water. I remained active in the church and decided to be more vigilant in seeking truth.

Double plus good!

[Mark]

We are persecuting Denver for something like that now too? His play on words with wwjd? 8-| (-| Oh my. I think its time for me to bow out of this thread now. Good luck to the honest seekers.

Hear, hear, TBS. Me too. All this thread proves is that there are still many on LDSFF who would argue, debate and discuss anything for pure sport. And I've done plenty of it too, but not any more. The needless spirit of contention is one of the biggest reasons I have started completely avoiding most parts of the forum. Aside from participating in Amonhi's threads the last couple days, I've been doing my best to avoid the contention. And this thread is another good reminder. So I too am done here. I second TBS' best wishes to the honest seekers. Adieu.

Trying to help others avoid the landmines of deception are not sport tmac. I have been down this road before as I mentioned earlier.

My soul yearned for further light and knowledge and when individuals came along with wonderful materials discussing these sacred gospel truths concerning my personal relationship with the Lord and making my calling and election sure I was all ears.

However when subtle little jabs began to be thrown at the church and the Lords appointed leadership my enthusiasm turned to caution and eventual horror as I saw the real agenda of these individuals come into full view. They were wolves in sheeps clothing intent on leading away the flock into forbidden paths.

I lost family and friends to these charlatans who had been deceived themselves once they pridefully thought they were more advanced and better spiritually in tune with what the membership of the church needed than were the leadership of the church.

I have posted the warnings of Joseph and many other modern day Prophets concerning this type of prideful display of arrogance and ill speaking of the Lords anointed.

It is done very subtle at first then the persecution/martyr complex kicks into full gear and before you know it these people openly begin to condemn the church and its leadership as gone astray whose "tables are filled with vomit". (Isaiah 28:8)

I experienced the pain of losing family members and friends to this deceptive ruse. The adversary is very aware of how to give us 9 truths to get to the 1 lie. He wants us all to lose faith and confidence in the Lords Prophets because then he can separate us from the safety of the Lords true Priesthood organization and replace that with his false priesthood and his "angels of light" which will provide for us all manner of false revelation.

I saw Josephs warning become a reality when he said:“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives."

I have seen the early stages of some of that here on this forum. Many here feel free to condemn and find fault with the church and the Brethren in a wide variety of ways. I know that is a poison that will lead to unhappiness and only endeavor to help others see the bitterness that comes from that type of open criticism. I do not mean to offend. Only to warn of my experience with this type of dangerous action. Having done so I will bow out.

[ChelC]

I'm confused about how this is seen as persecution. I have tried to be nothing but honest on this thread. I had a concern about this following of Snuffer and the shift on the forum to more open criticism of the church. I thought they may be related. It appears they were.

I do not know Snuffer. I will not make a judgment of him personally, but I do think we need to be careful what we invite into our hearts. Satan is trying hard to deceive. The things I am hearing are odd, having not read his books and this being my first and only impression.

This is a man whose name I see 100 times more frequently in thread topics than our prophet's name. A man I see being passionately defended while few rise up to defend President Monson. Why is it okay to criticize and question church leadership, but it is offensive to discuss what is concerning about a man with no stewardship given over the church?

Can you see why I would be concerned here? The fruits I see on the forum are that more people are more freely criticizing the church and questioning its authority. Aren't we supposed to judge by the fruits? That is exactly what I'm trying to do here. This isn't sport to me. This is dreadfully worrisome to me.

[ithink]

I'm confused about how this is seen as persecution. I have tried to be nothing but honest on this thread. I had a concern about this following of Snuffer and the shift on the forum to more open criticism of the church. I thought they may be related. It appears they were.

I do not know Snuffer. I will not make a judgment of him personally, but I do think we need to be careful what we invite into our hearts. Satan is trying hard to deceive. The things I am hearing are odd, having not read his books and this being my first and only impression.

This is a man whose name I see 100 times more frequently in thread topics than our prophet's name. A man I see being passionately defended while few rise up to defend President Monson. Why is it okay to criticize and question church leadership, but it is offensive to discuss what is concerning about a man with no stewardship given over the church?

