LDS Freedom Forum

From what I recall in past discussions about this, it was related to a parking ticket.

Meh, Joseph Smith was in many prisons.

Jesef wrote:Btw, this also relates to one of the major reasons I jumped off the Denver Snuffer train, so to speak: which was that Denver never gave a bona fide prophecy (prophet) or revelation (revelator) from the Lord, nor did he translate or relate a vision from the Lord (seer) that seemed applicable or commensurate with his paradigm-shifting/world-changing message - all the details of the revelations that he claimed as the foundation of his message were kept hidden. He dictated nothing (that I could tell) - but rather cast sort of a blanket statement over his 10 talks that they basically came from the Lord.

Is there anyone alive today (or within recent years) that has fulfilled the role of PSR?

Stahura,

The reddit post I point to makes the same point you do. I'm not saying being booked in a detention center is some disqualifier - I'm just trying to gather information. When I saw that the man had his liberty deprived due to one reason or another, it seemed worth it to ask "why?" and see if this was something that had already been addressed. It seems that it might have been based on BrianM's answer...

BrianM,

Do people get arrested for parking tickets? Yikes. I'm going to have to keep that in mind...

I'll dig around and see if I can find any of those old threads. I'm interested in getting the rest of the story, so to speak.

If you have any idea what the threads were called, let me know. Any and all help appreciated.

I just know that someone who is a P.I. looked into it (because people were curious, just as you are) and found what the actual charge was and it was related to a parking ticket (or speeding ticket, something insignificant like that).

EDIT: Okay, I found the old post:

source wrote:I did some additional checking on this - I was wrong, that photo is of him. He is obviously much younger and with hair. That "mugshot" was taken when he was booked for failure to appear for a speeding ticket. There ya go.... Denver is a criminal.

Jules was a PI?

Am I reading that right?? A private investigator looked into Snuffer's arrest? And I thought I was nuts!

Thanks BrianM for saving me the time in having to dig that out.

Outside of that question, here's one of those inconsistencies I think others are referring to...

In the little time I've been studying his work, I can see Denver has a great respect for the Lectures on Faith, even to the point of condemning The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for removing it from the canon. So I was confused when I read, from the Lectures on Faith:

"for when faith comes, it brings its train of attendants with it—apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, gifts, wisdom, knowledge, miracles, healings, tongues, interpretation of tongues, etc. All these appear when faith appears on the earth, and disappear when it disappears from the earth. For these are the effects of faith and always have, and always will attend it.

And yet, from everything I can gather, Snuffer is out there saying that the prophets and apostles of the LDS church aren't legitimate (although that seems to be a somewhat new stance - since October 2014 I think?). He also goes to great lengths to say *he's* not a prophet - apparently he's just a teacher who prophecies, reveals new truths, and sees future events. I haven't heard anything about apostles in the new Snufferite fellowshippy non-institutionalized preservation of the restoration. So where's the cheese? Joseph says it's a cause and effect relationship: faith leads to prophets and apostles. Snuffer's movement hasn't got the promised blessings, and so I must conclude that (if Joseph is right, and according to Snuffer, he is) Snuffer and his movement don't have faith.

I anticipate finding many more of these types of issues. Sounding certain when putting forth an incomplete and sometimes even false argument is a skill that some lawyers consider an art form. For us mere mortals it can be very difficult to look past the rhetoric and "prove the man" when everything he's saying confirms our biases and feels like the balm of Gilead being tenderly applied to our wounded souls. I know that's a blanket statement and I do apologize if I offend in saying it. I don't mean it to apply to all, and I fully acknowledge that I know very little regarding Mr. Snuffer, and that further evidence may vindicate him.

Here's the best teaching I've seen from Snuffer so far:

"What I have written is taken from the scriptures, primarily the Book of Mormon. If you understood the scriptures you wouldn’t even need what I’ve written."

Here's what Snuffer left out: You don't need his writings to understand the scriptures. Let me say that again. Nobody needs Denver Snuffer's writings to understand the scriptures. Would anybody, even those who believe him to be who he says he is, say otherwise? He may think you do, and you may think you do, too, but you don't. Pray about that, and I testify to you that you'll know the truthfulness of it. Then discard this man and do what Denver Snuffer pretended he wanted you to do in the first place: read your scriptures, pray, rely on GOD to give you the answers you need, and then do what HE says.

