Who has jumped off the Denver Snuffer train?

[boo]

So what was there to look forward to? The restoration of the fullness of times wherein the gospel would never more be taken from the earth. There is no more restoration to come after the restoration of the fullness of times. Hence, all the talk of apostasy in the church is of one kind only - personal apostasy.

I think it accurate to say this term can apply aptly to individuals both inside and outside of the church to varying degrees. But the organization, priesthood, rites, ordinances, and power of God are here to stay until He comes to receive them.

I am reluctant to say this because you and I are replowing old ground but I hope what you say is true . Unfortunately I think the Saviors words in 3 Nephi 16 and Moronis words in Mormon 8 paint a much different picture.

[iWriteStuff]

So what was there to look forward to? The restoration of the fullness of times wherein the gospel would never more be taken from the earth. There is no more restoration to come after the restoration of the fullness of times. Hence, all the talk of apostasy in the church is of one kind only - personal apostasy.

I think it accurate to say this term can apply aptly to individuals both inside and outside of the church to varying degrees. But the organization, priesthood, rites, ordinances, and power of God are here to stay until He comes to receive them.

I am reluctant to say this because you and I are replowing old ground but I hope what you say is true . Unfortunately I think the Saviors words in 3 Nephi 16 and Moronis words in Mormon 8 paint a much different picture.

Yup, I know. You're a proponent of the failed/temporary restoration, if my memory serves. Agree to disagree on that point since, as you say, it's replowing old ground.

btw what's up with the "Thank/Remove Thank" business? Just missing the Quote button or do you simultaneously like and dislike my posts? :p

[SpeedRacer]

I think it accurate to say this term can apply aptly to individuals both inside and outside of the church to varying degrees. But the organization, priesthood, rites, ordinances, and power of God are here to stay until He comes to receive them.

I am with you on the priesthood of Aaron staying here until the sons of levi bit, that is in Section 13, but there is nothing from God that says the organization, rites, and ordinances would stay. In fact quite the opposite. I know we like to expand section 13 to mean more, but it is pretty clear and was pre-organization, etc.

It is Isaiah that saw the perversion of the rites and ordinances

It was Nephi and Mormon who saw the Holy Church becoming polluted

And it was Joseph Smith who demonstrated by name change the loss of the church the first time, and section 124 that demonstrates that God was going to reject it a second time.

[SempiternalHarbinger]

Gotta love Quinn, totally reliable, unbiased historian. Maybe. Best or worst Mormon historian of our time, depending on your paradigm and agenda. It's all good information though. Thanks.

I find him reliable, but that likely my biases coming through.

He seems like a legit and qualified historian, doing his due diligence.

But, like most things, people will see what confirms their bias.

Hey Jesef, you are a little hard on Quinn. I can only imagine what you think of Emma Smith and Lucy Mack Smith. It's interesting that the two people who loved and knew Joseph Smith the most in this world didn't follow Brigham Young. In fact, they didn't think too highly of each other and for good reason. It's a conundrum, If one believes Brigham Young then you really can't believe much of anything from Lucy and Emma Smith. Or vice verses. There has been over 1600 edit changes (thanks to BY) to Lucy's "History of Joseph Smith". Brigham even threatened Orson Pratt with excommunication for printing Lucy's "original" words and passing them out in England. Why would Brigham do this? Simply, the truth threatened him. Brigham soon realized he was never going to suppress Lucy's voice so he just edited the whole thing to his liking and put the church stamp of approval on the bad boy and started making a profit of it. I guess that is one of the perks of being a president, you can revise, change, and even orchestrate history itself. Years later, Brigham demoted Orson (opposing Adam/God doctrine publicly) standing in the 12, and by doing so, BY prevented Orson from being the 3rd President of the church. I recommend everyone read the original book with Lucy's personal witness. It is a faith building book imo. If you have the Brigham Young revised version (sold at deseret book) of "History of Joseph Smith" you can throw it in the recycle bin. It's not authentic. The late church patriarch Elder Smith ( great-great-grandson of Hyrum) even noted before his passing that Lucy would not even recognize the book claimed to be written by her. That provokes another question, why did the church do away with the church patriarch?

