LDS Freedom Forum

Stacy Oliver wrote:
It was originally written by ancient prophets, who were men. Is it relying on the arm of flesh to rely on the words of dead prophets, or does that reasoning only apply to living ones?

Stacy, what does the Book of Mormon actually say about trusting in the arm of flesh? Do you even know, could you please site the references and post the versus (if that is within your capacity to do at the present time if not I can).

Does the Lord ever establish His Church to fail?

Is this the only period in the History of the Earth that He said that this time He will set it up so that it cannot fail, but all the other times He never gave that promise or assurance?

If

You

setup

communities,

You

Are

following a

man.

Who
Also
Says
something
about
7
Women.

Must
be
where
polygamy
confusion
comes
In.

Stacy Oliver wrote:[It was originally written by ancient prophets, who were men. Is it relying on the arm of flesh to rely on the words of dead prophets, or does that reasoning only apply to living ones?

I hope you don't mind if I weigh in.

There is a disconnect between the 2 different groups (TBM/remnant). From my observations the remnant group maybe overplays the hand of "don't trust in the arm of flesh." In my private conversations with these people, the common thought is that there certainly is a need for prophets, they just don't think that the 15 in SLC are true prophets. This adequately describes me.

The TBMs, on the other hand seem to accuse the other folk of not accepting the need of prophets. They don't seem to get that we can read in the scriptures where God speaks through a prophet, but that just because someone has a title of "Prophet, Seer and Revelator" that he doesn't necessarily fill the role of God's mouthpiece. I might be wrong.

In the end, I think both perspectives are a lot closer than either side would like to admit. Both accept the need of prophets while verifying what is taught directly from God. The key difference is who the prophets are.

Stacy - we have no evidence that the exact words written on the plates are included in the BOM we read today. For all I know the ancient prophets could have written "Abish had a little lamb..." 20,000 times and called it good. The words Joseph said that scribes wrote down did not necessarily come from the plates. They came from the gift and power of God. I believe they were written on the plates, but there is no evidence to confirm that.

That said, I would take the words of ANY prophet who speaks or writes by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. I don't get any confirmation that the modern "PSRs" are doing so. Maybe you do get that confirmation. Maybe we each have a different path to tread in this life, so we get different confirmations. I do not believe mortality is a "one size fits all" experience.

BMC wrote:

Stacy Oliver wrote:
It was originally written by ancient prophets, who were men. Is it relying on the arm of flesh to rely on the words of dead prophets, or does that reasoning only apply to living ones?

Stacy, what does the Book of Mormon actually say about trusting in the arm of flesh? Do you even know, could you please site the references and post the versus (if that is within your capacity to do at the present time if not I can). Obviously, it says not to do it (2 Ne. 4:34). No one is saying that you should. The question is does the mantra of "Follow the Prophet" constitute putting your trust in the arm of flesh? And what does God mean when he says that those who will not "give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles shall be cut off from among the people"? That seems like a pretty clear directive to follow the prophet.

Does the Lord ever establish His Church to fail? No. He establishes it knowing that it will fail, but AFAIK that is not its purpose.

Is this the only period in the History of the Earth that He said that this time He will set it up so that it cannot fail, but all the other times He never gave that promise or assurance?

Yes. (Jacob 5:62; d&c 13, 112:30, 90:2)

CAPYBARA wrote:

Stacy Oliver wrote:[It was originally written by ancient prophets, who were men. Is it relying on the arm of flesh to rely on the words of dead prophets, or does that reasoning only apply to living ones?

I hope you don't mind if I weigh in.

There is a disconnect between the 2 different groups (TBM/remnant). From my observations the remnant group maybe overplays the hand of "don't trust in the arm of flesh." In my private conversations with these people, the common thought is that there certainly is a need for prophets, they just don't think that the 15 in SLC are true prophets. This adequately describes me.

The TBMs, on the other hand seem to accuse the other folk of not accepting the need of prophets. They don't seem to get that we can read in the scriptures where God speaks through a prophet, but that just because someone has a title of "Prophet, Seer and Revelator" that he doesn't necessarily fill the role of God's mouthpiece. I might be wrong.

In the end, I think both perspectives are a lot closer than either side would like to admit. Both accept the need of prophets while verifying what is taught directly from God. The key difference is who the prophets are.

There really is a different answer. One that the scriptures decsribe.