Phew. That's not what I intended on writing when I started this post. I think I just answered the question in the post title without knowing I was going to do it. I think I'm going to stand by while the Snuffer Express rolls by, and try to see if I can help any of my brothers and sisters who have forgotten whom they ought to rely on when looking for truth.

Okay, so I'm a researcher in my core and so I just had to go look at the thread BrianM provided. Is "Jules", as you all call her, still around, or reachable? I'd have to say that if I were a judge, the "evidence" provided was far from conclusive. It appears that:

1) JulesGP starts off by saying that she's met the man, and that he looks NOTHING like the man in the mugshot. (HUMOR: Maybe it's because when she met him he had the countenance of Joseph Smith fall over him?)
2) Then she recants and says she "did some more checking", that the photo IS of him, but that he was booked for failure to appear for a speeding ticket. She provides no evidence that this is the case, as though her "checking" should be sufficient proof that her claim is true.
3) In the same breath she makes a remark to minimize the event... "There ya go... Denver is a criminal". Interestingly, even that last comment isn't verifiable. While there's a mugshot of Denver Snuffer in the public record, that doesn't mean he wasn't falsely accused, or found not guilty on the charges. If either of those are true, he's not a criminal. If he was found guilty or agreed to a plea deal then I guess Jules was right - he is, quite literally, a criminal. A criminal who had to be apprehended and booked into a detention center in order for the presiding authorities to be able to execute justice in relation to his crime.

So here we have a sympathetic witness who doesn't recognize the suspect but claims to have knowledge of what the charges were because she "did some checking on it".

I'm surprised it worries his followers so little that Mr. Snuffer has so little regard for the rule of law. If Jules is to be believed, Mr. Snuffer found it unnecessary to follow the law when it was inconvenient for him to do so (perhaps more than once, because there was the parking ticket that caused the whole mess too. Did he park in a handicap spot? Put his Harley on the sidewalk? We don't know until we know). He's a lawyer, right? I'm pretty sure he knew what the consequences of failing to appear would be if he got caught. If I were just starting to learn about him (which I am), and I found out he had been arrested because he chose not to follow the law of the land (not once, but twice, in an escalating pattern), and then I saw that he had been excommunicated from the church because he failed to respect the authority of those he acknowledged in the public record as those who had authority over him (which, to be honest, I completely sympathize with), I might start thinking, "Hmmm, why is it that this guy thinks that the rules don't apply to him? Does he think he's above the law? Or that he IS the law?"

I might also point out that his followers' level of concern might reach a higher level if we were talking about oh, I don't know, Thomas S. Monson. "How could a man be a prophet of God," I hear the voices swell, "if he's so untrustworthy? So arrogant?" And perhaps "Why didn't he tell us everything about this? He's our PROPHET, for crying out loud. Why is he trying to keep secrets from us?"

And to end my pointings-out I will just say to those of you who are going to say "But JOSEPH SMITH was thrown in jail many times!" I say "you're right!" I'll leave it up to you to decide if the circumstances surrounding Smith's and Snuffer's arrests are analogous or not.

Some may say that Mr. Snuffer's character isn't fair game. But Mr. Snuffer has chosen to make himself a public figure, and no matter what those named Clinton might say, the character of a public figure is, at the very least, on display. The display of Mr. Snuffer's character comes in the form of a mugshot, tangible evidence that he has a limited ability to manage his own affairs and/or a disrespect for the rule of law.

So Jules, if you're still around, I'd be interested to see the evidence you gathered that led you to the conclusion that this mugshot was a result of an arrest for failure to appear. Even better, I'd like Mr. Snuffer to address it himself. Because if you, Jules, just asked Snuffer himself, I think most everyone would agree that asking the criminal what crime he committed may not always result in an honest answer. Real bookings have real case numbers assigned to them, and real case numbers (995005153 in this case) lead to certain knowledge of what the real charges were (which may in actuality be exactly what Jules say they were - no one's calling anyone a liar here).