Can you see why I would be concerned here? The fruits I see on the forum are that more people are more freely criticizing the church and questioning its authority. Aren't we supposed to judge by the fruits? That is exactly what I'm trying to do here. This isn't sport to me. This is dreadfully worrisome to me.

I'm pretty amazed that after some days discussing on the several threads posted by Amonhri, many forum members are right back at it like dogs and cats as if nothing happened. Normally I'd jump in here and say something, but nothing can be gained by it. Christ taught that we are to "repent and become as little children". As I read this thread I have to say it is as far from that as it could be. How disappointing.

[ChelC]

I'm confused about how this is seen as persecution. I have tried to be nothing but honest on this thread. I had a concern about this following of Snuffer and the shift on the forum to more open criticism of the church. I thought they may be related. It appears they were.

I do not know Snuffer. I will not make a judgment of him personally, but I do think we need to be careful what we invite into our hearts. Satan is trying hard to deceive. The things I am hearing are odd, having not read his books and this being my first and only impression.

This is a man whose name I see 100 times more frequently in thread topics than our prophet's name. A man I see being passionately defended while few rise up to defend President Monson. Why is it okay to criticize and question church leadership, but it is offensive to discuss what is concerning about a man with no stewardship given over the church?

Can you see why I would be concerned here? The fruits I see on the forum are that more people are more freely criticizing the church and questioning its authority. Aren't we supposed to judge by the fruits? That is exactly what I'm trying to do here. This isn't sport to me. This is dreadfully worrisome to me.

I'm pretty amazed that after some days discussing on the several threads posted by Amonhri, many forum members are right back at it like dogs and cats as if nothing happened. Normally I'd jump in here and say something, but nothing can be gained by it. Christ taught that we are to "repent and become as little children". As I read this thread I have to say it is as far from that as it could be. How disappointing.

I have not read the other thread and I am confused how this could be your reply to what I said.

Sad and disappointing indeed. I guess I have the answers I need right now.

[gruden2.0]

Read his books, ChelC. There's really no cutting corners here. People posting "Cliff Notes" have done more to contribute to misunderstanding what he has written than anything else.

Try reading Come Let Us Adore Him. If you're really trying to move forward, you'll find a lot there for you.

[gruden2.0]

Oh, and if you guys think someone like Snuffer has done a lot to divide this board, just wait. This is only the beginning. With others it will go much, much further than this in time.

[marc]

This is a man whose name I see 100 times more frequently in thread topics than our prophet's name. A man I see being passionately defended while few rise up to defend President Monson.

Personally speaking, I defended President Monson in Thinker's "What would Jesus Do?" thread. President Monson is not under much attack from what I've read on here whereas another member of our church is. We all are on various stages of our journey and are set in our paradigms. Having those paradigms challenged is indeed earth shattering. When we are converted to the gospel, especially those who are new converts, their paradigms are severely challenged when they find there is a restored gospel and have to rely on their "feelings" and a "burning in the bosom." It is new to them. If we don't continually challenge our paradigm while walking the straight and narrow path, we won't progress either. Being baptized was new to me. Then being endowed. Then being sealed to my wife. The whole temple experience was a paradigm shift. But it's all preparatory for the real thing! Of course this is softened with enough preparation, but every time we grow, there are pains involved. And we don't like experiencing pain. Is Denver the reason why people are questioning the church? Too bad a poll wasn't created. Personally speaking, he has not caused me to question the church. He has shed more light on the gospel. Light cleaves to light. And yes, I know he is fallible like anyone else.

[AshleyB]

Ok, I couldn't resist.... I don't defend Denver because I think it's so important that people think he is a great guy. I could care less about that. I defend Him because I think it's such a shame many would reject such a beautiful and important message that he offers in his other 6 books testifying of Christ and the Prophets over a few things they disagree with him on his views about history or where the church is headed or on some other non related things.