D&C 124:91-95:
91 And again, verily I say unto you, let my servant William be appointed, ordained, and anointed, as counselor unto my servant Joseph, in the room of my servant Hyrum, that my servant Hyrum may take the office of Priesthood and Patriarch, which was appointed unto him by his father, by blessing and also by right;
92 That from henceforth he shall hold the keys of the patriarchal blessings upon the heads of all my people,
93 That whoever he blesses shall be blessed, and whoever he curses shall be cursed; that whatsoever he shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever he shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
94 And from this time forth I appoint unto him that he may be a prophet, and a seer, and a revelator unto my church, as well as my servant Joseph;
95 That he may act in concert also with my servant Joseph; and that he shall receive counsel from my servant Joseph, who shall show unto him the keys whereby he may ask and receive, and be crowned with the same blessing, and glory, and honor, and priesthood, and gifts of the priesthood, that once were put upon him that was my servant Oliver Cowdery;

[iWriteStuff]

The late church patriarch Elder Smith ( great-great-grandson of Hyrum) even noted before his passing that Lucy would not even recognize the book claimed to be written by her. That provokes another question, why did the church do away with the church patriarch?

Interesting statement. I've read my grandfather's autobiography. He died when I was 7. I doubt I could validate or substantiate more than a dozen of the personal experiences he had, let alone his thoughts/insights/observations. How would a great-great-great-grandson do any better?

[boo]

btw what's up with the "Thank/Remove Thank" business? Just missing the Quote button or do you simultaneously like and dislike my posts? :p

Ah both

[iWriteStuff]

btw what's up with the "Thank/Remove Thank" business? Just missing the Quote button or do you simultaneously like and dislike my posts? :p

Ah both

If I had to guess, I'd say you like the content but disagree with the conclusions. :-\

[SempiternalHarbinger]

The late church patriarch Elder Smith ( great-great-grandson of Hyrum) even noted before his passing that Lucy would not even recognize the book claimed to be written by her. That provokes another question, why did the church do away with the church patriarch?

Interesting statement. I've read my grandfather's autobiography. He died when I was 7. I doubt I could validate or substantiate more than a dozen of the personal experiences he had, let alone his thoughts/insights/observations. How would a great-great-great-grandson do any better?

It's really not that hard. It's a fact that there has been over 1600 changes made from the original. It doesn't take a grandson to figure out something doesn't add up. All you have to do is do some reading. Get an original copy and the current revised copy and compare. I will loan you my copy of the original if you would like.

[iWriteStuff]

The late church patriarch Elder Smith ( great-great-grandson of Hyrum) even noted before his passing that Lucy would not even recognize the book claimed to be written by her. That provokes another question, why did the church do away with the church patriarch?

Interesting statement. I've read my grandfather's autobiography. He died when I was 7. I doubt I could validate or substantiate more than a dozen of the personal experiences he had, let alone his thoughts/insights/observations. How would a great-great-great-grandson do any better?

It's really not that hard. It's a fact that there has been over 1600 changes made from the original. It doesn't take a grandson to figure out something doesn't add up. All you have to do is do some reading. Get an original copy and the current revised copy and compare. I will loan you my copy of the original if you would like.

I'm guessing that's actual paper and not an ebook version? I've taken to reading on mobile devices a lot more than on printed paper as of late... So much of the things I enjoy reading are free to own/read via that medium, plus my toddlers destroy books.

[freedomforall]

If we use a -6 or -7 hour time differential between Israel/Jerusalem and a North American Heartland model with Ohio River Valley as hub: then Jesus died between the 6th and 9th hours (12-3pm) Jerusalem time and this would correspond to the 3 hours of storms in Ohio at 5-8am in the morning, followed by 3 full days of darkness (in the new world, vapor of darkness, volcanic ash or whatever it was), so dark all day Thursday, dark all day Friday, dark all day Saturday, and then Jesus would have risen at say 6am on Sunday morning Jerusalem time, or 11pm Saturday night in the new world, and when the sun rose that day the vapor of darkness was gone.

Helaman 14
26 And behold, thus hath the angel spoken unto me; for he said unto me that there should be thunderings and lightnings for the space of many hours.
27 And he said unto me that while the thunder and the lightning lasted, and the tempest, that these things should be, and that adarkness should cover the face of the whole earth for the space of three days.

3 Nephi 8
3 And the people began to look with great earnestness for the sign which had been given by the prophet Samuel, the Lamanite, yea, for the time that there should be darkness for the space of three days over the face of the land.
...
20 And it came to pass that there was thick darkness upon all the face of the land, insomuch that the inhabitants thereof who had not fallen could feel the vapor of darkness;
21 And there could be no light, because of the darkness, neither candles, neither torches; neither could there be fire kindled with their fine and exceedingly dry wood, so that there could not be any light at all;
22 And there was not any light seen, neither fire, nor glimmer, neither the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars, for so great were the mists of darkness which were upon the face of the land.
23 And it came to pass that it did last for the space of three days that there was no light seen; and there was great mourning and howling and weeping among all the people continually; yea, great were the groanings of the people, because of the darkness and the great destruction which had come upon them.

