LDS Freedom Forum

Thanks for the words Jesef. It did come off as quite hypocritical to me though based on some your posts on this thread.

If you feel like you are turning over a new leaf, then I commend you for it.

Thomas wrote:Thanks for the words Jesef. It did come off as quite hypocritical to me though based on some your posts on this thread.

If you feel like you are turning over a new leaf, then I commend you for it.

Exactly. Picture me reading that post to myself in the mirror as well. I should have phrased it differently, given the pattern of this and other discussions, instead of "Many people..."

And yes, I definitely hope it is a new and permanent leaf. Now, having taken a step back and looking at many of these discussions, this one being a prime example (and I started this street fight/rumble), you can see it is a fairly generally true observation as well. Debate and contention are the rulers of the day, not the pure love of Christ. I'm sick of it (literally, like food poisoning from bitter fruit). Furthermore, I see no one convinced that they are "wrong" - ha, ha. But I'll close by saying I have been wrong in many ways and about many things. Most of all losing sight of the heart/core of the Lord's teachings and gospel, as I've said. Peace.

Matthew.B wrote:

Jason wrote:All of the questions are relevant and to my knowledge not weighted in importance. Particularly regarding the covenants that one makes in the temple that relate to those questions.

I would argue that the Church has set the current leaders up as intermediaries between men and God, when the scriptures warn against doing that. I would go so far as to say that the leaders are PSR's in title and that it is their legal right to govern and preside over the Church, but that there is no real fruit of them being PSR's since there are no prophecies, visions, or revelations being related in Conference by them (I'm talking about the current state of affairs, not how things have been in the past). I would argue that the requirement to proclaim that you believe something without a reasonable witness is spiritually dangerous--especially when this proclamation is requisite to get the highest blessings or rewards promised by the Church.

Hence, I weigh my moral worthiness to attend the temple as being of far more import than whether I am willing to lie about my reasoned and reasonable beliefs regarding the Brethren.

Jason wrote:Alan "Rock" Waterman pushed his opinions publicly on his blog for a number of years before he finally got excommunicated. If you continue to push yours publicly...in time I would bet a penny to a dollar you'll be excommunicated as well. There are predictions of excommunication of Alan on this forum 3 years before he was excommunicated....and predictions for Denver Snuffer a year before he was excommunicated.

Its not an overnight process and lots of rope is given. The exclusion to that is if the person is currently serving in a leadership calling or as in Boo's case a temple worker. Denver was released from High Council (if I recall correctly) a year or two prior. Alan hardly ever attended church to begin with and to my knowledge didn't have a calling period.

If that is the result you are looking for...it seems you are on the right track.

I want to do as the Lord would do in my situation, and the servant is not greater than the Master. He was rejected and despised by His ecclesiastical leaders and those who followed them. If my lot is to be excommunicated for acting in harmony with my beliefs, then so be it--so long as I am morally clean, an excommunication would be of no effect on my spiritual state.

The danger I see is that you are rejecting the Lord's prophets because they don't 'prophesy' in a manner you would like. I see this attitude as prideful, and imprudent. The Lord warned us of rejecting his servants; "..the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;" D&C 1:14

As a member of the CofJCofLDS, you were taught the importance of Apostles, prophets, etc. You were taught that the Lord restored his church to be run by his priesthood authority. Unlike other religions which do not have living Prophets, LDS are taught these things and scriptures testify of this. As LDS members, we know the Lord never intended that we should reject his Prophets and rely solely on the Holy Ghost. If he only wanted you to rely on the Holy Ghost (or what you believe is the Holy Ghost) then why bother calling prophets. Prophets play a necessary part in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

This is one of the weakest areas of Denver Snuffer's religion he is teaching. Because he rejected the Prophets (except Joseph Smith...at least for now) and he doesn't consider himself a Prophet, then he's basically turning against a fundamental part of the LDS faith. Notice that the break off groups to the church have their prophets; Strang, Whitmer, Smith III, Billings, Rigdon, Jeffs, Harmston, LeBaron...et al. That's because they realized that any church that claims to be true, must have prophets and continuing revelation and it also must have authority from God.

You are hanging everything on this belief that the LDS church is in apostasy, but unlike the Jews in Jesus' day, you have no evidence to support this claim. If you really want to believe the LDS church is in apostasy, then you must believe that God would want to fix this and he would use prophets to do it. He won't rework his religion into something else, as Denver Snuffer is doing with the way he is developing a new religion, grown out of his own musings and his break with the LDS church.