Hebrews 8:11
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

There will be but one leader who is Christ. Every man will be a prophet. This is Zion we are talking about not a return to Book of Mormon days or time of Christ days but Zion. No Apostles, no first Presidency, no prophet. Only Christ and all prophets.

The old ways will end. The earth will transform.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that Rewcox and others that have claimed to be familiar with Snuffer's words are in fact, not.

Snuffer has written thousands of pages of material presenting the scriptural evidence for his case. Much of that is based on the Book of Mormon and the warnings it gives us to repent.

Like Ajax said, it is like they have only listened to the closing arguments but missed out when the evidence was presented. In this case it would be like showing up at the last day of a three year trial.

I have spent three years studying this stuff. It is hard to give away that perspective in a few forum posts. They cannot do it justice.

@Thomas

I have read enough. You and Tim Malone have spent thousands of hours. No wonder Tim resigned.

BroJones has read enough. He is not my idol.

Remember, PTHG did not claim to be true. That was straight from DS.

So it's not true. I can do that logic.

rewcox wrote:@Thomas

I have read enough. You and Tim Malone have spent thousands of hours. No wonder Tim resigned.

BroJones has read enough. He is not my idol.

Remember, PTHG did not claim to be true. That was straight from DS.

So it's not true. I can do that logic.

Yes, you showed up at last day of the three year trial and think you have enough to make a judgement, without hearing the evidence presented.

You are misrepresenting what Snuffer said about PTHG.

With all due respect and in response to this from page 2 of this thread:

BroJones wrote: It is the APPEAL of his early writings, a focus on Christ rather than "Follow the prophet" mantra that built the "Snuffer movement".

It is his latest lectures that depart so far from this early start. Now we find Denver claims that the First Presidency and Twelve have LOST the priesthood - as of April 2014 Gen. Conference!

BroJones wrote:There you have it. ARROGANCE? You decide!

Earlier today, I contrasted this incredible statement by Mr (Bro?) Snuffer with what the Lord revealed,

Quote:
For unto you, the Twelve, and those, the First Presidency, who are appointed with you to be your counselors and your leaders, is the power of this priesthood given, for the last days and for the last time... D&C 112

VERY clear -- "is the power of this priesthood given, for the last days and for the last time... D&C 112"

But Snuffer offers a DIFFERENT solution...

AI2.0 wrote:You are right, some were apparently 'converted' to Denver Snuffer's

AI2.0 wrote:he's rejected the Lord's church organization of 12 Apostles--Denver has no apostles in his 'community' and he claims the ones on the earth lost their priesthood. Where in the scriptures, such as, the stone cut out of the mountain without hands etc., are the prophesies for the stone to fall

AI2.0 wrote:I'm wondering just how well his adherents REALLY know their scriptures because they don't seem to be bothered by it and only seem to know the Lectures on Faith and a handful of scripture references someone has spoon fed them.

Dr. Jones,

This thread should be entitled "What is the appeal of truth?" To focus this discussion on a living man is really insulting. It's guilt by association.

When we found out that 9/11 was a controlled demolition we weren't following Dr. Jones. We weren't adherents of Dr. Jones. We didn't join a church founded by Dr. Jones. However we embraced the truth that he revealed. Some interested parties formed associations like ae911truth.org and Scholars for Truth. Those who seek truth fellowship with them to learn more, while others cast them out and are excluded from further truth they might learn through continued association.

The glory of God is intelligence or in other words light and truth. Is it not possible that the LDS church has built its own bias? How can we say we seek "The Spirit of Truth" when any attempt to show alternative perspective and error is rebuffed and stifled. As we know from our study of govt, the coverup is tip of the iceberg. Hammering the party line is evidence of a problem.

Many on this forum spend countless hours studying the original intent of the founders of this nation, but seem dis-interested in the original intent of the writers of scripture. They seem content to allow the correlation department to sell them a "living constitution" bill of goods; convinced that there is in fact an earthly organization that would never lie to them (overtly or inadvertently because of seemingly good intentions.)