You probably aren't seeing people running to President Monsons Defense so much because there has not even been ONE thread devoted to bashing him and his character like there has been of Denver. NOT ONE THREAD have I EVER seen with Monsons name tearing him down and tearing him apart. However, there are MANY doing just that to Denver and mostly its been by people who haven't even bothered to read his books to begin with. I have seen a few concerned people "question" leadership choices in VERY general manner and even condemn a few of those choices but I have NEVER seen anyone attack the brethren's character or call them liars. If I did, I would certainly have something to say about that. There is actually only a small handful of people on this forum who I have ever noticed that make a bit of a habit questioning the brethren's choices. (Not that I even care about the questions. They are just questions for the most part. Not defamation of Character of individual brethren. ) But NONE of those handful of people have I EVER seen over in the Approaching the Heavenly Gift section of the forum participating.

[shadow]

Read his books, ChelC. There's really no cutting corners here. People posting "Cliff Notes" have done more to contribute to misunderstanding what he has written than anything else.

Try reading Come Let Us Adore Him. If you're really trying to move forward, you'll find a lot there for you.

Yeah ChelC, for a bit of the green stuff $$$ you too can find further light and knowledge from a man whose fruits, as far as I have read from his "desk" ) , aren't anything I'd call good.

[Steve Clark]

Read his books, ChelC. There's really no cutting corners here. People posting "Cliff Notes" have done more to contribute to misunderstanding what he has written than anything else.

Try reading Come Let Us Adore Him. If you're really trying to move forward, you'll find a lot there for you.

Yeah ChelC, for a bit of the green stuff $$$ you too can find further light and knowledge from a man whose fruits, as far as I have read from his "desk" ) , aren't anything I'd call good.

Shadow, I will personally buy you his complete work and ship it to your doorstep if you want to read it. Seriously.

Edit - I extend that offer to you, too ChelC. Just PM me.

[Steve Clark]

Yeah ChelC, for a bit of the green stuff $$$ you too can find further light and knowledge...

Also- Pot, meet Kettle.

[marc]

Incidentally, Denver has stated that money earned for his books is donated to the church. Otherwise I would not have bought from him.

Books for sale

[gkearney]

This whole business has the same feel to it as the dust up with George Pace a popular BYU religion professor in the late 1970's. He wrote a number of book calling on members to develop a personal relationship with Christ.

He is known for being publicly criticized by Apostle Bruce R. McConkie in 1982 at a BYU devotional at the hight of Brother Pace's popularity.

It seems that this fellow is treading the same path.

[marc]

Read his books, ChelC. There's really no cutting corners here. People posting "Cliff Notes" have done more to contribute to misunderstanding what he has written than anything else.

Try reading Come Let Us Adore Him. If you're really trying to move forward, you'll find a lot there for you.

Yeah ChelC, for a bit of the green stuff $$$ you too can find further light and knowledge from a man whose fruits, as far as I have read from his "desk" ) , aren't anything I'd call good.

Shadow, I will personally buy you his complete work and ship it to your doorstep if you want to read it. Seriously.

Edit - I extend that offer to you, too ChelC. Just PM me.

Uhhh, Hmm, on second thought, Denver Snuffer is of the devil!! :ymdevil:

one4freedom, can I get in on that offer!?

[reese]

Does anyone know how much money President Monson or any of the twelve make on their many book sales? Or if they donate all proceeds to a charitable cause? Just wondering.....

[reese]

For those of you for whom reading Snuffer was a turning point, what was it that the words of our prophet lacked to encourage the same? What was different about his message?

Here is an example ChelC. It is not about saving doctrine, but the principal is the same. I have never heard any of our leaders be so forward in addressing these concerns, but maybe I have just missed it. I wonder what would happen if someone gave this talk in conference....would be interesting.

I am a Mormon, Part 1
The rant by the MSNBC reporter denigrating Mormonism, provoked by the political season we are in, has inspired the following response:

By faith I self-identify as "Mormon" because that was what we called ourselves when I joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I believe the faith, accept the Book of Mormon as scripture, and have received the ordinances offered by the church, including the temple rites. I appreciate and respect these rites and trust in them as a covenant between myself and God.

It is as silly a proposition for someone from my faith to "interpret" my beliefs and say I'm "not a good Mormon" or that I'm "not a faithful Mormon" as it is for the larger "Christian" community to say that Latter-day Saints aren't "Christian." (I'll get to that in Part 3) In this, however, I want to look at the criticism of Mormonism by the self-identifying "Christians."