AI2.0 wrote:The danger I see is that you are rejecting the Lord's prophets because they don't 'prophesy' in a manner you would like. I see this attitude as prideful, and imprudent. The Lord warned us of rejecting his servants; "..the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;" D&C 1:14

When the Brethren give an indication that they have received a bona fide message from God for us, I will be willing to accept it if the Spirit ratifies its truthfulness. This has not happened in a long, long time. Until then, I will continue in my belief that what they are doing now is offering expositions of scripture that is a mixture of the philosophies of men and scripture, since I can discover no argument, from men or God, that convinces me otherwise. I try to keep myself humble and accepting of everything good the leaders say, and there are still a lot of good things taught by them--things that the Spirit will witness are true. There are still many good things about the Church at the local level as well.

I don't believe the opinions and actions above stated constitute a rejection according to any enlightened and rational interpretation of the word, and I therefore think my current approach (if I can stick to it and not waver off due to pride) will keep me safe from being cut off from the word of the Lord.

I thank you for your words of concern, though.

AI2.0 wrote:You are hanging everything on this belief that the LDS church is in apostasy, but unlike the Jews in Jesus' day, you have no evidence to support this claim. If you really want to believe the LDS church is in apostasy, then you must believe that God would want to fix this and he would use prophets to do it.

If you carefully follow the narrative of the Restoration from the beginning up to this point, it is without question not where the Father wants it to be, yet.
The reason this is starting to become a strained topic of conversation is because there are people who are frightened by the truth of this position.
What should be clear from our narrative is that we were placed in the Garden of Eden in Jackson County Missouri and that we transgressed and were driven out into the lone and dreary wilderness and put under the buffetings of the adversary until our day of redemption. And, while in the wilderness we would undergo great trials and tribulations where the adversary would have the power to spoil us and take us for his prey for a season. Is it appropriate to call us in this situation of great peril an apostasy? Well, in a manner of speaking, that isn't an altogether inappropriate term to use. The best way to refer to it is that we are yet seeking our redemption so that we can overcome the buffeting of the adversary that has us where we are today.

Those who hush the concerns people have about our woeful condition by saying "all is well" are really just trying to "steady the ark" that the Lord knew would be unsteady for a season of time. It would be so much healthier if we simply acknowledged the awfulness of our situation but for whatever reason for the time being God is allowing the "all is well" mindset to run its course.

I believe the most mature way to handle this situation is to accept that for the time being Adam and Eve (us as the Priesthood and the Church) are undergoing serious buffetings and the adversary is doing all in his power to destroy us and that we are in desperate need of redemption. We have gone farther and farther from building up the Father's Celestial Kingdom based upon Celestial Law, but this is the only offering He will accept of us. If we do not build up Zion based upon Celestial Law then we will undoubtedly be rejected just as sure as Cain's offering was rejected. That is our situation.

This means we don't try and tell lies that "all is well" when it clearly is far from well.
This also means we don't get bitter and condemning of Eve during Her darkest hour.

We need to spiritually grow up and handle this like actual adults.
We should do our level best to keep the covenants we made with Christ when we joined the Church, no excuses.
Those covenants are not available anywhere else from any other source and to think otherwise is wishful thinking at best.
Eve was the vehicle organized in 1830 and She lives for nearly an entire millennia and is not replaced by another organization.
All offshoots from the Church are offspring of Adam and Eve and for the most part, other than Abel/Seth, they didn't fare well.

Denver Snuffer's movement is nothing more than an offshoot, but it is one that seeks to condemn its parents rather than redeem them.

Jason wrote: Probably leave you alone unless you are actively proselytizing to other members either directly or on the Internet. If Stake President finds out you are doing that and not keeping your beliefs to yourself...it has been my experience...excommunication shortly follows.

Dude you got exed?

