Denver Snuffer just gave himself away

[itsmerich]

Now, I've never read any of his books (would like to) but just saw this on his blog. For all the Snuferrites read carefully what he wrote (http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; under the Idaho falls section):

I believe that the many revelations in the D&C identifying Joseph as the spokesman for God means exactly that: Joseph was and IS the spokesman God sent. Joseph's words need to be heeded as if they came from God directly to us. No one has the right to change or ignore them. No one (and I mean NO ONE) has the right to claim they are Joseph's equal. There are no "keys" or "key holders" who can alter Joseph's teachings except at their peril. When they ignore or contradict Joseph's revelations, and teach others that they can ignore the message and warnings given by that prophet who was called by God to begin this dispensation, they damn themselves and any who listen to them.

Now read carefully again the third, fourth, and fifth sentences. Then read them again. And one more time in case it doesn't come to you.

Has it been revealed to you yet? Do you fully understand the succession laws - the way things work and have always worked.

Alright - still having trouble?

Gospel doctrine changes to suit "situations, circumstances, evolving gospel principles, new revelation, etc". Peter was given a revelation that had a dual purpose (preaching the gospel to the gentiles and that all meat was ok to eat) - that was a seismic shift in doctrine in which he presented to the brethren - ultimately he said that's how we're going to do it. This went "techincally" against all the prophets before him. But that's ok - he was the living prophet - who had the keys - who could CHANGE doctrine. And of course this has happened several other times throughout the time line of God's church.

For Denver to so adamantly cling onto the belief that Joseph's doctrines can't be altered goes against both ancient and modern Church history. After reading this, it's evident that though he has a deep loyalty and love for JS - it has become a source of "pride' in the sense that failing to acknowledge living prophets and key holders is giving himself away in terms of his intent. I listed to Woodrow Wilsons testimony today in about 1894 where he testified JS handed over all keys to the apostles. Let's say that JS didn't do that - well then we have a dead church and what's the point of JS and God even restoring the Church. But the keys were passed down. Are all our apostles great men (maybe/maybe not) remember Peter denied Christ, he incurred the wrath of Paul and I'm sure many other things. Did Jonah try to flee God? Did Moses show a lack of faith with the rock and water? Didn't Lehi start murmuring? I'm 100% confident our apostles make mistakes that to us are magnified as we want so badly for them to be perfect - but they aren't and won't be. They may and will make bad financial decisions (JS did), they may say things in error and so on.

With DS, I hope his fans/followers really take a moment to look at what he wrote above and then compare that with everything we know of regarding the importance of living prophets over dead ones (yes they CAN change doctrine). I'm not going to comment on how he may/has helped people reach higher spirituality but analyze what he just said and you can tell that it is at odds with what has been established.

[hyloglyph]

...

[Thomas]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Here is a prophet that disagrees with you.

You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.
If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it.”
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1956], 3: 203.)

“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine

.

The idea that God reveals something to man and then later reverses that is nonsense. God is unchanging. He is the same today as yesterday.

I can accept that some policies can change but to reverse doctrine is good way to tell your listening to the wrong person. How far will the doctrine have to change before it is rejected.? What if the living prophet says, we are going to worship the Easter Bunny instead of Christ?

[itsmerich]

Aren't you forgetting about the law of polygamy (which was brought back then taken away) or blood sacrifice (which will return) among many others. What about endowment changes? Peter receiving word from God that it's now ok to eat meat was a doctrinal change as well (quite a few examples throughout the scriptures and modern time) - blacks getting priest hood etc.

[Thomas]

Aren't you forgetting about the law of polygamy (which was brought back then taken away) or blood sacrifice (which will return) among many others. What about endowment changes? Peter receiving word from God that it's now ok to eat meat was a doctrinal change as well (quite a few examples throughout the scriptures and modern time) - blacks getting priest hood etc.

Can you show me the revelation that denied blacks the priesthood? The end of polygamy was not a doctrinal change but a policy change, one that splintered the church. Polygamy is either doctrinal or it is not, whether we practice it or not.

Endowment changes, that is whole other can of worms. One worthy of a new thread.

A doctrinal change is Adam is God. So someone was a false prophet. Either Brigham Young or those who changed it later. You decide but both can't be right. Adam can't be God for a season than not be God.