I'll concede that Mormons don't accept Historic Christianity. I don't accept it. I think it is riddled with errors, believes in a falsely constructed set of mental gyrations which produce an incoherent definition of the Godhead that even self-proclaimed "Christians" admit they can't understand. I am not sure they could even say they actually believe it. At least those who have it explained to them don't believe it. What does "uncreate" and "of the same substance" and "not dividing the parts" of the three members of the Godhead give us, anyway? It produces a God who is "wholly other" and therefore as alien to me as the stuff living in tubes beside the volcanic openings on the bottom of the Pacific. That God (or those Gods) or whatever sense you want to make of it, is something I reject. Not only do I reject it, it repulses me. It makes me think the Historic Christian God is a complete fabrication, unscriptural in origin, incomprehensible in form, the product of such contradictory assertions that only a fool could trust in the existence of such a thing. I reject it. Period. It is damned foolish for anyone to trust in it and think it will save them. It won't. It is a complete fabrication and utter nonsense. Now, having said that, I have no interest in questioning their "Christianity." If they want to believe that, they are free to do so and call themselves Christians.

On the other hand, I do believe in Jesus Christ. Not in the sense that He's everywhere and nowhere, but that He at one time occupied an actual manger on the evening of His birth. He was baptized in water by John the Baptist in the Jordan River. His Father witnessed it; not from "inside Jesus" because they were comingled; instead the Father (a separate Being occupying a separate location) looked down, saw His Son baptized, and then sent a sign to testify of the Son while speaking in a voice heard by John the Baptist. I believe in Jesus who was crucified, died, was laid to rest in a borrowed tomb, and then rose from the dead. I believe in the man whose body was torn and had the prints of nails in His hands and feet, and who then returned to life. I believe in that Jesus. He showed those hands to 11 surviving Apostles and then to a crowd gathered in the Americas. All of them touched His physical, wounded hands. I believe in Him. Because of my belief in Him, I have done whatever I have come to understand He wanted from me. As a result, I have obtained faith in Him. Moreover, because of the things I have offered in obedience to Him, and by making an acceptable sacrifice, and enduring what others apparently are not willing in this day to endure, I know Him. I know His hands have wounds, His arms are open to welcome those who will come to Him, and He embraces those whom He saves. He is not a God of the dead or the distant, but the God of the Living. Real. Tangible. Resurrected and living now.

So when Historic Christianity presumes to judge my faith and relegate me to non-Christian, I'm absolutely willing to say I do not believe as you do. I reject, outright, what you say about Christ. It is nonsense to me, and I refuse to be included among those who claim to follow Historic Christianity. It is powerless to save. It is the doctrines of men, mingled with scripture. Your creeds are an abomination to God. He has said so. I believe Him. Consequently I MUST reject your creeds. But despite this, I still have faith in Christ. Not as you do, but as I do.

If your inauthentic, incomprehensible, creedal God wants to damn me because I do not accept the creeds of Historic Christianity, then I'm pleased to go into a lake of fire and brimstone and enjoy the heat. I think it is stupid to think that kind of flimsy and man-concocted God exists. And even more foolish to think your pious condescension is going to bind God to accept your opinions about my faith. I am Christian. Just not dazzled by your creedal nonsense.

I've studied the pre-Nicean debates, am acquainted with the political and social arguments leading up to standardizing the disputes of then-extant Christianity, and know why they returned again to adopt the follow-on creeds of the Apostles and Athenasian Creed. Here, for you good Historic Christian readers, is what your creeds say I must believe to be saved:


We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Etneral and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.


So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.


So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity is Trinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

To me this is not merely confusion, it is complete crap. Undiluted and unfiltered. I agree there is not "three incomprehensibles" here, but dozens. And there are not "one uncreated" thing going on here, but instead many foolish mental creations launched in a torrent of contradictory and nonsensical gibberish. It is worthy of Lewis Carroll. They multiply as soon as you begin to read them. It is nothing I can, do or ever would accept; and certainly not something to be worshipped. The better approach might be to adopt Through the Looking Glass in its place. At least that nonsense is interrupted occasionally by brilliant prose. This "Christian" creedal stuff is neither prosaic nor sensible. And, all the worse, to be saved you "must thus think of the Trinity!" Well, there you go. You've set the bar too high for me. I cannot pass over. I cannot get to "Go." I surrender in my inability to manage this capacity to "thus think of the Trinity" because my mind requires something "comprehensible" rather than "incomprehensible." Or "Incomprehensible."