Matthew.B wrote:

AI2.0 wrote:The danger I see is that you are rejecting the Lord's prophets because they don't 'prophesy' in a manner you would like. I see this attitude as prideful, and imprudent. The Lord warned us of rejecting his servants; "..the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;" D&C 1:14

When the Brethren give an indication that they have received a bona fide message from God for us, I will be willing to accept it if the Spirit ratifies its truthfulness. This has not happened in a long, long time. And why is that? What has changed? The church hasn't changed, so if you no longer feel the impressions of the spirit witnessing to you of truth, you should ask yourself why? Because there is an answer to this and you'll find it in the scriptures and in humble prayer.Until then, I will continue in my belief that what they are doing now is offering expositions of scripture that is a mixture of the philosophies of men and scripture, since I can discover no argument, from men or God, that convinces me otherwise. I try to keep myself humble and accepting of everything good the leaders say, and there are still a lot of good things taught by them--things that the Spirit will witness are true. There are still many good things about the Church at the local level as well. What I observe is that many who felt dissatisfied with the LDS church came to like what Denver Snuffer had to offer. It made them feel validated in their dissatisfaction and their criticisms and they abandoned the Lord's prophet to follow a man who even denies that he is a prophet--yet he claims to receive revelation and speak God's will? That doesn't even make sense. This is the definition of a prophet, yet he won't admit it because he's selling this idea that he's not actually 'guiding' his followers with his directives.

I don't believe the opinions and actions above stated constitute a rejection according to any enlightened and rational interpretation of the word, and I therefore think my current approach (if I can stick to it and not waver off due to pride) will keep me safe from being cut off from the word of the Lord.

I thank you for your words of concern, though.

Thank you for answering honestly, I appreciate your candor and hope for the best for you.

freedomforall wrote:Is there a Snuffer train to Denver? Or is there an outbound Denver train going somewhere with a load of people that have Snuffered enough?

AI2.0 wrote:

Matthew.B wrote:

AI2.0 wrote:The danger I see is that you are rejecting the Lord's prophets because they don't 'prophesy' in a manner you would like. I see this attitude as prideful, and imprudent. The Lord warned us of rejecting his servants; "..the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;" D&C 1:14

When the Brethren give an indication that they have received a bona fide message from God for us, I will be willing to accept it if the Spirit ratifies its truthfulness. This has not happened in a long, long time. And why is that? What has changed? The church hasn't changed, so if you no longer feel the impressions of the spirit witnessing to you of truth, you should ask yourself why? Because there is an answer to this and you'll find it in the scriptures and in humble prayer.

It's not that I haven't felt the Spirit testify to something taught by the Brethren--the Spirit will reaffirm testimonies of Christ and truth when it comes over the pulpit at General Conference and Church. I mean that there has been no claim of the receipt of revelation for a long, long time. For it to be real revelation given in the proper manner (that is, the manner we find in the scriptures and that Joseph was an example of) it would have to be plainly declared as such by the Brethren who would be able to give the message, explain how it was differentiated from their own thoughts, biases, and opinions, and would be able to elaborate on the specific events surrounding the receipt of the revelation. It would also have to be presented, in General Conference, as a bona fide revelation to the body of the Saints for approval or rejection. The last time this happened was the 1978 revelation where the Brethren received the revelation changing the Priesthood ban for blacks--but even that instance was almost underwhelming in that only a powerful feeling was mentioned in the President's official report, and none of the Brethren who felt the impression were given direct information by the Lord regarding the purpose for the ban. It was a wonderful experience, to be sure, and its fruits were good, but it was far from the clear and mighty revelations of Joseph Smith's day.

The Church is facing a multitude of issues today that could sorely benefit from the word of Jehovah--obvious things like homosexuality and gadiantons in the government but also bigger things, like further knowledge of how the heavens are structured--and yet the Brethren haven't said "thus saith the Lord" or an equivalent for a long time. There's been no real indication that the Lord actively talks to and leads the Brethren anymore outside of people's highly biased personal experiences. Maybe the fault is with the leaders, and maybe it's with the members. Maybe--and this makes more sense--the problem lies with the Church body as a whole, and both the membership and the leadership (which is invariably drawn from the membership) is under condemnation and laboring under a spirit of pride. The question I've been wondering for a while is how long can a Church body labor under this condemnation and accept the lesser portion of the word of God before being taken captive by the chains of hell (Alma 12:10-11)?

Don't you ever wonder why all this is so? It makes me sad. I want nothing more than to be able to see eye to eye with my family and my friends--my little sister has gone full atheist and is going down what I fear is a dark road. I long for a better situation where everyone knows the Lord and is shepherded by His care, and we can all live and grow together in Zion.

Anyway... Again, thanks for the concern. God bless you and yours, AI. Peace.

A Random Phrase wrote:

freedomforall wrote:Is there a Snuffer train to Denver? Or is there an outbound Denver train going somewhere with a load of people that have Snuffered enough?