[chemish]

Aren't you forgetting about the law of polygamy (which was brought back then taken away) or blood sacrifice (which will return) among many others. What about endowment changes? Peter receiving word from God that it's now ok to eat meat was a doctrinal change as well (quite a few examples throughout the scriptures and modern time) - blacks getting priest hood etc.

Can you show me the revelation that denied blacks the priesthood? The end of polygamy was not a doctrinal change but a policy change, one that splintered the church. Polygamy is either doctrinal or it is not, whether we practice it or not.

Endowment changes, that is whole other can of worms. One worthy of a new thread.

A doctrinal change is Adam is God. So someone was a false prophet. Either Brigham Young or those who changed it later. You decide but both can't be right. Adam can't be God for a season than not be God.

in this talk he talks about the catholic church changing the manner in which people were baptized and how children were baptized. baptism is an ordinance just like the endowment. the Catholics claim authority to change it too.

"Now I would like to discuss a few of the differences in our concepts. They have changed many of the ordinances. For instance, they no longer baptize as Jesus was baptized when he went to John to be baptized of him. They went down into the waters of the Jordan, and John baptized him, and they came up out of the water. The apostle Paul said there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Eph. 4:5.) And if that is true, you’d think that everybody would want to follow the example of the Savior himself when he was baptized by immersion in the River Jordan.

Today little children are sprinkled as infants by their ministers. That isn’t an act of the child himself, it is an act of his parents. John, who was banished upon the Isle of Patmos, saw the great day when the dead, both small and great, would stand before God and would be judged according to the things that were written in the books, according to their works. (See Rev. 20:12.) Children couldn’t be given credit for having been baptized of their own volition—it was the act of their parents, to take them to be sprinkled.

When the people brought their children to Jesus and the apostles tried to prevent them from approaching Him, He rebuked them and said, “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:14.) And then he took those little children into his arms and blessed them; and that is the pattern for his church when we understand the things of God instead of the things of man. Man’s idea is to have them sprinkled with a little water, which isn’t a baptism." Elder Legrand Richards October 1977

also here is a verse from Isaiah 24 which is a vision of the last days.

5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

i do not believe the established doctrine through Joseph Smith should be altered in any way.

[AussieOi]

D&C has been changed plenty of times.
Often by Joseph Smith too.
I scratch my head.
I can't keep up anymore.
Its all messed up.
I don't know why DS bothers. What, he thinks his appeal will be heard and he will be reinstated.
What then?
Train wreck slow moving one too.

[brlenox]

I can accept that some policies can change but to reverse doctrine is good way to tell your listening to the wrong person. How far will the doctrine have to change before it is rejected.? What if the living prophet says, we are going to worship the Easter Bunny instead of Christ?

Is divorce a a reversal of the law of marriage?

Mark 10:2
2 ¶And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Was a King a reversal of God shall be their king?

1 Samuel 8:6-7
6 ¶But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.
7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

Living Prophets change things according to the will of the Lord.

[ATL Wake]

Aren't you forgetting about the law of polygamy (which was brought back then taken away) or blood sacrifice (which will return) among many others. What about endowment changes? Peter receiving word from God that it's now ok to eat meat was a doctrinal change as well (quite a few examples throughout the scriptures and modern time) - blacks getting priest hood etc.

Those are all really good questions that you should independent investigate.

It would be utterly impossible in a thread to explain the historical context and the doctrine involved in each of those issues. But they're GREAT questions, and you should go investigate.

[ATL Wake]

[quote="itsmerich"]

He didn't JUST give himself away, he's suggested this for many years.

[Daryl]

We have institutional leaders whom we call prophets. For the record, I accept their title of PSRs. I eagerly await the fruits of the PSRs.

[BMC]

Aren't you forgetting about the law of polygamy (which was brought back then taken away) or blood sacrifice (which will return) among many others. What about endowment changes? Peter receiving word from God that it's now ok to eat meat was a doctrinal change as well (quite a few examples throughout the scriptures and modern time) - blacks getting priest hood etc.

Blacks should never have been denied the priesthood, JS ordained blacks to the priesthood. The church early this years announced they did not know why this was done and seems to have been done absent of revelation.

Polygamy, an eternal principle who said God commanded it any other way? Sure we have a declaration to end it but is that because of faithful obedience to the law or was that because of the continued compromises man made to Government after the Lord told them previously not to.

