LDS Freedom Forum

*

It matters individually. Te receive the testimony of Christ while in the flesh matters only to you. For me, it matters only to me. We must each find our own individual connection to God. Yes, it matters that we have a prophet-a mouthpiece, but he must also work out his own salvation. He cannot do it for any of us. And once there are enough who do, perhaps Zion can finally be redeemed. There will be enough of us with "knowledge" who can be one heart and one mind, where none of us need say, "know ye the Lord?" for in Zion, all shall know him. And if individually we have not attained this "stature," we have only to burn up when Enoch, those in Zion and the Lord all return in glory because without that knowledge, we cannot abide His presence. Joseph Smith said well that we cannot be saved in ignorance. We are saved no faster than we get knowledge.

How can someone be an effective mouthpiece or spokesman for someone he has never meet or spoken to ? The last President who testified contemporaneously in his own words that he has spoken with or met either the the Savior or the Father was Joseph Smith jr. Prophets among the Nephites ( Nephi , Alma , Brother of jared, Mormon ,Moroni etc),the primitive church ( Peter ,Paul , the 500 ,the 12, Stephen etc) and in the Old Testament ( Noah, Moses, Samuel, Enoch, Abraham etc) all so testified . In our day since Joseph ….crickets It matters to me and it should to you .

whatever wrote:Also, when suggesting church leaders haven't seen Christ,

ajax wrote:Rew, I don't think he makes this argument at all. Rather he puts forth evidence that the spiritual and attendant manifestations were de-emphasized over time.

FROM THE DESK OF DE'VEY SOUFFLE

"In the twentieth century, charismatic apostleship changed in several ways. First, the 'charge' at ordination no longer obligated apostles to seek visions. Second, the Presidency and apostles began down-playing the importance of these experiences. Third, apostles began speaking of a non-visionary 'special witness of Christ' by the Holy Ghost in terms which allowed listeners to conclude that the apostles referred to an actual appearance of deity. Fourth, apostles were reluctant to discuss their visionary experiences publicly. Fifth, evidence indicates that a decreasing number of apostles experienced visions before or after ordination.

"The change in the apostolic 'charge' apparently began with the appointment of Reed Smoot as an apostle in 1900. General church authorities had long regarded him as 'reliable in business, but [he] has little or no faith.' President Lorenzo Snow blessed him to receive 'the light of the Holy Ghost' so that he could bear testimony of Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith. That was an extraordinary departure from the apostolic charge as given since 1835.

"...Twentieth-century apostles began applying this 'as if' approach to their spoken testimonies. Usually this involved wording their 'special witness' of Christ in a way that encouraged listeners to assume the leader has had a more dramatic encounter with the divine than actually claimed."

whatever wrote:I'm confused. Isn't this true? I don't think anyone needs DS to point this out. It can be found in diaries, Journal of Discourses, The Joseph Smith Papers, the high council minutes, Brigham Young's Complete works, etc etc.

Also, can someone help me understand why it matters.

This is most important. Chef Soufflé here is whipping up a dish of a delightfully airy constitution. By combining heaping cupful’s of insinuation with the foundational ingredients designed to enhance the flavor of doubt his efforts impart a far more tangible sense of questioning sweetness which seems a less bold and offensive presentation and enables some unfortunate gluttons to consume great quantities before they have gone beyond the boundaries of prudent consumption. The excessive amounts lead to a slow fermentation in the digestive track which leads to great discomfort. Of course the discomfort leads to gastric upset expressed frequently and loudly in denunciations which when expelled leads to a false sense of comfort for the relief of the pressure building up in side.

But who of those who have consumed such quantities of Chef Soufflé’s airy sweetness can see the wisdom in the offering of better chefs who maintain a more traditional and healthy fair designed according to the plans of gastric salvation of the Master Chef who in his never changing and lack of variableness provides consistently wholesome servings of less billowy and more favorable fair possessed of genuine substance and nutritive value.