Oh, And that SOID (238118)? That's real, too. It's the same number he'll be known by if he ever has the pleasure of being arrested in SLC again. Anyone seen that birth certificate, er, I mean, paperwork?

endlessismyname - I definitely appreciate your pragmatic and sound reasoning thus far.

brlenox wrote:endlessismyname - I definitely appreciate your pragmatic and sound reasoning thus far.

I wish you were that nice to me

Stahura wrote:

brlenox wrote:endlessismyname - I definitely appreciate your pragmatic and sound reasoning thus far.

I wish you were that nice to me

Do you bake brownies?

brlenox,

I appreciate that.

Here's a scripture I found tonight as I was trying to sort through what's going on in my heart and mind. It's part of Mosiah 27:14.

"for he has prayed with much faith concerning thee that thou mightest be brought to the knowledge of the truth; therefore, for this purpose have I come to convince thee of the power and authority of God, that the prayers of his servants might be answered according to their faith."

I want Denver Snuffer and all of those who believe he is a messenger from God to know that my prayers are "that they might be brought to the knowledge of the truth". I don't make any claim to know where that will land them - my quest for the truth hasn't landed me anywhere but in deep, hot water. I will only say that I have found more truth in the Book of Mormon than I have in any other book I've read, and I've read a few.

I hope that as this unfolds, Snuffer and his followers* will offer the same prayer for me. I could use those prayers and I assure you, my most sincere desire is to be brought to a knowledge of the truth, and to return to live with my Father and Heaven again someday. All those involved in this controversy believe in prayer, we all believe in faith, and we all talk openly about the power and authority of God. Let's all pray for ourselves and one another and let God do His work. He will answer our prayers according to our faith, and I believe that in time it will be made manifest to each of us where the power and authority of God resides today.

Tonight I invite Denver Snuffer to come and reason with me, as one man reasoneth with another. Let's lay our cases out and expose ourselves to the critical examination of our teachings and claims. Let's stop telling people they don't need us out of one side of our mouth while giving them counsel and direction out of the other. Let's answer questions forthrightly and honestly, and let the light shine on all our dealings so all can discern truth from error.

If he agrees to participate in the dialogue I will take the position that Mr. Snuffer entered into the public record himself:

"What I (Denver Snuffer) have written is taken from the scriptures, primarily the Book of Mormon. If you understood the scriptures you wouldn’t even need what I’ve written." (my parentheses)

I will argue, as I did above, that nobody needs Denver Snuffer's writings or teachings to understand the scriptures and that therefore, there is no need for him to continue writing, teaching, preaching, or leading others.

He may argue the opposite point of view (that his voice is necessary to help others understand the scriptures), or, if he desires he may forfeit the point and argue that his former words are null and void and that his presence is now indispensable and his voice necessary in order for others to gain their salvation.

Anyone have Denver's number?

-----------------------------
*I'm just going to call those that follow Snuffer's counsel his followers unless somebody can give me a better way of saying it. I know Snuffer says he "doesn't know that he has a following", but it seems as plain as day to me that there are those who look to him as their leader. Which again, makes me wonder - what is it like to think of yourself as a follower of somebody who is constantly telling you what to do, when to do it, and how it ought to be done, but won't acknowledge the true nature of your relationship with him in public?)

endlessismyname wrote:brlenox,

I appreciate that.

Here's a scripture I found tonight as I was trying to sort through what's going on in my heart and mind. It's part of Mosiah 27:14.

"for he has prayed with much faith concerning thee that thou mightest be brought to the knowledge of the truth; therefore, for this purpose have I come to convince thee of the power and authority of God, that the prayers of his servants might be answered according to their faith."

I want Denver Snuffer and all of those who believe he is a messenger from God to know that my prayers are "that they might be brought to the knowledge of the truth". I don't make any claim to know where that will land them - my quest for the truth hasn't landed me anywhere but in deep, hot water. I will only say that I have found more truth in the Book of Mormon than I have in any other book I've read, and I've read a few.

I hope that as this unfolds, Snuffer and his followers* will offer the same prayer for me. I could use those prayers and I assure you, my most sincere desire is to be brought to a knowledge of the truth, and to return to live with my Father and Heaven again someday. All those involved in this controversy believe in prayer, we all believe in faith, and we all talk openly about the power and authority of God. Let's all pray for ourselves and one another and let God do His work. He will answer our prayers according to our faith, and I believe that in time it will be made manifest to each of us where the power and authority of God resides today.