Did not the Lord tell JS, no, to giving the transcripts away the lost 116 pages, do you think later because he finally gave permission to JS that it was now ok? No, the Lord condemned JS for it and took away his gifts. Could it be also with polygamy that God said no, don't make compromises, stop making compromises with the priesthood with those who seek your destruction but because of the people and they wanting to make these compromises he finally said ok, then cursed them for it.

The great deceit of Satan that he uses in continuing revelation is this, that new revelation can contradict prior revelation. If it does not hold up to what has already been revealed and in the scriptures then what?

My question for you. Hypothetically of course should it be revealed that men may marry a men for all time and eternity would you say this is new revelation and accept it or would you reject it as false teachings because it doesn't hold water with what God has already revealed?

[Thomas]

I can accept that some policies can change but to reverse doctrine is good way to tell your listening to the wrong person. How far will the doctrine have to change before it is rejected.? What if the living prophet says, we are going to worship the Easter Bunny instead of Christ?

Is divorce a a reversal of the law of marriage?

Mark 10:2
2 ¶And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Was a King a reversal of God shall be their king?

1 Samuel 8:6-7
6 ¶But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.
7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

Living Prophets change things according to the will of the Lord.

Was Adam God, during Brigham Young's life, but ceased to be God after his death?

[jbalm]

God frequently changes his mind, due to societal pressure, government edict, grassroots agitation, and the whims of a few old white guys in SLC (currently). God changes up the rules about as often as the TSA. If it wasn't for the PSRs, how would any of us know what sort of mood God is in from day to day?

Maybe everyone needs to reevaluate what God actually IS.

[ajax]

God frequently changes his mind, due to societal pressure, government edict, grassroots agitation, and the whims of a few old white guys in SLC (currently). God changes up the rules about as often as the TSA. If it wasn't for the PSRs, how would any of us know what sort of mood God is in from day to day?

Maybe everyone needs to reevaluate what God actually IS.

This makes me feel better. I'm often the same way depending on how I wake up in the morning.

[keep the faith]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Here is a prophet that disagrees with you.

You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.
If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it.”
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1956], 3: 203.)

“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine

.

The idea that God reveals something to man and then later reverses that is nonsense. God is unchanging. He is the same today as yesterday.

I can accept that some policies can change but to reverse doctrine is good way to tell your listening to the wrong person. How far will the doctrine have to change before it is rejected.? What if the living prophet says, we are going to worship the Easter Bunny instead of Christ?

How do you explain these verses in section 56 Thomas?

3 Behold, I, the Lord, command; and he that will not obey shall be cut off in mine own due time, after I have commanded and the commandment is broken.

4 Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord.

[brlenox]

I can accept that some policies can change but to reverse doctrine is good way to tell your listening to the wrong person. How far will the doctrine have to change before it is rejected.? What if the living prophet says, we are going to worship the Easter Bunny instead of Christ?

Is divorce a a reversal of the law of marriage?

Mark 10:2
2 ¶And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Was a King a reversal of God shall be their king?

1 Samuel 8:6-7
6 ¶But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.
7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

Living Prophets change things according to the will of the Lord.

Was Adam God, during Brigham Young's life, but ceased to be God after his death?

I'm probably the wrong person to ask this question of. I am very comfortable with the Adam God material of Brigham, and several of his contemporaries, having spent literally years analyzing the material. I still have 2 quotes that I have yet to completely feel reconciled to but it will come.
As well I am in complete agreement with those of the brethren who have made statements against the false perceptions of what the Adam / God doctrine is as interpreted by those not willing to seek the spirit that enlightened Brigham’s insight. It is impossible to make a correct interpretation of the material without the spirit of revelation and the detractors and "quick to judge servants of the Lord" members have no such spirit.

[AGStacker]

Woodrow Wilson

eh?! ;)

I didn't know he was a member!

This is how I see it. If Monson and Joseph stood before me and I had to receive one or the other I'd choose Joseph and the Gospel Joseph taught is different from the one Monson teaches. Whether you like Monson or not. Whether you think he is a saint or not. God told us in the Doctrine and Covenants that Joseph was the law giver and no one else would take his place unless he gave that to someone else. God told us that this would help us from not being deceived.

Unfortunately, we have been deceived whether intentionally by men or because of their blindness.

[leth]

I agree, NWO, except that he gave himself away awhile ago.