In your own efforts in pretense to enhance the palatable nature of our meal this evening you provide a list of ingredients that can't be found at the local market in the fashion or manner you imply. It would be so much more credible if you could illustrate with a dash of diary entries that provide the bouquet you suggest, or a pinch of substance from the Journal of Discourses, even just a hint of that mellowing influence from the High Council Minutes or Brigham Young’s complete works. Of course it will be important to maintain the same oily texture that comes with Chef Soufflé’s commentary and insinuations. Else wise it loses the substance provided by the excessive leavening effects that the Chef has honed to the highest flattering capacities. Bon apatite.

boo wrote:How can someone be an effective mouthpiece or spokesman for someone he has never meet or spoken to ? The last President who testified contemporaneously in his own words that he has spoken with or met either the the Savior or the Father was Joseph Smith jr. Prophets among the Nephites ( Nephi , Alma , Brother of jared, Mormon ,Moroni etc),the primitive church ( Peter ,Paul , the 500 ,the 12, Stephen etc) and in the Old Testament ( Noah, Moses, Samuel, Enoch, Abraham etc) all so testified . In our day since Joseph ….crickets It matters to me and it should to you .

You make a false Denver insinuated assumption as noted in the original quote. You simply do not know enough about the experiences of these men.

Keep in mind that the most clear cut testimony of one of prophets following Joseph to see Christ is Lorenzo Snow. Do we know of Lorenzo's experience because he shared it from the pulpit. No! Did he share it in a conference or maybe a fireside some where. No! Did he swing by your great great grandfathers house for brunch and regale the family with his experiences. No! ... He never, ever used that information in a public way to sway anyone that his experience somehow gave him more clout. Yet he bore the same witness as all others have born. A testimony of hte divinity of Jesus Christ. You would be lumping him into that same catagory of having never beheld the Lord based on any personal declarations he made of the event. Except for the fact he shared it in a private moment with his granddaughter, from which the published accounts derive which illustrates these experiences are not general fare for public dissemination.

So, if I understand what you're saying (which is certainly not a foregone conclusion in your case) hearsay is reliable?

jbalm wrote:So, if I understand what you're saying (which is certainly not a foregone conclusion in your case) hearsay is reliable?

Wrong question. It is not whether it is realiable or not as both parties, snufferite and TBM cite the story as if it's existance in and of itself provides credibility to their various arguments. Snufferim use it to discredit that lack of other claims from other prophets proves they did not have any such experiences. TBM's use it to prove that we have examples of prophets that claim to have stood in his presence. Really it could be challenged as whether it is suitable for either case as President Snow never is recorded as having made the statements in a public theater.

Do I believe the story as related by his realtives? Absolutely. However, I recognize that it is a story that might never should have had a public presentation and would never of had a public presentation had it of been up to President Snow himself.

As far as you understanding what I say, you seldom make the effort. Instead your general tact is to undermine and obfuscate in ways that deflect credible observations. You remind me more of the early Zeezrum we are introduced to in the Book of Mormon than anyone else...except Denver....

I like that - thanks - Heber J Grant:

As I rode along alone, I seemed to see a Council in Heaven. The Savior was there; the Prophet Joseph was there; my father and others that I knew were there.

One doesn't have to be a "Snufferite" to see that the church will be cleansed -- the Lord himself says it in the parable of the wheat and tares, and in D&C 112 -- "upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth."

But the authority given by the Lord to the fifteen will endure and the "everlasting hills" will yet welcome the returning ten tribes (D&C 133).

I would encourage you to patiently seek the face of the Lord. I have, it is wonderful.

And now I need to hustle -- branch council mtg in 20 minutes! and a brother in the hospital I wish to check on. And I always enjoy the Spirit in our little branch meetings, where Jesus is the theme!!

Karenmarie wrote:Hello LDS Freedom Forum! I've lurked here very infrequently for a few years--and find you all fascinating!!