3 Nephi 10
9 And it came to pass that thus did the three days pass away. And it was in the morning, and the darkness dispersed from off the face of the land, and the earth did cease to tremble, and the rocks did cease to rend, and the dreadful groanings did cease, and all the tumultuous noises did pass away.
10 And the earth did cleave together again, that it stood; and the mourning, and the weeping, and the wailing of the people who were spared alive did cease; and their mourning was turned into joy, and their lamentations into the praise and thanksgiving unto the Lord Jesus Christ, their Redeemer.
11 And thus far were the scriptures fulfilled which had been spoken by the prophets.

Doesn't all this depend on the angle of the earth at that time? Does time vary depending where one is on the earth? There are low areas and very high areas on earth, each could be varying in time depending on how close they are to the stars. The highest point of Earth is Mount Chimborazo in Ecuador, which is 1.5 miles higher than Mt Everest, thus is closest to the stars and may have a different time than the deepest trench in the ocean.
So couldn't the timing surrounding the resurrection of Christ be off a little bit? ;) :-B
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... boraz.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Jesef]

Isn't Mount Chimborazo 1.5 miles (9K feet) lower than Everest?

Lots of things could be a little or a lot off. Heh, heh.

[Jesef]

FYI, I'm logging off for the next 40 days at least. Love and Peace and forgiveness and joy and blessings to all of you. I pray for all of you to be blessed on your spiritual and temporal journeys through this life. Not permanent good-bye but farewell for a while.

[freedomforall]

Isn't Mount Chimborazo 1.5 miles (9K feet) lower than Everest?

Lots of things could be a little or a lot off. Heh, heh.

No, because Mount Chimborazo is on an area where the earth bulges due to centrifugal force. The earth is oblate.
From the website I provided earlier, we read: According to Issac Newton, the centrifugal force of the Earth's spin will result in a slight flattening at the poles and bulging at the equator, which would make the planet slightly oblate. Mathematicians call this an "oblate spheroid," which means that anyone on the equator is already standing "higher," or closer to outer space, than people who aren't on the bulge.

...Because Chimborazo is a bump on a bigger part of the bulge, it is 1.5 miles higher than Everest!

OblateSpheroid.PNG (173.48 KiB) Viewed 1521 times

Who would have thought?

[AI2.0]

There is a little more to the story. Joseph anointed his son, Joseph III, to take is place in January 1844. He also had Joseph III sustained as his successor by a congregation of 3,000 members shortly after. He also left instructions for Hyrum then Samuel to succeed if Joseph III was not old enough. So how can we say his intent was for the 12 to take over. Emma Smith certainly didn't think the 12 had a valid claim.

So, are you an apologist for the RLDS church now?

These are all the arguments used to form that church and the LDS church disputed their claims.

I guess believing the RLDS claims strengthens Denver Snuffer's challenges to the church's authority, doesn't it.

[AI2.0]

Michael Quinn found the record of the January 1844 blessing in the LDS church archives.

If you are referring to the Blessing transcript Hofmann forged or the Bullock-Young letter (also a forgery)? Both these documents were brought to the church by Mark Hofmann, they were not in the church archives. Quinn wrote about it (D. Michael Quinn, "Joseph Smith III's 1844 Blessing and the Mormons of Utah" Dialogue, Journal of Mormon Thought 15 (Summer 1982), before Hofmann's forgeries were discovered. It was not found by him in the Archives, They were Mark Hofmann forgeries.

In 1981, Hofmann arrived at the headquarters of the LDS Church with a document which supposedly provided evidence that Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet, had designated his son Joseph Smith III, rather than Brigham Young, as his successor. In a forged cover letter, purportedly written by Thomas Bullock and dated January 27, 1865, Bullock chastises Young for having all copies of the blessing destroyed. Bullock writes that although he believes Young to be the legitimate leader of the LDS Church, he would keep his copy of the blessing. Such a letter, if true, would portray Young and, by extension, the LDS Church, in an unfavorable light. In February 1981, Hofmann tried to sell the letter to the chief archivist of the LDS Church.[20] Hofmann expected the church to "buy the blessing on the spot and bury it."[21] When the church archivist balked at the price, Hofmann offered it to the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS Church; now known as the Community of Christ), which had always claimed that the line of succession had been bestowed on Smith's descendants but had never had written proof. A scramble to acquire the document occurred, and Hofmann, posing as a faithful Utah Mormon, presented it to his church in exchange for items worth more than $20,000.[22] Nevertheless, Hofmann also ensured that the document would be made public. The next day a New York Times headline read, "Mormon Document Raises Doubts on Succession of Church's Leaders,"[23] and the LDS Church was forced to confirm the discovery and publicly present the document to the RLDS Church.[24]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hofmann