Christ said it was "eternal life to know" God. (John 17: 3.) Your God is by your own definition "Incomprehensible," and therefore cannot be known. So you see, you're damned too if you take this stuff seriously. Because you can't "think thus of the Trinity" and comprehend, much less "know" the only true God. So you are as damned as I in your profession of the "Incomprehensible" God of your creed.

However, I allow you the privilege of believing this stuff. I trust your sincerity when you say you do believe it. I do not question whether you are in your right mind for claiming to believe and to "think thus of the Trinity." After all, you have a whole lot of history on your side. I respect that. But I'd ask that you not presume to speak for God when you try to speak about Him. Unless He has said it, then I'm not particularly interested in what men have to say about Him. Furthermore, I do not believe Historic Christian Councils are entitled to any respect in their compromises and voting to establish the "truth" about God.

Either you've met with Him, have a message from Him, and can tell me what He said to you, or you have a political rally and you've produced merely more noise, like any political convention does.

This creedal system has resulted in a history of excesses designed to protect it from criticism and to coerce skeptics. I will touch upon that in the next post.

[Mark]

For those of you for whom reading Snuffer was a turning point, what was it that the words of our prophet lacked to encourage the same? What was different about his message?

Here is an example ChelC. It is not about saving doctrine, but the principal is the same. I have never heard any of our leaders be so forward in addressing these concerns, but maybe I have just missed it. I wonder what would happen if someone gave this talk in conference....would be interesting.

I am a Mormon, Part 1
The rant by the MSNBC reporter denigrating Mormonism, provoked by the political season we are in, has inspired the following response:

By faith I self-identify as "Mormon" because that was what we called ourselves when I joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I believe the faith, accept the Book of Mormon as scripture, and have received the ordinances offered by the church, including the temple rites. I appreciate and respect these rites and trust in them as a covenant between myself and God.

It is as silly a proposition for someone from my faith to "interpret" my beliefs and say I'm "not a good Mormon" or that I'm "not a faithful Mormon" as it is for the larger "Christian" community to say that Latter-day Saints aren't "Christian." (I'll get to that in Part 3) In this, however, I want to look at the criticism of Mormonism by the self-identifying "Christians."

I'll concede that Mormons don't accept Historic Christianity. I don't accept it. I think it is riddled with errors, believes in a falsely constructed set of mental gyrations which produce an incoherent definition of the Godhead that even self-proclaimed "Christians" admit they can't understand. I am not sure they could even say they actually believe it. At least those who have it explained to them don't believe it. What does "uncreate" and "of the same substance" and "not dividing the parts" of the three members of the Godhead give us, anyway? It produces a God who is "wholly other" and therefore as alien to me as the stuff living in tubes beside the volcanic openings on the bottom of the Pacific. That God (or those Gods) or whatever sense you want to make of it, is something I reject. Not only do I reject it, it repulses me. It makes me think the Historic Christian God is a complete fabrication, unscriptural in origin, incomprehensible in form, the product of such contradictory assertions that only a fool could trust in the existence of such a thing. I reject it. Period. It is damned foolish for anyone to trust in it and think it will save them. It won't. It is a complete fabrication and utter nonsense. Now, having said that, I have no interest in questioning their "Christianity." If they want to believe that, they are free to do so and call themselves Christians.