I just submitted another post...but didn't see it come up on General Discussions. I'm not sure how all of this works...so perhaps I forgot a title...or it takes time to be approved...or something else. Anyway, sorry if this becomes a double posting on the same topic.

For your information. If you post a reply on any board, and someone posts while you are writing your post, and you then submit your post, it will give you a warning message of sorts, that you might think was the confirmation page. If you leave that page without saying OK, to then click OK again to post your post on the next page - then you will loose your entire post (but if you use your history of your browser, it will have saved the text you wrote (using history tabs in your internet browser).

This happens frequently on popular posts where others are posting opinions at the same time you are.

Karenmarie,

I didn't read all these posts. I too know how you feel. I have had similar feelings and challenges. I'm more of the type to get a cinfirmation whereas my wife is more the blind obedience type. I have often wished she were seeki h answers too but I think she is special in that she follows her heart in what she feels is right. I think that's the spirit guiding her in her way. I noticed everyone has strong feelings on this and they should. My best guide has been the previous spiritual experiences and confirmations I have had in the past. Those are my anchor because I know with certainty the truth I received in those confirmations. So keeping that in mind, I use them as anchors as I drift on the sea of life and they provide guidance and clarifications that I need.

Best to you in your adventure.

May the Lord be your guide.

brlenox wrote:

jbalm wrote:So, if I understand what you're saying (which is certainly not a foregone conclusion in your case) hearsay is reliable?

Wrong question. It is not whether it is realiable or not as both parties, snufferite and TBM cite the story as if it's existance in and of itself provides credibility to their various arguments. Snufferim use it to discredit that lack of other claims from other prophets proves they did not have any such experiences. TBM's use it to prove that we have examples of prophets that claim to have stood in his presence. Really it could be challenged as whether it is suitable for either case as President Snow never is recorded as having made the statements in a public theater.

Do I believe the story as related by his realtives? Absolutely. However, I recognize that it is a story that might never should have had a public presentation and would never of had a public presentation had it of been up to President Snow himself.

As far as you understanding what I say, you seldom make the effort. Instead your general tact is to undermine and obfuscate in ways that deflect credible observations. You remind me more of the early Zeezrum we are introduced to in the Book of Mormon than anyone else...except Denver....

Why did you feel the need to write all that just to admit that you tend to rely on inherently unreliable sources? A simple "yes" would have sufficed. Is somebody paying you by the syllable?

Maybe you should make the effort to write as if English is your native language.

And you'd think someone who claims to know all things Mormon, like yourself, would at least know how to spell "Zeezrom." That kind of made your attempted insult backfire a bit, don't you think?

Care to display any more chinks in your pseudo-intellectual armor?

Wow,

This is the craziest forum. It seems to be a constant battle between snufferites and monsonites. : )

Can no one agree that each of us ought to just follow Christ the best way we know how? Seek His Spirit and follow that Spirit?

Brlenox

Hello my friend. You say a lot of things that just make me scratch my head. You said that to believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet and that thomas a monson is not a prophet is paradoxical. So I take it you believe the LDS church teaching that if the Book of Mormon is true, then everything is true up to the current LDS prophet.... That is one of the most illogical teachings I have heard. Because someone was something almost 200 years ago, someone that definitively proves that something today is true.
Funny most people don't realize that is was somewhere around 20 percent of the Latter Day Saints that followed brigham young and the 12. We say the word "crisis" when we speak of the succession because no one knew what to do.
Your statement could also be made by any restorationist movement. To say that joseph smith was a prophet, and to say that the temple lot church is not true, or the RLDS church is not true, is paradoxical... That is not factoring in the possibility of apostasy which has occurred countless times on the earth.
Karen,

I am not a snufferite or a monsonite, but I felt the Spirit in one of your comments. If you have chosen in your heart to follow the Savior at all costs, which you know you have, then you are on the right path. The LDS church can be part of that path for some, Denver Snuffer has lead many closer to Christ, and that is a good thing. Ultimately our relationship to Jesus is just that, our own relationship. No one else can stand between.