[AI2.0]

It's funny, huh, all the competing historical accounts? Whose story is accurate? Who was distorting and why? History = his story. You can almost believe whatever you want to believe when it comes to history. It's such a mess. That's why no one is thoroughly persuaded by historical arguments, because the reports are so scanty and so biased, depending on the individual observer/reporter. This is where I have to say, I lack the knowledge, facts, wisdom, and insight to really, truly, correctly decide based on the accounts. Maybe like Joseph felt with all the different denominations' various and conflicting interpretations of scripture. Peace and Love to all of you, though.

Thomas gave you the textbook arguments of the RLDS church as to why they were the 'true' church. Then, he used Hofmann forgeries to try to bolster the claims.

Some might wonder if we are now arguing whether the LDS church or the RLDS church is true. 8-|

Snuffer followers are simply dusting off these old claims to use again, because they support their views that the LDS church is not the Lord's true church.

[AI2.0]

Gotta love Quinn, totally reliable, unbiased historian. Maybe. Best or worst Mormon historian of our time, depending on your paradigm and agenda. It's all good information though. Thanks.

I find him reliable, but that likely my biases coming through.

He seems like a legit and qualified historian, doing his due diligence.

But, like most things, people will see what confirms their bias.

Yep, and when Quinn decided to embrace his homosexuality, he started to see it in everyone else. Talk about confirming one's bias. @-)

He WAS a good historian when he was younger, I read a number of his books, but he isn't now. Are you familiar with his writings on homosexuality?

He wrote an article, "Male-male intimacy among nineteenth century mormons, a case study." And then there was his book, "Same-sex dynamics among nineteenth century Americans, A Mormon example".

Here's a review of his book.
http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publicat ... Mitton.pdf

After seeing how he distorted his references, I now read his writings with a big grain of salt and it has even made me question his earlier scholarship.

[Mark]

Gotta love Quinn, totally reliable, unbiased historian. Maybe. Best or worst Mormon historian of our time, depending on your paradigm and agenda. It's all good information though. Thanks.

I find him reliable, but that likely my biases coming through.

He seems like a legit and qualified historian, doing his due diligence.

But, like most things, people will see what confirms their bias.

Yep, and when Quinn decided to embrace his homosexuality, he started to see it in everyone else. Talk about confirming one's bias. @-)

He WAS a good historian when he was younger, I read a number of his books, but he isn't now. Are you familiar with his writings on homosexuality?

He wrote an article, "Male-male intimacy among nineteenth century mormons, a case study." And then there was his book, "Same-sex dynamics among nineteenth century Americans, A Mormon example".

Here's a review of his book.
http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publicat ... Mitton.pdf

After seeing how he distorted his references, I now read his writings with a big grain of salt and it has even made me question his earlier scholarship.

Joseph Smith summed it up:

“Strange as it may appear at first thought, yet it is no less strange than true, that notwithstanding all the professed determination to live godly, apostates after turning from the faith of Christ, unless they have speedily repented, have sooner or later fallen into the snares of the wicked one, and have been left destitute of the Spirit of God, to manifest their wickedness in the eyes of multitudes. From apostates the faithful have received the severest persecutions. Judas was rebuked and immediately betrayed his Lord into the hands of His enemies, because Satan entered into him.

“There is a superior intelligence bestowed upon such as obey the Gospel with full purpose of heart, which, if sinned against, the apostate is left naked and destitute of the Spirit of God, and he is, in truth, nigh unto cursing, and his end is to be burned. When once that light which was in them is taken from them they become as much darkened as they were previously enlightened, and then, no marvel, if all their power should be enlisted against the truth, and they, Judas-like, seek the destruction of those who were their greatest benefactors.

[Mark]

It's funny, huh, all the competing historical accounts? Whose story is accurate? Who was distorting and why? History = his story. You can almost believe whatever you want to believe when it comes to history. It's such a mess. That's why no one is thoroughly persuaded by historical arguments, because the reports are so scanty and so biased, depending on the individual observer/reporter. This is where I have to say, I lack the knowledge, facts, wisdom, and insight to really, truly, correctly decide based on the accounts. Maybe like Joseph felt with all the different denominations' various and conflicting interpretations of scripture. Peace and Love to all of you, though.