My High Councilor said he heard Gladys Knight sing "He's leaving on a midnight train to Denver"

Matthew.B wrote:It's not that I haven't felt the Spirit testify to something taught by the Brethren--the Spirit will reaffirm testimonies of Christ and truth when it comes over the pulpit at General Conference and Church. I mean that there has been no claim of the receipt of revelation for a long, long time. For it to be real revelation given in the proper manner (that is, the manner we find in the scriptures and that Joseph was an example of) it would have to be plainly declared as such by the Brethren who would be able to give the message, explain how it was differentiated from their own thoughts, biases, and opinions, and would be able to elaborate on the specific events surrounding the receipt of the revelation. It would also have to be presented, in General Conference, as a bona fide revelation to the body of the Saints for approval or rejection.

It might help if you referred to this as a Celestial level ministration oracle as opposed to the more general term "revelation".

Matthew.B wrote:The last time this happened was the 1978 revelation where the Brethren received the revelation changing the Priesthood ban for blacks--but even that instance was almost underwhelming in that only a powerful feeling was mentioned in the President's official report, and none of the Brethren who felt the impression were given direct information by the Lord regarding the purpose for the ban. It was a wonderful experience, to be sure, and its fruits were good, but it was far from the clear and mighty revelations of Joseph Smith's day.

There was no oracle from the Lord that was given that was ever made public, if any existed at all.
When I read the narrative surrounding this it sounds more like the "ask and ye shall receive" principle at play.

Matthew.B wrote:The Church is facing a multitude of issues today that could sorely benefit from the word of Jehovah--obvious things like homosexuality and gadiantons in the government but also bigger things, like further knowledge of how the heavens are structured--and yet the Brethren haven't said "thus saith the Lord" or an equivalent for a long time. There's been no real indication that the Lord actively talks to and leads the Brethren anymore outside of people's highly biased personal experiences. Maybe the fault is with the leaders, and maybe it's with the members. Maybe--and this makes more sense--the problem lies with the Church body as a whole, and both the membership and the leadership (which is invariably drawn from the membership) is under condemnation and laboring under a spirit of pride. The question I've been wondering for a while is how long can a Church body labor under this condemnation and accept the lesser portion of the word of God before being taken captive by the chains of hell (Alma 12:10-11)?

We are definitely under condemnation for our neglect of the "former commandments" and for taking the Book of Mormon lightly.
There hasn't been an oracle received ever since Celestial Plural Marriage and United Orders were rejected and no longer allowed.
Our loss of these things was not the fault of the leaders. Rather, it was because the people were contemptuous towards them both.

Matthew.B wrote: Don't you ever wonder why all this is so? It makes me sad.

I hear you 100%.

Matthew.B wrote: I want nothing more than to be able to see eye to eye with my family and my friends--my little sister has gone full atheist and is going down what I fear is a dark road. I long for a better situation where everyone knows the Lord and is shepherded by His care, and we can all live and grow together in Zion.

Amen.

And, so long as religious people trench in and hide behind pride and self-righteousness this trend will only worsen.

I'm going to start using "oracle" to begin describing what I mean above. Thanks for the advice, jwharton!

I don't think that the way the Church practiced polygamy was wholesome or of God, but I do agree that there hasn't been any real oracles received since it was abandoned. Whether that was a result of abandoning a true principle that God wanted to be lived or the way in which it was done--the Manifesto being a kind of smokescreen and deception--I cannot say.

Apply the book of Mormon to us...apply Isaiah to us... apply Joseph Smiths and Brigham Youngs teachings to us ...look at what is said about us...let's be honest... let the scriptures tell us what their saying to us in these latter days...what seems to be the picture?....It seems to me that unless us gentiles repent we will suffer the consequences. ...seems we are already suffering some of the consequences....but do we or have we repented? (Speaking as a whole and not individually )...I just see us being lifted up more and more in pride....we could quote a tremendous amount scriptures....but all is absolutely not well in " Zion"... in fact it is tragic how much of a decadent society we have become....so I say that we MUST repent or us gentiles are going to reap the whirlwind...

lemuel wrote:

Jason wrote: Probably leave you alone unless you are actively proselytizing to other members either directly or on the Internet. If Stake President finds out you are doing that and not keeping your beliefs to yourself...it has been my experience...excommunication shortly follows.