To declare a little about what the Spirit has told me, Thomas S Monson has been a prophet, Denver Snuffer is a prophet, and both are teaching some falsehoods. There are many many prophets and not a seer to be found. I look forward to the day. God bless you all

Brlenox, it's ok to use his name. Heck, on this forum, we even give Satan the respect to use his name.

jbalm wrote:

brlenox wrote:

jbalm wrote:So, if I understand what you're saying (which is certainly not a foregone conclusion in your case) hearsay is reliable?

Wrong question. It is not whether it is realiable or not as both parties, snufferite and TBM cite the story as if it's existance in and of itself provides credibility to their various arguments. Snufferim use it to discredit that lack of other claims from other prophets proves they did not have any such experiences. TBM's use it to prove that we have examples of prophets that claim to have stood in his presence. Really it could be challenged as whether it is suitable for either case as President Snow never is recorded as having made the statements in a public theater.

Do I believe the story as related by his realtives? Absolutely. However, I recognize that it is a story that might never should have had a public presentation and would never of had a public presentation had it of been up to President Snow himself.

As far as you understanding what I say, you seldom make the effort. Instead your general tact is to undermine and obfuscate in ways that deflect credible observations. You remind me more of the early Zeezrum we are introduced to in the Book of Mormon than anyone else...except Denver....

Why did you feel the need to write all that just to admit that you tend to rely on inherently unreliable sources? A simple "yes" would have sufficed. Is somebody paying you by the syllable?

Maybe you should make the effort to write as if English is your native language.

And you'd think someone who claims to know all things Mormon, like yourself, would at least know how to spell "Zeezrom." That kind of made your attempted insult backfire a bit, don't you think?

Care to display any more chinks in your pseudo-intellectual armor?

My observation validated. The point I made is a credible point and completely undermines certain perspectives. Nonetheless you chose the song and dance and the pointing the finger of scorn for the fact that at 1:00 am I didn't take the time to proof my post as carefully as I might usually do.

Your kind of like the 4th grade playground bully who can only feel good about himself if he has just knocked someone down.

Joseph misspelled someone’s name once - guy left the church after going on a similar tirade as you have just done. Though I am of reasonable intelligence misspelling a name does not undermine that standard any more than Joseph being less of a prophet for doing the same. We simply have evidence that both I and he are mortals beings and subject to the conditions of the telestial sphere in which we reside. (by the way you probably missed them but if it makes you feel better, I also misspelled “reliable”, and “relatives” in the same post...oh well shame on me)

Yet you with your eagle eye avoided any effort to acknowledge the validity of the observation that indeed it makes perfect sense that the General authorities refrain from public acknowledgement of their physical interactions with Christ and one of the very best examples of such is the primary account of Lorenzo Snow referenced by both sides.

Nonetheless, if you can push down that little boy inside that want's to toss that next hissy fit, I would be most pleased to get an honest opinion and mature response to the nature of the only point truly made during this brief but comical exchange.

When it comes to the Lorenzo Snow story do you feel it undermines the snufferim's credibility as it illustrates the typical nature of the reluctance of the general authorities to speak of their physical encounters with Christ or in your mind does it undermine the TBM's illustrating that once they had experiences and now have none such to claim?

brlenox wrote:When it comes to the Lorenzo Snow story do you feel it undermines the snufferim's credibility as it illustrates the typical nature of the reluctance of the general authorities to speak of their physical encounters with Christ or in your mind does it undermine the TBM's illustrating that once they had experiences and now have none such to claim?

It seems you have completely missed the point here, which is that GAs are not publicly declaring they have seen Christ, to the world , by their own lips. Having a hearsay account of Lorenzo Snow is grasping at straws.

Joseph Smith declared, in no uncertain terms, to the world that he saw Christ and God the Father. No Ga has done so since.

You can knock down any straw man you care to construct.

@ brlenox,

Addressing all the holes in the swiss cheese that is your logic is a full time job. I already have one. I don't want another.