Tonight I invite Denver Snuffer to come and reason with me, as one man reasoneth with another. Let's lay our cases out and expose ourselves to the critical examination of our teachings and claims. Let's stop telling people they don't need us out of one side of our mouth while giving them counsel and direction out of the other. Let's answer questions forthrightly and honestly, and let the light shine on all our dealings so all can discern truth from error.

If he agrees to participate in the dialogue I will take the position that Mr. Snuffer entered into the public record himself:

"What I (Denver Snuffer) have written is taken from the scriptures, primarily the Book of Mormon. If you understood the scriptures you wouldn’t even need what I’ve written." (my parentheses)

I will argue, as I did above, that nobody needs Denver Snuffer's writings or teachings to understand the scriptures and that therefore, there is no need for him to continue writing, teaching, preaching, or leading others.

He may argue the opposite point of view (that his voice is necessary to help others understand the scriptures), or, if he may forfeit the point and argue that his former words are null and void and that his presence is now indispensable and his voice necessary in order for others to gain their salvation.

Anyone have Denver's number?

-----------------------------
*I'm just going to call those that follow Snuffer's counsel his followers unless somebody can give me a better way of saying it. I know Snuffer says he "doesn't know that he has a following", but it seems as plain as day to me that there are those who look to him as their leader. Which again, makes me wonder - what is it like to think of yourself as a follower of somebody who is constantly telling you what to do, when to do it, and how it ought to be done, but won't acknowledge the true nature of your relationship with him in public?)

Number no, but he sometimes responds to emails. I think he has it somewhere on his blog. I don't think any of his "followers" Are on this forum anymore.

An email address, then? And where do his followers spend time? I'll post the same there, or at least a cross-post link so others can read it here...

EDIT: I'm happy to have this dialogue with any of Denver's followers as well. I'm not quite sure the man himself will have or make time for me...

Stahura wrote:

brlenox wrote:endlessismyname - I definitely appreciate your pragmatic and sound reasoning thus far.

I wish you were that nice to me

I'm at 1499 posts and I would like to end the day with a 1500...so a note. As I have often stated I like you fine. In fact, I have put much effort into striving to provide persuasive and well researched material together in order to appeal to the fact that you still seem to be somewhere between the two camps of "for the brethren" or "against"...On the fence if you will. (Sadly tipping to the “against” side it seems)

The whole Amonhi Tithing and 102 threads...my contributions were specifically with you in mind. You were the tangible recipient, though I always hope to provide an offset for those who lurk and do not participate so that at least there is another perspective to consider. The simple summation of all of the conversation is very simple, if you maintain a respectful sustainment of the brethren you maintain a standard by which to measure who it is that you allow to persuade your "affections". My frustrations with you are you do not understand that imperative and you are willing to step over a multitude of clear and evident indications from scripture and prophetic utterance that should be persuasive but as of yet does not seem to be of significance to you.

There is a continuous scriptural pattern that every generation has a group that can only sustain dead prophets. They cannot see that the warnings of the Savior concerning such might actually be applicable in this day and age, and in fact themselves.

So you should not mistake my fervor as animosity - although one might think that as a beekeeper I would perhaps apply a bit more honey, it is not in my nature, nor do I think it appropriate to stand idly by while many attempt to dissuade others from following the servants of the Lord. The whole argument of “I follow Christ and no one else” is a paradoxical deception if one truly comprehends Christ’s own words as recorded in D & C 1.

Anyway…I’m not particularly focused on specific doctrinal differences people may have but I tend to become very challenging to those who would try to move others away from the safety of an appropriate sustainment of the brethren.

endlessismyname wrote:brlenox,

I appreciate that.

Here's a scripture I found tonight as I was trying to sort through what's going on in my heart and mind. It's part of Mosiah 27:14.

"for he has prayed with much faith concerning thee that thou mightest be brought to the knowledge of the truth; therefore, for this purpose have I come to convince thee of the power and authority of God, that the prayers of his servants might be answered according to their faith."