Dude you got exed?

Nah...observation experience

Matthew.B wrote:I'm going to start using "oracle" to begin describing what I mean above. Thanks for the advice, jwharton!

You are welcome.

Matthew.B wrote:I don't think that the way the Church practiced polygamy was wholesome or of God, but I do agree that there hasn't been any real oracles received since it was abandoned.

I am also of the belief that there were injustices and improprieties in how plural marriage was being implemented by many when it was allowed. And, this perversion of it from what the Lord truly intended contributed significantly to the revulsion many came to have for it. Their revulsion wasn't always without justification.

For example, I am definitely opposed to what it has become in the current FLDS system where women are treated far beneath their dignity and their rights.

I don't preclude there being other reasons for it than the means of providing for widows and orphans, but this need alone deems it a necessity. I can easily demonstrate how this is a necessity, but you have to be able to look at things in the eternal perspective to see it.

Of a certainty, there isn't a single woman who should ever be pressed into it because someone else had a revelation claiming her. In all cases where it does happen it should always be upon the basis that the woman has had a revelation and witness of her very own, unless she has explicitly requested assistance from the priesthood.

The Lord meant exactly what he said when he charged the Nephites with abomination because they were laying it in their heart to take the young and tender daughters as captives. In other words, they were intent upon dictating to those girls to whom they should be married, thus captivating them. Whether it is done on an individual basis or whether you attempt to create a cultural mindset to "normalize it" by brainwashing the result is the same. It is an abomination in the sight of the Lord and a perversion of the good intent and purpose for which some are guided to enter into it.

Matthew.B wrote:Whether that was a result of abandoning a true principle that God wanted to be lived or the way in which it was done--the Manifesto being a kind of smokescreen and deception--I cannot say.

The facts certainly suggest that it was a smokescreen. It was always done by the priesthood and so the priesthood continued for many years to perform plural marriages. This is why there was eventually what is called the second manifesto. This is when it became a serious matter and people started getting systematically excommunicated for it.

Jesef wrote:Yes, many of their testimonies of Christ have been confirmed by the power of the holy ghost. They invariably testify of Christ and His teachings and His doctrine. If there's stuff mixed in there that shouldn't be, I leave it to the Lord. They've never shut up the heavens against me - they can't (they would have to teach me that the heavens are closed, or only open to them, or something like that - and then I would have to choose to believe that - they never have, not that I've interpreted anyway). I'm unwilling to condemn them with no evidence (or lack of evidence and a standard being imposed). And I prefer not to be subject to a potentially unjust judgment that I might pass on them. I leave them and everyone else to the Lord. I'm not their Master or Lord or Judge. It's not my House or my Church. The Lord will set it in order or pour out judgments upon it, as he sees fit. Our status before the Lord truly is on an individual basis - we don't pass through the veil as a group. If the leaders have sinned, it hasn't hurt me, and if they have sinned against me, I freely forgive them as I wish to be forgiven. I have not been called to, nor given the proper revelation, to call them to repentance, if repentance they need. There's wheat and tares, wise and foolish, good and bad. I just get to choose which kind I am. If I possess charity, it will be well with me. Anyway, you get what I mean.

Jesef, I am just months into my investigation of Brother Denver Snuffer and just discovered this post. I'm a veteran Mormon convert, have had many sacred experiences with the Holy Ghost, am an "expert" if you will on the BoM and know the other scriptures quite well.

I thank you for publicizing your email exchange with Brother Snuffer. You seemed to be sincere in your questioning and seeking. I've only read a few pages of this lengthy blog discussion, but wanted to make a few comments.

Compared to Brother Snuffer's writings and testimonies, I can't concur that LDS apostles (the living ones anyway) have "powerful testimonies of Christ." You say they've not shut up the heavens against you (in response to the NT quote above), but my comment is this. I joined the Church many years ago as an adult convert, and started to pray for the first time in my life. I had many glorious experiences, including a baptism of fire which erased all doubt of the truthfulness of the BoM. But in the 2+ decades since my first 2-3 years (which included a full-time mission), I must acknowledge the truth. This is a testimony as well as a confession. My time spent in studying the scriptures and General Conference talks is way out of balance compared to the time I've spent praying. As in, the ratio is something like 99.99 to 0.01, in favor of time studying the scriptures/ General Conference talks (mainly scriptures). I take responsibility for my actions, but I should give credit to whom credit is due.