Fact is, you try to prove your point using an unreliable source. You can talk circles around it all day long if you like. It's your credibility at stake, not mine.

natekriv wrote:Wow,

This is the craziest forum. It seems to be a constant battle between snufferites and monsonites. : )

Can no one agree that each of us ought to just follow Christ the best way we know how? Seek His Spirit and follow that Spirit?

Brlenox

Hello my friend. You say a lot of things that just make me scratch my head. You said that to believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet and that thomas a monson is not a prophet is paradoxical. So I take it you believe the LDS church teaching that if the Book of Mormon is true, then everything is true up to the current LDS prophet.... That is one of the most illogical teachings I have heard. Because someone was something almost 200 years ago, someone that definitively proves that something today is true.
Funny most people don't realize that is was somewhere around 20 percent of the Latter Day Saints that followed brigham young and the 12. We say the word "crisis" when we speak of the succession because no one knew what to do.
Your statement could also be made by any restorationist movement. To say that joseph smith was a prophet, and to say that the temple lot church is not true, or the RLDS church is not true, is paradoxical... That is not factoring in the possibility of apostasy which has occurred countless times on the earth.

Well hey there Nate...by the way I left you a finished post on the other thread that you never did make a response too.

Anyway none of the TBM's disregard the fact that we are attempting to follow Christ just as assuredly as any other segment of the population on this forum. The question becomes one of continuity and deception.

The scriptures bear out that there is always a segment of the population that cannot abide the living prophets. I personally feel this is in part due to the fact that the closer one is to the historical reality of an individual in authority the more readily apparent becomes the telestial condition. We lose the distance of time and the required brevity of the historical records enables a fantasy based perception of historical figures where we can lose the day to day nuances of what it is to be mortal. For some reason this segment of the population has no capacity for the faith necessary to accept that the mortal frailties they can observe cannot be managed by Christ in the governance of his church even as they were in ancient times though not a clearly evident.

However, consider the manner in which Christ himself characterizes the individuals that will hold the office of the President of the High Priesthood as recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 107:91-92

Doctrine and Covenants 107:91-92

91 And again, the duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses—
92 Behold, here is wisdom; yea, to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church

.

There are multiple other scriptures which one could bring to bear on this scenario but jbalm and ajax neither one will read long posts and a chance to uplift their souls should not be wasted on a lack of brevity...

The point is that if one believes that Christ called Joseph Smith to be “like unto Moses” then if one is to continue to manifest the continuity of thought that Christ himself heads this church as he claims that he called Brigham Young to be “like unto Moses” as well.

And if Brigham, then perhaps John Taylor was called to the President of the office of the High Priesthood to be “like unto Moses” just as surely as was Joseph. If you truly believe Jesus Christ is the organizer of these events then perhaps you should be able to understand that Thomas S. Monson, a telestial being subject to such frailties can be found amongst such, is also called to be “like unto Moses”.

There are those, in these latter days who can take the scriptures for what they claim and can see that it is less about the man in the seat and more about Christ as the head of his Church that defines that things are as they should be. The Christ I believe in is as capable of working with this “Moses”, Thomas S. Monson, the Current President of the High Priesthood, as he was the original telestial being called Moses who was subject to like telestial behaviors that may not be as evident for the paucity of the historical record.

If you are true to Jesus Christ then I assure you my perspectives stands as a reasonable and faithful proclamation that indeed it is a conflict of massive faith limiting proportions to claim one sustains Joseph Smith as the Prophet of God, the “Moses” of his time and that Thomas S. Monson is not exactly the same “Moses” for our time; Each chosen by the same being Jesus Christ to occupy the position of the President of the Office of the High priesthood of the Church. To make it clear if it is the same Jesus Christ that makes the appointments that is the common ground for why one cannot claim Christ as the head but then deny his prophets of any generation – He put them there to serve in the capacities in which they serve and in the manner in which they serve – telestial challenges notwithstanding. Denying them is to deny Jesus Christ.