WTC 7
Our Doctrine and Covenants no longer contains the doctrine of the LDS Church. This is the WTC 7 of the LDS church. Hardly anyone knows about the 3rd skyscraper that fell. When presented with Joseph Smith's statements about the lectures in the preface to the 1835 D&C and in the Joseph Smith papers and understanding that it was a repetition of concepts taught by Joseph to the School of the Prophets, its removal is so obviously inappropriate that it should be able to break you out of your matrix relative your faith in men (vs God). If you allow yourself to believe, you may find that its removal was a controlled demolition of doctrine clearly championed by Joseph Smith

Nanothermite - Keys = Authority/Governance??
We have adopted the catholic definition of the word Keys.
http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Home?word=Key" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Over time we have embraced definition #8. Definitions 6 and 7 are more applicable to your salvation and the early church both in our time and at the time of Christ. If you use 6 and 7 in place of authority any time you see it in the scriptures you might realize how the power of priesthood really only is in persuasion (teaching) and not dominion (governance). (D&C 121) The idea that we can't be led astray is like nanothermite showing up in dust samples. It's in ALL the dust. Its presence indicates something different than the mainstream narrative tells us.

Free Fall Speeds - Ekklesia = Corporate church?
God uses his definitions. He taught them to Joseph as evidenced by D&C 10:67 "whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church" [or in other words my flock, group, congregation or assembly.] Tyndale was killed over his unwillingness to fudge definitions like ekklesia (translated as church). BTW it's the gospel that is the stone cut without hands. Not the church. (D&C 65:2) The standard of truth is NOT the church. The stone and the standard don't meet either definition. They are not corporate entities and definitely not assemblies. It's about truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bi ... c_Doctrine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even the correlation department will concede that the "church of the Lamb" and the "church of the firstborn" are not the same as the LDS church. A great many seekers of truth had already begun to assemble and talk of and seek this Jesus of whom the apostles and prophets have writtten long before September 2014. Even a cursory study of the church (assemblies) at the time of Christ and the church (congregations) at the time of Joseph reveals that we currently have a monolithic pyramid that looks quite catholic. Studying the lives of the 12 apostles in the decades after Christ is a good start to see the contrast.

When presented with alternative perspective, receiving further light is now possible and one may "[begin] to have the scriptures laid open to [their] understanding, and the true meaning and intention of their more mysterious passages revealed unto [them] in a manner which [they] never could attain to previously" (JSH)

I'm surprised that you would proof text D&C 112. Read in context there are many plausible thoughts most of which would be rejected by those who would use the catholic definitions of keys and church. Here are 3 of the many possibilities in context.

1. The 12 were given Aaronic priesthood (see 112:29 power to baptize) which shall never be taken from the earth not the church (see D&C 13) … until the conditions are met when it will be taken.
2. 112:30 says it's given you for the last time talking to specific men (the 12 and 1st presidency at the time) ... if D&C 121's warning that you can lose priesthood is true, maybe this was their last chance. (i.e. that specific group)
3. 112:30 "for the last time, in the which is the dispensation of the fullness of times". So this can be seen as for the last time in this dispensation. The fullness of what times? The fullness of the times of the gentiles. The first shall be last and the last first. At some point it switches back to the Jews away from the gentiles. Go back and look at the historical pattern. First jews reject, then gentiles reject then restored to gentiles and they reject and then it goes back to the jew again. Whether you define gentile as the church or the US or western nations, the outlook is cloudy. Our time is up.

If... If... If... If these are even possibilities... If there is an alternative perspective to the correlated idea that we have the absolute correct organization and authority ... it begs some further study.

If these things are true we must follow them out to their conclusion. None of this should sway you from thinking that the LDS are the Lord's people. You just need to allow yourself to believe and understand how he might feel about his house. It always has been an inside job.

2 Nephi 12:5 "O house of Jacob, come ye and let us walk in the light of the Lord; yea, come, for ye have ALL gone astray, every one to his wicked ways."

Or maybe you think that you can follow a certain man and not go astray. You already are according to Nephi and Isaiah. And when you realize you are astray then you are right where you need to be. It's the lost sheep that is scooped up and taken on the shoulders of the Shepherd to his home to rejoice with family. The 99 get left in the wilderness.

Ask yourself honestly, where but at church and BYU do you really find the philosophies of men mingled with scripture (other than LDS FF)? In most places it's just the philosophies of men. No scripture. The warnings are to the hearer and reader. They are not for people who will never attend the temple or read the Book of Mormon.

2 Nephi 19:14-16 "Therefore will the Lord cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush in one day. The ancient, he is the head; and the prophet that teacheth lies, he is the tail. For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed." (This is Isaiah 9 … see Isaiah 9:9-11 for further context relative to timing… i.e. 9/11/2001)

My best and highest regards,

Dan

Obrien wrote:
I'm catching up on this thread, but had to comment on the obvious. Rewcox, look what happened to that church after 200 years had passed away. Maybe they were called the Church of Jesus Christ of the Meridian Day Saints.