It wasn't until I heard Denver's testimony and exhortations that I realized I've been practicing an heinous form of idolatry, meaning I've put men before the Lord. I had trusted they couldn't lead me astray. I'd hitched my wagon to the GA's, so to speak. I had even held up the scriptures as an idol, but even Jesus rebukes the scriptures (John 5:39). Eternal life comes from knowing Christ, from knowing His Father, and not from the Scriptures, per se. I can truly say that I'm praying more to Heavenly Father now, than I have in many, many years. This is IN PART because the heavens HAD been shut up by the poor-quality teachings of our apostles over the years. The quality, on the other hand, of Br. Snuffer's teachings appear as precious gold compared to the commonplace limestone rock that I've received from the apostles. Is the gap in quality unrecognizable to you? It seems self-evident to me, and if you don't see it, then obviously there's no point debating with you. I look at the knowledge given by Br. Snuffer has precious and invaluable gifts from heaven, but if you think it's more of the same run-of-the-mill teachings from General Conference, then we agree to disagree. Again, I haven't read enough to know your thoughts fully on the matter. It does appear that you're not able or willing to pass judgment on either. Your lukewarm on the matter, or indecisive, it seems to me.

You said you're unwilling to pass judgment on the LDS hierarchy. Fair enough. I understand where you're coming from -- that you don't want to end up being judged yourself. But we are commanded to make judgments. Christ said judge prophets by their fruits. The LDS hierarchy, post Joseph Smith, has no fruits that persuade one to believe they are true prophets, seers, revelators. If you're aware of a fruit of any such leader, please make it known. Denver's fruit is his message and his testimony of the Risen Lord.

You said, "The Lord will set it in order or pour out judgments upon it, as he sees fit." Indeed! Brother Snuffer said he was commanded to read these scriptures from Ezek 33: "I will lay the land most desolate, and the pomp of her strength shall cease; and the mountains of Israel shall be desolate...then shall they know that I am the Lord, when I have laid the land most desolate because of their abominations which they have committed....And when this cometh to pass (lo, it will come,) then shall they know that a prophet hath been among them." So Br Snuffer has issued the famous Amos 3:7 warning here, "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." He has warned the Lord is about to pour out judgments, as he sees fit.

You say, "If the leaders have sinned, it hasn't hurt me." That's a very charitable and non judgmental statement. I respect you for that. But what if you don't know what you don't know? One can't be saved in ignorance. So you and me and all of us in the LDS Church may have been damned by what we don't know. On the other hand, how beautiful upon the mountains should we regard the feet of whom publisheth salvation and saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth! I believe Denver is a true messenger, despite his imperfections and weaknesses.

The evidence of LDS hierarchy apostasy is overwhelming, including these verifiable facts: spending $5-10 billion of sacred tithing money on a mall, fraudulently refilming and posting the spliced, edited version at http://www.lds.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; of Elder Poelman's 1984 GC talk, excommunicating true believers of Jesus Christ like Denver Snuffer and many others, frequently teaching the arm-of-flesh precept that the Brethren can't lead us astray, etc.). The best evidence FOR Denver Snuffer being a true messenger is the Holy Ghost testifying of such. Short of that, what he says makes complete sense and is backed up fully by Scripture. He is a modern-day Joseph Smith, Jr.

Anyone who still claims the mall was built with tithing funds is dishonest at best. An example of an agenda driven post is ^^^.
All those so called verifiable facts against the church have been either debunked or shown in the full light of correct context.

Snuffer is a modern day lucifer leading the weak astray.

Oh shadow, since the books are closed and the tithing slip says

"Though reasonable efforts will be made globally to use donations as designated, all donations become the Church's property and will be used at the Church's sole discretion to further the Church's overall mission."

you really don't know either.

Of course the bigger question is, regardless of where the funding is coming from, why is the Church of Christ financing a high end mall in the first place? Cui bono? What were the opportunity costs?

Heroic are those who expose hidden things of darkness...unless its against my religion. D Michael Quinn's forthcoming The Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth and Corporate Power ought to be a fun ride.

Separatist wrote:Oh shadow, since the books are closed and the tithing slip says

"Though reasonable efforts will be made globally to use donations as designated, all donations become the Church's property and will be used at the Church's sole discretion to further the Church's overall mission."

you really don't know either.