No other church, in spite of your efforts to undermine this truth can make such a claim, nor provide the fruits of such a claim; not the RLDS, the Church of Christ nor the snufferim congregations can manifest even the least of these fruits. It is this church that reaches to all the world in the greatest missionary effort ever managed to build up the kingdom of God, it is this church that builds temples to sustain the work of the dead. It is this church that manages the correlation of instruction for its living members they too may come unto the Holy Ghost and be personally instructed to the means of coming unto Christ by proper standards when they can stand on proper principles; it is this Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, currently under the head of Thomas S. Monson that fulfills the mantra of being the only true church of Jesus Christ upon the face of the earth…and any other paradigm or sophistry that attempts to undermine that obvious fact is a lie.

jbalm wrote:@ brlenox,

Addressing all the holes in the swiss cheese that is your logic is a full time job. I already have one. I don't want another.

Fact is, you try to prove your point using an unreliable source. You can talk circles around it all day long if you like. It's your credibility at stake, not mine.

Fact is you got so lost looking for spelling errors that you did not note that I stated essentially the same thing. The story is not suitable for either side except to validate that Lorenzo never publically claimed to have stood in the presence of Christ. As I stated earlier, the story is suitable for me to make personal acceptance of its validity as I have done.

Now, having deflected and failed to answer the question for the third and final time I will ask it again, in hopes that you will not deflect and hide behind your incessant efforts of obfuscation:

When it comes to the Lorenzo Snow story do you feel it undermines the snufferim's credibility as it illustrates the typical nature of the reluctance of the general authorities to speak of their physical encounters with Christ or in your mind does it undermine the TBM's illustrating that once they had experiences and now have none such to claim?

Frankly, I'm just looking for some intelligent dialogue and reasoning on a very simple question. Give it a shot. I think you can do it.

Thomas wrote:

brlenox wrote:When it comes to the Lorenzo Snow story do you feel it undermines the snufferim's credibility as it illustrates the typical nature of the reluctance of the general authorities to speak of their physical encounters with Christ or in your mind does it undermine the TBM's illustrating that once they had experiences and now have none such to claim?

It seems you have completely missed the point here, which is that GAs are not publicly declaring they have seen Christ, to the world , by their own lips. Having a hearsay account of Lorenzo Snow is grasping at straws.

Joseph Smith declared, in no uncertain terms, to the world that he saw Christ and God the Father. No Ga has done so since.

You can knock down any straw man you care to construct.

Yes Thomas, concerning testimonies of Christ, we did discuss this, you and I, probably a year ago. That was when I provided you with some information on the nature of the role of the Dispensational Head. As far as the Lorenzo Snow piece please reread my post you are not getting the gist of my comments.

Rock did you draw that?
Disgusting

Henry B. Eyring in http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=305

I have heard the boast of a man who walked away from the Church slowly. At first he just stopped teaching his Sunday School class, then he stayed away from Church, and then he forgot to pay tithing now and then. Along the way he would say to me: “I feel just as spiritual as I did before I stopped those things and just as much at peace. Besides, I enjoy Sundays more than I did. It’s more a day of rest.” Or, “I think I’ve been blessed temporally as much or more as I was when I was paying tithing.” He could not sense the difference, but I could. The light in his eyes and even the shine in his countenance was dimming. He could not tell, since one of the effects of disobeying God seems to be the creation of just enough spiritual anesthetic to block any sensation as the ties to God are being cut. Not only did the testimony of the truth slowly erode, but even the memories of what it was like to be in the light began to seem to him like a delusion.

One should exercise great care; study, prayer, listening to the Spirit.

I believe it was Jon McNaughton that drew that sketch.

coachmarc wrote:I believe it was Jon McNaughton that drew that sketch.

Thank you, coachmarc. How do you know this?

=== wrote:

coachmarc wrote:I believe it was Jon McNaughton that drew that sketch.

Thank you, coachmarc. How do you know this?

He posted it on Facebook.

Thank you