EDIT - I looked it up, and it was actually 200 years after the "coming" of Christ. That word COULD mean 200 years from the sign of His birth OR 200 years from Christ's visitation to the New World. I tend to think it was from the sign of His birth, since that became the day from which the Nephites reckoned their time. That would mean that the church set up after Christ's visit only lasted 164 years. COJCOLDS has been around longer than that - but I think we can all agree the level of our spirituality as a church does not equal that of the ancient Church of Christ recorded in the BOM.

Your timeline is a bit off;
The church was formed in 34 AD. One of the things they did was have all things in common.
Appx. 201 AD the people stopped having all things in common, but the church continued.
231 AD the great division among the people.
260 AD the secret combinations began to be built up again.
300 AD both Nephites and Lamantes wicked

So, the church Christ set up lasted to about 300 AD before clearly only a handful were still true believes, since there was Ammaron, the keeper of the records, who sought out Mormon, who was 10 years old when he was told about the plates, appx. 321 AD.

But, that's not the point. The point is you are trying to minimize the importance of the church organization Christ set up, because it fell into apostasy. This is wrong because when the church falls into apostasy, the Lord doesn't just give up and say, 'okay, we'll just work with what's left over'--instead he restores his church, as he did through Joseph Smith Jr.

This is the achilles heel of Denver's movement! He uses the CofJCofLDS and it's history to build his 'movement' out of, but since he rejected the LDS Apostles with his 'revelation' in May 2014, he's essentially saying that they are not necessary--and that is something that Joseph Smith and the scriptures say IS necessary.

Thomas wrote:It is becoming increasingly clear to me that Rewcox and others that have claimed to be familiar with Snuffer's words are in fact, not.

Snuffer has written thousands of pages of material presenting the scriptural evidence for his case. Much of that is based on the Book of Mormon and the warnings it gives us to repent.

Like Ajax said, it is like they have only listened to the closing arguments but missed out when the evidence was presented. In this case it would be like showing up at the last day of a three year trial.

I have spent three years studying this stuff. It is hard to give away that perspective in a few forum posts. They cannot do it justice.

Thomas, you can keep telling yourself that we don't know what Denver has written, but I think it is you who is not reading his present writings. I think you are still judging Denver by his earlier works, but ignoring his lectures, such has his final one in Mesa.

If you've spent three years studying Denver, I can only surmise that you've been picking and choosing what you want to read and ignoring the controversial things that don't fit your perception of him.

Stacy Oliver wrote:

BMC wrote:

Stacy Oliver wrote:
It was originally written by ancient prophets, who were men. Is it relying on the arm of flesh to rely on the words of dead prophets, or does that reasoning only apply to living ones?

Stacy, what does the Book of Mormon actually say about trusting in the arm of flesh? Do you even know, could you please site the references and post the versus (if that is within your capacity to do at the present time if not I can). Obviously, it says not to do it (2 Ne. 4:34). No one is saying that you should. The question is does the mantra of "Follow the Prophet" constitute putting your trust in the arm of flesh? And what does God mean when he says that those who will not "give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles shall be cut off from among the people"? That seems like a pretty clear directive to follow the prophet.

Well you're missing an important ingredient me thinks.

2 Nephi 28:31

31 Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.


Does the Lord ever establish His Church to fail? No. He establishes it knowing that it will fail, but AFAIK that is not its purpose.

Stacy, read your own words, "He establishes it knowing that it will fail" Why is today different?

Is this the only period in the History of the Earth that He said that this time He will set it up so that it cannot fail, but all the other times He never gave that promise or assurance?

Yes. (Jacob 5:62; d&c 13, 112:30, 90:2)

No, the Lord always establishes His Church to never fail, His promise is the same yesterday, today and forever... He made this promise to others, like He has made His promise to us in our day. His Church cannot be overthrown accept for the transgressions of His people should come first.


Mosiah 27:13

13 Nevertheless he cried again, saying: Alma, arise and stand forth, for why persecutest thou the church of God? For the Lord hath said: This is my church, and I will establish it; and nothing shall overthrow it, save it is the transgression of my people.

Why is today different?

I read your references, I did not read where it says what you claim it to say. Promises and revelations where given to those whom the revelation was given to.

This is the last time, i.e. last days of the last "times" when after this, "time" will be no more and for the last "time" he gathers His people before destroying the wicked and establishing His kingdom among the righteous upon the Earth and this is the last time He will do it before judgement is poured out.