The first time I read his theory that the key's were not passed down from Joseph, I felt that familiar lapse in spiritual comfort which so often warns me. Snuffer is not important to our eternal salvation.

He is the jealous nanny from my dream, not serving the bride or her children but only fixated upon the master of the estate.

It is always good to end these anti-snuffer statements with WIlford Woodruff's testimony.

[TZONE]

90:1 Thus saith the Lord, verily, verily I say unto you my son [joseph], thy sins are aforgiven thee, according to thy petition, for thy prayers and the prayers of thy brethren have come up into my ears.

2 Therefore, thou art blessed from henceforth that bear the akeys of the kingdom given unto you; which bkingdom is coming forth for the last time.

3 Verily I say unto you, the keys of this akingdom shall bnever be taken from you, while thou art in the world, neither in the world to come;

4 Nevertheless, through you shall the aoracles be given to another, yea, even unto the church.

5 And all they who receive the aoracles of God, let them beware how they hold them lest they are accounted as a light thing, and are brought under condemnation thereby, and stumble and fall when the storms descend, and the winds blow, and the brains descend, and beat upon their house.

As ATL said, its worth studying.

[keep the faith]

Woodrow Wilson

eh?! ;)

I didn't know he was a member!

This is how I see it. If Monson and Joseph stood before me and I had to receive one or the other I'd choose Joseph and the Gospel Joseph taught is different from the one Monson teaches. Whether you like Monson or not. Whether you think he is a saint or not. God told us in the Doctrine and Covenants that Joseph was the law giver and no one else would take his place unless he gave that to someone else. God told us that this would help us from not being deceived.

Unfortunately, we have been deceived whether intentionally by men or because of their blindness.

So what church do you currently involve yourself with AGStacker? Surely not one you think is led by a false Prophet who is deceiving us by teaching a different gospel right?

[jo1952]

This question was asked: Is divorce a reversal of the law of marriage?

The law of marriage is symbolic. It is symbolic of being married to Christ, our Bridegroom. In the law, those caught in adultery were stoned to death. This was symbolic of the destruction (physical death/being in bondage to physical death) we face when we commit adultery against God. Without marriage to our Bridegroom (Christ), we can't enter exaltation. We remain in bondage to physical death; hence adulterers were put to physical death to try to teach us this lesson. That law was much more beastly in nature. But Christ fulfilled that law; bringing focus to the law written upon our hearts.

When the Saints weren't able to build Zion in order that the Lord could dwell amongst us, law and Temples were once more used to point us toward God and the things we needed to understand in order to prepare us to be able to live with Christ. The new and everlasting covenant of marriage is also symbolic of being married to Christ. This time, we just don't need to kill each other if we are found to be adulterers after entering marriage. It is no longer beastly in nature; though we are still bound to physical death. The seal of the Holy Spirit of Promise seals us to Christ, our Bridegroom. Both men and women are the Brides of Christ. In the law of Moses, both men and women caught in adultery were punished with physical death; hence both being representative of the Bride, were both killed. If we are not found to be married to Christ (which we will know if we are sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise) when we die, we remain in bondage to physical death. We don't need to be physically married to a spouse to enter exaltation. We need to be married (sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise) to our Savior, Jesus Christ. This is how we will "know" Him; and how He will know us. We will be one with Him; just as is symbolized between a man and a woman when they become one in the flesh when they "know" one another. We are taught that Adam knew Eve; and they became one flesh. This is also used elsewhere in scripture. It is symbolic of our need to "know" Christ; becoming one with Him. If we aren't one with Him (been sealed to Him by the witness of the Holy Spirit of Promise---and the Holy Spirit is the witness on the earth! So, this MUST take place while we are in the flesh!!! It can't take place when we are not in the physical world!!), He will say that He never "knew" us.

I still don't think we are learning the message God wants us to learn; even though He has once more given us laws and Temples purposed to teach us. We are focused on the letter of the law once more; this time it includes tokens and signs. We earnestly look to the tokens and the signs; but we are missing the big picture wherein the marriage is symbolic of being married to Christ. In fact, we have become consumed with filling the letter of the law. We are still missing the mark; and this is something we need to repent of.