I want Denver Snuffer and all of those who believe he is a messenger from God to know that my prayers are "that they might be brought to the knowledge of the truth". I don't make any claim to know where that will land them - my quest for the truth hasn't landed me anywhere but in deep, hot water. I will only say that I have found more truth in the Book of Mormon than I have in any other book I've read, and I've read a few.

I hope that as this unfolds, Snuffer and his followers* will offer the same prayer for me. I could use those prayers and I assure you, my most sincere desire is to be brought to a knowledge of the truth, and to return to live with my Father and Heaven again someday. All those involved in this controversy believe in prayer, we all believe in faith, and we all talk openly about the power and authority of God. Let's all pray for ourselves and one another and let God do His work. He will answer our prayers according to our faith, and I believe that in time it will be made manifest to each of us where the power and authority of God resides today.

Tonight I invite Denver Snuffer to come and reason with me, as one man reasoneth with another. Let's lay our cases out and expose ourselves to the critical examination of our teachings and claims. Let's stop telling people they don't need us out of one side of our mouth while giving them counsel and direction out of the other. Let's answer questions forthrightly and honestly, and let the light shine on all our dealings so all can discern truth from error.

If he agrees to participate in the dialogue I will take the position that Mr. Snuffer entered into the public record himself:

"What I (Denver Snuffer) have written is taken from the scriptures, primarily the Book of Mormon. If you understood the scriptures you wouldn’t even need what I’ve written." (my parentheses)

I will argue, as I did above, that nobody needs Denver Snuffer's writings or teachings to understand the scriptures and that therefore, there is no need for him to continue writing, teaching, preaching, or leading others.

He may argue the opposite point of view (that his voice is necessary to help others understand the scriptures), or, if he desires he may forfeit the point and argue that his former words are null and void and that his presence is now indispensable and his voice necessary in order for others to gain their salvation.

Anyone have Denver's number?

-----------------------------
*I'm just going to call those that follow Snuffer's counsel his followers unless somebody can give me a better way of saying it. I know Snuffer says he "doesn't know that he has a following", but it seems as plain as day to me that there are those who look to him as their leader. Which again, makes me wonder - what is it like to think of yourself as a follower of somebody who is constantly telling you what to do, when to do it, and how it ought to be done, but won't acknowledge the true nature of your relationship with him in public?)

Looks like 1501 posts now... oh well it was such a nice rounded number - can't last forever.


If you make just a touch of effort, I am sure that you will be able to get in touch with him. He is a very affable and charming fellow. Perhaps you can glean a bit of his nature from his presence on the web. If you have not found these yet here are some options:

Current:
http://denversnuffer.com/

Historical:
http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/searc ... results=11

As I do not know you or the nature of your testimony, I can only add that I was, prior to his excommunication one of the more ardent against Denver Snuffer. After his excommunication, I figure - if folks can't read the tea leaves nothing I can say will be of any more persuasive value. I have read his books and in the beginning found little to disagree with. However, after a fashion I owe him somewhat of a debt of gratitude. I began to learn to follow the cautious whisperings of the spirit far more clearly as I observed his transition.

If you should meet with him, it is not his words, or the demeanor of graciousness that he presents that you might should pay attention to but is instead the nature of his relationship with the servants of God. He is or certainly was powerfully persuasive but if one is going to deceive the very elect you should expect no less. He is gifted with factual knowledge, but his interpretations tend to miss the mark. Those most likely to be deceived are those who do not know the scriptures with the degree of revelatory understandings that should be possessed before engaging one of his talents. Perhaps you are one such, I do not know. You ask that we pray that you find the truth; you mention hot water in your quest…depending on what that means Denver may become your best friend ever, however, as far as seeking truth from him, it is not that he does not possess some insight, but it is not his truths that should cause concern but how gifted he is in passing his deceptions as such. I’ll pray that you find the truths that are valuable, but I question if his words will ultimately lead you to such. I am interested in what you ultimately decide – keep us posted.

brlenox wrote:

Stahura wrote:

brlenox wrote:endlessismyname - I definitely appreciate your pragmatic and sound reasoning thus far.