Thomas gave you the textbook arguments of the RLDS church as to why they were the 'true' church. Then, he used Hofmann forgeries to try to bolster the claims.

Some might wonder if we are now arguing whether the LDS church or the RLDS church is true. 8-|

Snuffer followers are simply dusting off these old claims to use again, because they support their views that the LDS church is not the Lord's true church.

Thank you for pointing that out AI2.0. I guess the end justifies the means right Thomas? NOT!

[A Random Phrase]

AI2.0, were they really Hoffman's forgeries? I thought the Church would have destroyed those. Or did Quinn write his history in between the Church buying them and Hoffman being found out? (Serious questions.)

[Thomas]

BTW, I never said the RLDS had the keys of the priesthood. I said Emma Smith thought Joseph III was the true successor. Hard to dispute that one and makes one wonder.

[Thomas]

I guess you think Hoffman forged the Temple lot trial testimony as well which also corroborates the January 1844 anointing. That and Joseph III testimony of the event plus Emma's. So what is it? Who is the liar? Cause somebody's lying.

[lemuel]

In this Council, Joseph Smith seemed somewhat depressed in spirit and [said]....
Brethren, the Lord bids me hasten the work in which we are engaged. He will not suffer that you should wait for your endowment until the Temple is done. Some important scene is near to take place. It may be that my enemies will kill me, and in case they should, and the keys and power which rest on me not be imparted to you, they will be lost from the Earth....
Upon the shoulders of the Twelve must the responsibility of leading this church hence forth rest until you shall appoint others to succeed you....

That would've made a really good addition to the D&C.

[AI2.0]

AI2.0, were they really Hoffman's forgeries? I thought the Church would have destroyed those. Or did Quinn write his history in between the Church buying them and Hoffman being found out? (Serious questions.)

Yes, they were. When I saw Thomas' post I went back to check the particulars of the Hofmann case. I read up a lot on it in years ago and I have a number of books on it, it was very interesting. The Joseph Smith III blessing is one that Hofmann admitted forging, he made it on March 2, 1981. He also admitted forging the Thomas Bullock to Brigham Young Letter, which made it sound like Pres. Young had destroyed copies of the blessing and tried to hide it--Mark Hofmann said he forged it on Sept. 4, 1981.
But, many of the forgeries made it into books and articles and so to this day, people are unaware they were forgeries. There was one book that told about how there are still clearly many of his forgeries out there that people don't know are not authentic. Quinn used those in books and articles that were written before they knew they were forgeries. For awhile, they did not know the extent of Hofmann's forgeries. I've found references to forgeries in books that were written at that time. I don't know if it's been edited but the Emma Smith book by Tippets and Avery (can't remember the name now) has some forgeries in the edition I own. Also, a book by Dean Jesse has some that I am aware of. They may have taken them out later--I don't know if there were later editions.

I don't think they destroyed them, I think they were used as evidence and they are probably kept someplace. Many of the forgeries ended up being traded for authentic things, so it is hard to follow the trail back to Hofmann.

[AI2.0]

I guess you think Hoffman forged the Temple lot trial testimony as well which also corroborates the January 1844 anointing. That and Joseph III testimony of the event plus Emma's. So what is it? Who is the liar? Cause somebody's lying.

Thomas, back off. Why don't you just admit when you are wrong and stop attacking and refusing to accept facts. Don't shoot the messenger.

Many made claims that Joseph Smith Jr. had blessed his son, and I don't doubt he did. They also claimed that he said things that corroborated the later claims that his son would succeed him, but there is no proof on paper--that is real. But, did Joseph set up a system which would ensure that his son succeeded him? NO, HE DID NOT. He could have, but he didn't, and so that is a big reason why the people followed Brigham Young and accepted him as Joseph's successor. It was disgruntled and ex-members who, years later, came to Jos. Smith III to try to get him to take his place at the head of their church, what became the RLDS.

Notice that Hofmann forged those things KNOWING that it was a sore spot--he took advantage of the claims of the RLDS to challenge the church's line of authority and he did so to damage the church.

Emma DID NOT want her son to be Prophet, and if you'd read up on this, you'd know. She was not supportive of this for a long time. She finally gave in when her son started to warm up to the idea and he was a grown man. Emma, I believe, wanted nothing to do with religion for a while because of what had happened to her. She did eventually give her blessing and even joined his church, I believe. But, who's the liar? Mark Hofmann was, he was the one who perpetuated a lie. Others wanted to believe certain things and they looked for anything they could use to support their claims.