What is bound on earth, or loosed on earth, is our marriage to Christ!!! Being married to Christ is what exalts us!!! We each individually bind ourselves to Christ which is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise; or we loose ourselves from Him. If we are bound to Christ, we enter exaltation (with or without a spouse). We loose ourselves if we are not married to Christ; and we remain in bondage to the lake of fire and brimstone--which is where physical death is. The human family relationship is completely symbolic of our relationship to our Christ and the heavens. Polygamy is symbolic of the un-numbered Brides of Christ.

[brlenox]

This question was asked: Is divorce a reversal of the law of marriage?

The law of marriage is symbolic. It is symbolic of being married to Christ, our Bridegroom. In the law, those caught in adultery were stoned to death. This was symbolic of the destruction (physical death/being in bondage to physical death) we face when we commit adultery against God. Without marriage to our Bridegroom (Christ), we can't enter exaltation. We remain in bondage to physical death; hence adulterers were put to physical death to try to teach us this lesson. That law was much more beastly in nature. But Christ fulfilled that law; bringing focus to the law written upon our hearts.

When the Saints weren't able to build Zion in order that the Lord could dwell amongst us, law and Temples were once more used to point us toward God and the things we needed to understand in order to prepare us to be able to live with Christ. The new and everlasting covenant of marriage is also symbolic of being married to Christ. This time, we just don't need to kill each other if we are found to be adulterers after entering marriage. It is no longer beastly in nature; though we are still bound to physical death. The seal of the Holy Spirit of Promise seals us to Christ, our Bridegroom. Both men and women are the Brides of Christ. In the law of Moses, both men and women caught in adultery were punished with physical death; hence both being representative of the Bride, were both killed. If we are not found to be married to Christ (which we will know if we are sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise) when we die, we remain in bondage to physical death. We don't need to be physically married to a spouse to enter exaltation. We need to be married (sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise) to our Savior, Jesus Christ. This is how we will "know" Him; and how He will know us. We will be one with Him; just as is symbolized between a man and a woman when they become one in the flesh when they "know" one another. We are taught that Adam knew Eve; and they became one flesh. This is also used elsewhere in scripture. It is symbolic of our need to "know" Christ; becoming one with Him. If we aren't one with Him (been sealed to Him by the witness of the Holy Spirit of Promise---and the Holy Spirit is the witness on the earth! So, this MUST take place while we are in the flesh!!! It can't take place when we are not in the physical world!!), He will say that He never "knew" us.

I still don't think we are learning the message God wants us to learn; even though He has once more given us laws and Temples purposed to teach us. We are focused on the letter of the law once more; this time it includes tokens and signs. We earnestly look to the tokens and the signs; but we are missing the big picture wherein the marriage is symbolic of being married to Christ. In fact, we have become consumed with filling the letter of the law. We are still missing the mark; and this is something we need to repent of.

What is bound on earth, or loosed on earth, is our marriage to Christ!!! Being married to Christ is what exalts us!!! We each individually bind ourselves to Christ which is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise; or we loose ourselves from Him. If we are bound to Christ, we enter exaltation (with or without a spouse). We loose ourselves if we are not married to Christ; and we remain in bondage to the lake of fire and brimstone--which is where physical death is. The human family relationship is completely symbolic of our relationship to our Christ and the heavens. Polygamy is symbolic of the un-numbered Brides of Christ.

Not sure I am grapsing the entirety of your message. Are you saying that the marriage ceremony of the temple is not to join a husband to his wives and that it is all symobolic of our union with Christ? Thus our misunderstanding would be in thinking that an eternal family is even possessed of those in roles of father / mother and it is only Father (as in Christ) and his family (those bound to him in the marriage ceremony)? Or am I missing something?

[Matthew.B]

Now, I've never read any of his books (would like to) but just saw this on his blog.

You're doing the exact same things the Pharisees of old did. You refuse to "hear" Snuffer and "know what he does", but you do think yourself capable of judging him to be a false messenger. See John 7:45-53.

I'm going to say that you really wouldn't like to read his books or you would have already picked up at least one of them.

I believe that the many revelations in the D&C identifying Joseph as the spokesman for God means exactly that: Joseph was and IS the spokesman God sent. Joseph's words need to be heeded as if they came from God directly to us. No one has the right to change or ignore them. No one (and I mean NO ONE) has the right to claim they are Joseph's equal. There are no "keys" or "key holders" who can alter Joseph's teachings except at their peril. When they ignore or contradict Joseph's revelations, and teach others that they can ignore the message and warnings given by that prophet who was called by God to begin this dispensation, they damn themselves and any who listen to them.