I wish you were that nice to me

I'm at 1499 posts and I would like to end the day with a 1500...so a note. As I have often stated I like you fine. In fact, I have put much effort into striving to provide persuasive and well researched material together in order to appeal to the fact that you still seem to be somewhere between the two camps of "for the brethren" or "against"...On the fence if you will. (Sadly tipping to the “against” side it seems)

The whole Amonhi Tithing and 102 threads...my contributions were specifically with you in mind. You were the tangible recipient, though I always hope to provide an offset for those who lurk and do not participate so that at least there is another perspective to consider. The simple summation of all of the conversation is very simple, if you maintain a respectful sustainment of the brethren you maintain a standard by which to measure who it is that you allow to persuade your "affections". My frustrations with you are you do not understand that imperative and you are willing to step over a multitude of clear and evident indications from scripture and prophetic utterance that should be persuasive but as of yet does not seem to be of significance to you.

There is a continuous scriptural pattern that every generation has a group that can only sustain dead prophets. They cannot see that the warnings of the Savior concerning such might actually be applicable in this day and age, and in fact themselves.

So you should not mistake my fervor as animosity - although one might think that as a beekeeper I would perhaps apply a bit more honey, it is not in my nature, nor do I think it appropriate to stand idly by while many attempt to dissuade others from following the servants of the Lord. The whole argument of “I follow Christ and no one else” is a paradoxical deception if one truly comprehends Christ’s own words as recorded in D & C 1.

Anyway…I’m not particularly focused on specific doctrinal differences people may have but I tend to become very challenging to those who would try to move others away from the safety of an appropriate sustainment of the brethren.

I was only joking my friend I know how much you've reached out to me and I greatly appreciate it.

I don't recall "stepping over" any clear and evident indications from scripture and prophetic utterance I love the scriptures, they led me to Christ. The words of these "dead prophets" led me to experiences that are so joyful and wonderful that I can't describe, so of course I love their words and heed them. I sustain the church leaders because I've never been told NOT to, and see no reason not to. They seem to be good men who have sought to do God's will their entire life. Are they actual prophets seers and revelators? I'm only being honest when I say that I don't know. They have no outward fruits that show them to be anything more than my local church leaders, so if they are true prophets seers and revelators, it must be revealed to me by the power of the Holy Ghost. This has not happened yet, however, I have read many of their words and talks recently. I have found great joy in a few talks lately from General Conference.

I'm only being honest when I say that I believe their to be inherited traditions found amongst the LDS that keep many from obtaining more than they currently have, I believe that the criticism thrown at the church do have SOME basis, and are based on at least some truth.

I have no need to leave the church, I never saw a need. God will do his pruning which will start at his house in his church, I will continue on right where I'm at as God does his work. If God commands me to take some action, I will listen.

I have never attempted to move others away from sustaining the church leaders, I have openly encouraged others to sustain them on multiple occasions. It just confuses you and others like you that I can stay in the church and sustain church leaders while at the same time believing a lot of the things that I believe.

For every scripture and GA Quote that you show me attempting to correct one of my beliefs, I can show you a quote that supports me. I've studied and read all of the things that you have shown me, it's not news to me. Now, this doesn't mean that I don't listen to what you say, or re-read the things you tell me to read, but don't think that I ignore it and overstep the things you show me.

Anti-Mormons love to use everything that "proves" the church is false, and they ignore all of the good things that prove them wrong. I have found that many church members ignore GA quotes that prove certain traditions and teachings found within the church false, while at the same time they constantly use their own quotes from those very GA's whose quotes they ignore.

Example, The President of the Church called us an idolatrous people, the President of the Church and multiple GA's read Mormon 8 and made it clear that this chapter is talking about the LDS Church.
How about when Orson Pratt said there must be a reformation in the church and that a large revolution in the church would be needed just to get members to be equal in all things?

How about when Brigham Young said "IF Joseph led the church astray, it's because God allowed it"(paraphrasing). That conditional statement alone shows that Brigham Young obviously thought the Prophet could lead the church astray.

How about when the President of the Church John Taylor and George q Cannon said that in the future, many would believe they hold the High Priesthood when in reality all they hold is a church office? Do you realize that I have said that I believe that many men think they have certain priesthood power that they really don't have, and was accused of attacking the church? My words echoed the words of John Taylor and George Q. Cannon.