"For the Lord hath said: This is my church, and I will establish it; and nothing shall overthrow it, save it is the transgression of my people".

Have members since Joseph transgressed the laws of God? I guess not... and therefor it cannot be overthrown by the adversary.

Official Declaration 1
Excerpts from Three Addresses by President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.)

No man can lead anyone astray, God won't allow it. So "He will any other man who attempts it", God would remove that man or men We are guaranteed safety and to never ever be led astray by anyone, inside or outside the Church, its not in the program.

Thomas wrote:It is becoming increasingly clear to me that Rewcox and others that have claimed to be familiar with Snuffer's words are in fact, not.

Snuffer has written thousands of pages of material presenting the scriptural evidence for his case. Much of that is based on the Book of Mormon and the warnings it gives us to repent.

Like Ajax said, it is like they have only listened to the closing arguments but missed out when the evidence was presented. In this case it would be like showing up at the last day of a three year trial.

I have spent three years studying this stuff. It is hard to give away that perspective in a few forum posts. They cannot do it justice.

I was thinking this the other day. It is fairly obvious that the people who take time to study diligently the things DS has written, come away with a deeper understand of Christ and the scriptures. The people who skim what he has written, get second hand info from various blogs, and don't take the time to put in true diligent study come away saying he is full of it.

If I were to rely on other people's interpretation I would rely on the people who have actually studied it. However, I don't rely on anyone so I choose to study myself and then take it to the Lord.

AI2.0 wrote:

Thomas wrote:It is becoming increasingly clear to me that Rewcox and others that have claimed to be familiar with Snuffer's words are in fact, not.

Snuffer has written thousands of pages of material presenting the scriptural evidence for his case. Much of that is based on the Book of Mormon and the warnings it gives us to repent.

Like Ajax said, it is like they have only listened to the closing arguments but missed out when the evidence was presented. In this case it would be like showing up at the last day of a three year trial.

I have spent three years studying this stuff. It is hard to give away that perspective in a few forum posts. They cannot do it justice.

Thomas, you can keep telling yourself that we don't know what Denver has written, but I think it is you who is not reading his present writings. I think you are still judging Denver by his earlier works, but ignoring his lectures, such has his final one in Mesa.

If you've spent three years studying Denver, I can only surmise that you've been picking and choosing what you want to read and ignoring the controversial things that don't fit your perception of him.

Actually, his first book, The Second Comforter, is quite critical of mainstream Mormonism. So is his blog, from day one.

Thomas wrote:

AI2.0 wrote:

Thomas wrote:It is becoming increasingly clear to me that Rewcox and others that have claimed to be familiar with Snuffer's words are in fact, not.

Snuffer has written thousands of pages of material presenting the scriptural evidence for his case. Much of that is based on the Book of Mormon and the warnings it gives us to repent.

Like Ajax said, it is like they have only listened to the closing arguments but missed out when the evidence was presented. In this case it would be like showing up at the last day of a three year trial.

I have spent three years studying this stuff. It is hard to give away that perspective in a few forum posts. They cannot do it justice.

Thomas, you can keep telling yourself that we don't know what Denver has written, but I think it is you who is not reading his present writings. I think you are still judging Denver by his earlier works, but ignoring his lectures, such has his final one in Mesa.

If you've spent three years studying Denver, I can only surmise that you've been picking and choosing what you want to read and ignoring the controversial things that don't fit your perception of him.

Actually, his first book, The Second Comforter, is quite critical of mainstream Mormonism. So is his blog, from day one.

I agree Thomas and this is what has exactly kept me from taking him to seriously, but like I said you can get good things from all sources and only some of what he writes and says has some truth.

Thomas wrote: Actually, his first book, The Second Comforter, is quite critical of mainstream Mormonism. So is his blog, from day one.

Well, then, who are his approving audience of readers, except those who are also critical of the church??????

If Denver wants to portray himself as a reformer because he thinks the church needs reforming, that's fine, he can do that. But, don't expect those of us who have testimonies of the church as it is run today to agree with him! Don't expect us to accept his criticisms and fall into line with his new ideas when we don't think they are inspired and we don't believe they belong in our church.

Wrsales: I was thinking this the other day. It is fairly obvious that the people who take time to study diligently the things DS has written, come away with a deeper understand of Christ and the scriptures. The people who skim what he has written, get second hand info from various blogs, and don't take the time to put in true diligent study come away saying he is full of it.