No, I don't know the details, but I do know this-
"The church is undertaking a huge development project in the interest of protecting the environment of Temple Square. While the costs will be great, it will not involve the expenditure of tithing funds." Pres. Hinckley
Maybe you don't believe him, but I do.

And if the 1-3 billion dollar mall gives reason to doubt, I suspect all of todays doubters would've left Joseph in a heart beat for his business ventures. When that bank failed, many were sifted and left the church. I consider many here as ones sifted out, just the same as in Joseph's time.

Separatist wrote:
Of course the bigger question is, regardless of where the funding is coming from, why is the Church of Christ financing a high end mall in the first place? Cui bono? What were the opportunity costs?

The opportunity costs? I don't know- 1700 jobs were created. The missed opportunity I guess was more on the welfare rolls??

shadow wrote:

Separatist wrote:Oh shadow, since the books are closed and the tithing slip says

"Though reasonable efforts will be made globally to use donations as designated, all donations become the Church's property and will be used at the Church's sole discretion to further the Church's overall mission."

you really don't know either.

No, I don't know the details, but I do know this-
"The church is undertaking a huge development project in the interest of protecting the environment of Temple Square. While the costs will be great, it will not involve the expenditure of tithing funds." Pres. Hinckley
Maybe you don't believe him, but I do.

And if the 1-3 billion dollar mall gives reason to doubt, I suspect all of todays doubters would've left Joseph in a heart beat for his business ventures. When that bank failed, many were sifted and left the church. I consider many here as ones sifted out, just the same as in Joseph's time.

I heard that the funds were derived from the interest return from having tithing parked in an interest bearing deposit of some kind.
So, when you look at things in terms of opportunity cost, how much money was parked for how long in order to earn billions of dollars in interest?

You assume what you heard is correct. Probably not a good idea.

When it comes to accounting, the church cannot comingle not for profit funds with for profit funds. It's a HUUUUGE accounting error.

Fact is the church gets funds from multiple sources. Some tithing, some fast offerings, some profits from for profit corps (the church owns a bunch of them), and other donations like being the beneficiaries of wills, estates, life insurance policies and so on.

shadow wrote: No, I don't know the details, but I do know this-
"The church is undertaking a huge development project in the interest of protecting the environment of Temple Square. While the costs will be great, it will not involve the expenditure of tithing funds." Pres. Hinckley
Maybe you don't believe him, but I do.

That's nice, but as PHP, he really should have backed up his words with verifiable proof, especially in an institution that is supposed to be governed by common consent. That is generally what honest and decent people do, not a "you can trust me" bit (though I guess they count on most people biting), especially from a person couched in the cloth and with title. This is irresponsible membership on your part. You have responsibility, and it's not just to say, "yes sir".

shadow wrote:And if the 1-3 billion dollar mall gives reason to doubt, I suspect all of todays doubters would've left Joseph in a heart beat for his business ventures. When that bank failed, many were sifted and left the church. I consider many here as ones sifted out, just the same as in Joseph's time.

Perhaps your flow of sifting is the opposite you think it is. And perhaps those "sifted", as you affectionately call them, are actually sheep scattered by the shepherds.

And perhaps pretending to know who's been sifted is a pretty sad state of mind. Believe me, I'm a recovering pretender myself.

shadow wrote:You assume what you heard is correct. Probably not a good idea.

When it comes to accounting, the church cannot comingle not for profit funds with for profit funds. It's a HUUUUGE accounting error.

Fact is the church gets funds from multiple sources. Some tithing, some fast offerings, some profits from for profit corps (the church owns a bunch of them), and other donations like being the beneficiaries of wills, estates, life insurance policies and so on.

I don't assume it is correct. I also think it unwise to assume it is false as well.
That's why I said "I heard" so that it would be clear it is something unconfirmed.

Which is of greater value to Zion's safety and welfare?

The "tower" we were supposed to build or giving our money over to the exchangers?

Which does D&C 101 say we will do?

The criticism I see being put forward is right on par with the message of Section 101.

shadow wrote:

Separatist wrote:
Of course the bigger question is, regardless of where the funding is coming from, why is the Church of Christ financing a high end mall in the first place? Cui bono? What were the opportunity costs?

The opportunity costs? I don't know- 1700 jobs were created. The missed opportunity I guess was more on the welfare rolls??

Or perhaps not helping to take care of malnourished children already on the rolls and instead feeding them nonsense that sending money to SLC FIRST is greater than having a meal on a regular basis.