And then of course you and others use your own quotes to "counter attack".

The difference between me and others is I take into account all of the words of all of the prophets, even the ones I don't want to believe. I don't want to believe that the church could have incorrect doctrines, that Mormons are idolatrous, that the church leaders could lead us astray. There are many things I don't want to believe, but I cannot just ignore the inconvenient faith shaking quotes from past leaders. I read everything I can and I find middle ground. I have a firm testimony, and I'm not shaken by silly remarks and claims made by others. I'm not foolish enough to hear someone say " Jesus talked to me and told me to do this" and choose to follow him immediately. I won't do anything unless the Spirit of God come upon me and give me direction.

Anyways, this ended up being far too big. This all just came to mind as I responded to you.

In the end, I truly respect you and appreciate every effort that you have made to help me.
And just to let you know where I am, I'm not on the fence. I'm in the church, and I sustain the brethren. If you think I'm on the fence, it's only because I don't support leader worship(Which does happen) and I won't agree with things that are said by leaders that don't have scriptural basis.(I don't think this happens often)


P.S if you need, I can find the sources for the examples I used above, I was just to lazy to put them up there.

Stahura wrote:
How about when Brigham Young said "IF Joseph led the church astray, it's because God allowed it"(paraphrasing). That conditional statement alone shows that Brigham Young obviously thought the Prophet could lead the church astray.


P.S if you need, I can find the sources for the examples I used above, I was just to lazy to put them up there.

If you could confirm that you are referencing this quote by Brigham that is all I seek for tonight.

…if He (God) should suffer him (Joseph Smith) to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray…it would be because they deserved it…”Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 4:297-298

If it is not this quote then please provide me the reference of the quote to which you are referring.

brlenox wrote:

Stahura wrote:
How about when Brigham Young said "IF Joseph led the church astray, it's because God allowed it"(paraphrasing). That conditional statement alone shows that Brigham Young obviously thought the Prophet could lead the church astray.


P.S if you need, I can find the sources for the examples I used above, I was just to lazy to put them up there.

If you could confirm that you are referencing this quote by Brigham that is all I seek for tonight.

…if He (God) should suffer him (Joseph Smith) to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray…it would be because they deserved it…”Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 4:297-298

If it is not this quote then please provide me the reference of the quote to which you are referring.

That's the one my friend

I didn't post the sources because I'm assuming you've read it already. You proved me right

Stahura wrote:

brlenox wrote:

Stahura wrote:
How about when Brigham Young said "IF Joseph led the church astray, it's because God allowed it"(paraphrasing). That conditional statement alone shows that Brigham Young obviously thought the Prophet could lead the church astray.


P.S if you need, I can find the sources for the examples I used above, I was just to lazy to put them up there.

If you could confirm that you are referencing this quote by Brigham that is all I seek for tonight.

…if He (God) should suffer him (Joseph Smith) to lead the people astray, it would be because they ought to be led astray…it would be because they deserved it…”Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 4:297-298

If it is not this quote then please provide me the reference of the quote to which you are referring.

That's the one my friend

I didn't post the sources because I'm assuming you've read it already. You proved me right

Okay...since I am still awake and noticed this come in I will add one more question. If I was trying to understand the scriptural back drop for this comment, (we can get to context later) that Brigham has made, what scriptural references might one use to gain insight into the spirit of his intent?

Are there sources that reveal potential examples of the proper interpretation of this statement that we could use as we seek to get a correct understanding of his meaning?

My perspective is that the prophets seldom make any doctrinal or church based commentary, which is not traceable to a scriptural principle, which they often do not elucidate upon, but is what informs their observation. Understanding these possible sources helps provide boundaries for our considerations as we seek the spirit to direct our conclusions. Which ones might inform this perspective?