On the other hand, I do believe in Jesus Christ. Not in the sense that He's everywhere and nowhere, but that He at one time occupied an actual manger on the evening of His birth. He was baptized in water by John the Baptist in the Jordan River. His Father witnessed it; not from "inside Jesus" because they were comingled; instead the Father (a separate Being occupying a separate location) looked down, saw His Son baptized, and then sent a sign to testify of the Son while speaking in a voice heard by John the Baptist. I believe in Jesus who was crucified, died, was laid to rest in a borrowed tomb, and then rose from the dead. I believe in the man whose body was torn and had the prints of nails in His hands and feet, and who then returned to life. I believe in that Jesus. He showed those hands to 11 surviving Apostles and then to a crowd gathered in the Americas. All of them touched His physical, wounded hands. I believe in Him. Because of my belief in Him, I have done whatever I have come to understand He wanted from me. As a result, I have obtained faith in Him. Moreover, because of the things I have offered in obedience to Him, and by making an acceptable sacrifice, and enduring what others apparently are not willing in this day to endure, I know Him. I know His hands have wounds, His arms are open to welcome those who will come to Him, and He embraces those whom He saves. He is not a God of the dead or the distant, but the God of the Living. Real. Tangible. Resurrected and living now.

So when Historic Christianity presumes to judge my faith and relegate me to non-Christian, I'm absolutely willing to say I do not believe as you do. I reject, outright, what you say about Christ. It is nonsense to me, and I refuse to be included among those who claim to follow Historic Christianity. It is powerless to save. It is the doctrines of men, mingled with scripture. Your creeds are an abomination to God. He has said so. I believe Him. Consequently I MUST reject your creeds. But despite this, I still have faith in Christ. Not as you do, but as I do.

If your inauthentic, incomprehensible, creedal God wants to damn me because I do not accept the creeds of Historic Christianity, then I'm pleased to go into a lake of fire and brimstone and enjoy the heat. I think it is stupid to think that kind of flimsy and man-concocted God exists. And even more foolish to think your pious condescension is going to bind God to accept your opinions about my faith. I am Christian. Just not dazzled by your creedal nonsense.

I've studied the pre-Nicean debates, am acquainted with the political and social arguments leading up to standardizing the disputes of then-extant Christianity, and know why they returned again to adopt the follow-on creeds of the Apostles and Athenasian Creed. Here, for you good Historic Christian readers, is what your creeds say I must believe to be saved:


We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Etneral and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.


So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.


So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity is Trinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

To me this is not merely confusion, it is complete crap. Undiluted and unfiltered. I agree there is not "three incomprehensibles" here, but dozens. And there are not "one uncreated" thing going on here, but instead many foolish mental creations launched in a torrent of contradictory and nonsensical gibberish. It is worthy of Lewis Carroll. They multiply as soon as you begin to read them. It is nothing I can, do or ever would accept; and certainly not something to be worshipped. The better approach might be to adopt Through the Looking Glass in its place. At least that nonsense is interrupted occasionally by brilliant prose. This "Christian" creedal stuff is neither prosaic nor sensible. And, all the worse, to be saved you "must thus think of the Trinity!" Well, there you go. You've set the bar too high for me. I cannot pass over. I cannot get to "Go." I surrender in my inability to manage this capacity to "thus think of the Trinity" because my mind requires something "comprehensible" rather than "incomprehensible." Or "Incomprehensible."

Christ said it was "eternal life to know" God. (John 17: 3.) Your God is by your own definition "Incomprehensible," and therefore cannot be known. So you see, you're damned too if you take this stuff seriously. Because you can't "think thus of the Trinity" and comprehend, much less "know" the only true God. So you are as damned as I in your profession of the "Incomprehensible" God of your creed.

However, I allow you the privilege of believing this stuff. I trust your sincerity when you say you do believe it. I do not question whether you are in your right mind for claiming to believe and to "think thus of the Trinity." After all, you have a whole lot of history on your side. I respect that. But I'd ask that you not presume to speak for God when you try to speak about Him. Unless He has said it, then I'm not particularly interested in what men have to say about Him. Furthermore, I do not believe Historic Christian Councils are entitled to any respect in their compromises and voting to establish the "truth" about God.

Either you've met with Him, have a message from Him, and can tell me what He said to you, or you have a political rally and you've produced merely more noise, like any political convention does.

This creedal system has resulted in a history of excesses designed to protect it from criticism and to coerce skeptics. I will touch upon that in the next post.

Wonder no longer Reese.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzE6QFj6maQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;