If I were to rely on other people's interpretation I would rely on the people who have actually studied it. However, I don't rely on anyone so I choose to study myself and then take it to the Lord.

So, if I don't agree with you it's because I haven't studied enough to SEE that it's true? Where is that considered a logical conclusion? Simply because others disagree with you, they just haven't studied diligently enough? You sound like Pres. Obama (I've heard him use this type of 'logic' when he was trying to cram Obamacare down our throats and the majority opposed it) :p

Thomas wrote:

Niyr wrote:
So Denver thinks he is that servant? Lol...

The problem I see with this attitude is that you will dismiss anyone that comes along. One of those who comes along will be the real deal and you will be on the wrong side of God.

The same was said of Christ.

John 1:46
46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.

I doubt I will.

Christ was prophesied about, Denver was not. At all.

Oh? Are you sure ? What is your interpretation of 3 Nephi 21:9-11 and Jacob 5:57 ?

AI2.0 wrote:
So, if I don't agree with you it's because I haven't studied enough to SEE that it's true? Where is that considered a logical conclusion? Simply because others disagree with you, they just haven't studied diligently enough? You sound like Pres. Obama (I've heard him use this type of 'logic' when he was trying to cram Obamacare down our throats and the majority opposed it) :p

When cultural conditioning teaches you that the spirit is "good" feelings and evil is "bad" feelings then once you have a "bad" feeling you run for the exit, as most of the TBM's do when they read DS.

The people who persevere and look for truth no matter how painful it becomes tend to come way with greater understanding and greater appreciation for our Lord and our scriptures.

I'm not trying to say these are proven facts, I am just stating my observations.

Now do your thing, and tell me how wrong I am.

Thomas wrote:

rewcox wrote:

Thomas wrote:You also give a pretty reason right in own post as you equate church membership with salvation,which is a false doctrine.

Sometimes I wonder what scriptures you read. Here is one:
4 Nephi

1 And it came to pass that the thirty and fourth year passed away, and also the thirty and fifth, and behold the disciples of Jesus had formed a church of Christ in all the lands round about. And as many as did come unto them, and did truly repent of their sins, were baptized in the name of Jesus; and they did also receive the Holy Ghost.
4 Nephi 1:1
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/4-ne/1?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow, the disciples of Christ formed a church. Hmm, not a community.

We also have the Church of Christ, those who join repent, are baptized.


The Book of Mormon destroys your craft.

The nephites went apostate and were wiped out but you think we cannot suffer the same fate.

The Bookof Mormon is the basis of my belief. You gave an example of a snap shot in time, of a righteous people.

Here is what the Book of Mormon says about us, today:

2 Nephi 28:14
14 They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.

Much of 2 Nephi is the warnings of our impending destruction. This warning is found throughout the Book of Mormon.

Is there a prophesy of a Second Restoration that I'm not aware of?

Niyr wrote:Is there a prophesy of a Second Restoration that I'm not aware of?

Possibly. 3 Ne 16 speaks of the fullness being taken from the gentiles and then the remnant will be given it again. You could interpret that to be a "Second Restoration."

I suspect the House of Israel will get another restoration, even if they aren't looking for it.

As I have stated many times, if you were nice, people might listen.

The DS doctrine you follow (that you say you don't) has led you to complain, murmur and belittle the church and its leaders.

If you had good doctrine, you would be trying to help all you could to come to Christ, so you can be in Zion, and be the fortunate few.

It's that simple.

Steve Clark wrote:

Niyr wrote:Is there a prophesy of a Second Restoration that I'm not aware of?

Possibly. 3 Ne 16 speaks of the fullness being taken from the gentiles and then the remnant will be given it again. You could interpret that to be a "Second Restoration."

No, because the remnant referred to in that scripture is the remnant of Jacob, in this case, most likely the mixture of Lamanite/Nephite remnant--these are prophesies which were made and will be fulfilled to the house of Israel. Look at Isaiah's prophecies and the Allegory of the Olive tree and I think you'll understand.

And a 'restoration' means just that--to restore. In other words to bring something back to the way it was originally. Denver is not 'restoring' the church to what Joseph founded. As I pointed out, Denver rejected the Lord's apostles in May 2014. I don't think he's rejected the idea of a prophet, because I believe he views himself as God's prophet now. That is clear from his comments about cursings and blessings which has already been cited on this thread.

I don't see how you have a 'restoration' of Jesus Christ's church without 12 Apostles.