Now read carefully again the third, fourth, and fifth sentences. Then read them again. And one more time in case it doesn't come to you...

Has it been revealed to you yet? Do you fully understand the succession laws - the way things work and have always worked.

Do you?

Prove, through the revelations that came through Joseph, exactly what the "succession laws" were to be for this dispensation. Don't use any statements that didn't come through Joseph Smith, who the Lord declared would give his generation the Lord's word. You could also use any other scripture if you'd like to try to "prove" the succession crisis turned out the way the Lord wanted it to.

The fact is, Joseph did have a specific method of ordaining successors: he would name them and appoint them as such. Hyrum Smith and his son, Joseph Smith III, were both ordained in this manner. None of the Apostles who gained the role of Church President ever were.

Gospel doctrine changes to suit "situations, circumstances, evolving gospel principles, new revelation, etc". Peter was given a revelation that had a dual purpose (preaching the gospel to the gentiles and that all meat was ok to eat) - that was a seismic shift in doctrine in which he presented to the brethren - ultimately he said that's how we're going to do it. This went "techincally" against all the prophets before him. But that's ok - he was the living prophet - who had the keys - who could CHANGE doctrine. And of course this has happened several other times throughout the time line of God's church.

For Denver to so adamantly cling onto the belief that Joseph's doctrines can't be altered goes against both ancient and modern Church history. After reading this, it's evident that though he has a deep loyalty and love for JS - it has become a source of "pride' in the sense that failing to acknowledge living prophets and key holders is giving himself away in terms of his intent. I listed to Woodrow Wilsons testimony today in about 1894 where he testified JS handed over all keys to the apostles. Let's say that JS didn't do that - well then we have a dead church and what's the point of JS and God even restoring the Church. But the keys were passed down. Are all our apostles great men (maybe/maybe not) remember Peter denied Christ, he incurred the wrath of Paul and I'm sure many other things. Did Jonah try to flee God? Did Moses show a lack of faith with the rock and water? Didn't Lehi start murmuring? I'm 100% confident our apostles make mistakes that to us are magnified as we want so badly for them to be perfect - but they aren't and won't be. They may and will make bad financial decisions (JS did), they may say things in error and so on.

You've mistaken "doctrine" and "practice". Truth never changes; doctrine is a statement of truth or belief. Practices are based on doctrine and can and do change-- sometimes at the Lord's behest in response to our actions, but more often we change the practices on our own without God's input.

When the Lord gave Peter the vision that let him know Cornelius' experience was truly from God, the Lord was merely re-iterating foundational Gospel doctrine: there was to be "one law" for both the stranger and the Israelite (Numbers 15:16); and all were to be alike. It was to be people's actions that differentiated their standing before the law, and whether they would receive condemnation or freedom. That works for both the temporal laws governing men's institutions, and spiritual laws governing men's standing before God.

Why? Because "the Lord esteemeth all flesh in one; he that is righteous is favored of God" (1 Ne. 17:35). That has always been a doctrine of the Gospel. There was a change from the Lord rooted in correct principle. It came to someone who had the right to make that change. Peter could point to a specific vision and instance in which he knew it was the Lord's will.

For most of the changes made to LDS doctrine and practice, no such vision or instance can be given. The two major examples-- ending polygamy and giving blacks the Priesthood-- can be seen to be corrections of false practices that cropped up among the Saints. And no matter how someone tries to harmonize the history of the Adam-God theory with the idea that the current Church president can't every be seriously wrong, the facts remain that the doctrine changed significantly over time, and those who disagreed were sometimes subject to church discipline.

Your premise is based upon false doctrine, and it's caused you to act in a manner inharmonious with Gospel principle-- you judge a man before actually hearing him out. God refuses to do that, and so should you.

I do respect your attempts at trying to get to the bottom of this. But as far as understanding Snuffer goes (or understanding anyone), you have to actually do the work before you can come to the full conclusion. In this case, "doing the work" includes reading his books (at least the ones in which he fully explains the issues he presents).

[Gad]

Bah, I feel like I belong in the stupid DS jokes thread. I run the DS section here and even I am tired of all the DS threads. In fact, I think we discuss DS less in HG than we do out here.