The church (the corrupted body of Christ) is condemned. If the members of that corrupted origination repent and remember the # 1. New Covenant. They can come unto God. Simple / Not so simple.
The first mention of a New Covenant is with the teachings of Paul. Paul brought forth a new teaching and was commanded to take it to the Gentiles. Paul did not go down to the Apostles in Jerusalem, but went into the desert after his experience on the road to Damascus. There he learned a new Gospel. God would no longer accept the offerings of a lamb. God would no longer require circumcision as a mark of his people. God no longer required Tithes of his people. God said "if you will be my people, I will be your God". A New Covenant. The old order, structure, the Jews had lived under was gone. Peter and the Twelve were in decline. Paul and the Gentiles were prospering. God was smiling upon the Gentiles. Each little community of Saints operated as their own unit. Each unit being as strong or weak as they desired. At times someone would wright to Paul for advice and wisdom, therefore we have the advice and wisdom God had imparted unto Paul, delivered from the hand of Paul to each of the congregations he had labored to establish. We were still under the day of the Gentiles in 1830s. Whether or not we still are is up for debate. It is clear to me that JS was trying to bring forth something other than what ended up coming about after his death (an old testament Church).
Now we can enter the #2. BoM as the other part of repenting and returning to God. We find Lehi and Nephi living (no man need say to his neighbor, know yea the lord, all who are left have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide). Well any who considered themselves righteous that is. L&L and their family's wanted the people and organization they had left in Jerusalem. They believed those at Jerusalem were holy, and those who willingly followed Lehi and Nephi's example, and sought the Lord personally were deceived by Satan. Enos makes this clear, in verse 22 when he confesses that there were many prophets in the land, but acknowledged that he was not one of them. Enos, first tells us about his conversion. Then why he cried to the Lord afterwords. In doing so, many have missed the importance of his experience as a type for us today. That is the way they lived, when they were righteous. I believe they lived as God would have a righteous people live to become righteous from the get go. The religious structure found amoung the Jews at the time of Christ was a structure that was needed to bring about the crucifixion of Christ. Many will say, "what about Moses". Moses led the people as did Caiaphas, as does Monson. God lead the people through Moses, because the people were incapable to lead themselves. God, after working with the people for 40 years ask Moses to tell the people to repent and cleans themselves so they could come upon the mountain and personally meet God. They refused and wanted a leader to lead them. A leader like a King or a prophet, or a man. God had offered the children of Israel, at the time of Moses, the higher teaching given to Lehi and Nephi and the Gentiles. We, as a LDS church have refused to honor Christs gift and offering of the new Covenant and the teaching found in the BOM, and clamor for a king, a man or prophet. Is god happy with us? No, Have we have been deceived? This is why Nephi proclaims that he has no hope for the gentiles, unless they repent, and come unto Christ, in the way and manor God has decreed. The new covenant and the Book of Mormon.

deep water,

I'm not sure your reply was meant for me, but if it was, let me say this:

You have offered an interesting interpretation of the scriptures. I make no claim to know whether that interpretation is correct or not. In terms of this conversation, or in other words the conversation which I have agreed to be a part of, I am not interested in interpreting scriptures. The position I'm taking is one that Snuffer himself publicly took in the past (and never recanted as far as I can tell). In his own words:

"If you understood the scriptures you wouldn’t even need what I’ve (Snuffer) written." (my parentheses)

My position is that nobody needs Denver Snuffer to understand the scriptures, and so, as Snuffer himself points out, we don't need to pay any heed to what he has written.

If your comment above is for me, deep water, how does your post address the argument? Do you feel that you could not have come to your conclusions of what the scriptures mean without the existence of Denver Snuffer? If you do feel that way, why? Do the scriptures have anything to teach us about what we need if we are to understand the scriptures? If so, what do those scriptures teach? If you choose to answer these questions, please provide evidence, and not just opinion. It would be particularly helpful if you would provide scriptures, without interpretation, so we can receive the word in its purest form.

I feel as though I've hijacked a thread. I believe I'll start a new one in which we can have this discussion in a place where people can see the thoughts of those who choose to engage in the discussion from start to finish.

brlenox,

[HUMOR]I thought I *was* making a touch of effort by creating a profile and starting the conversation[/HUMOR]. It appears I'll have to make a touch more effort if I'm to to gain an audience with Snuffer or his followers. Such is life...

As I do not know you or the nature of your testimony

The nature of my testimony is irrelevant to this discussion. I have put forth a position, and would like to keep the conversation focused on arguments that either prove or disprove that position.

After his excommunication, I figure - if folks can't read the tea leaves nothing I can say will be of any more persuasive value.

I don't intend to persuade anyone through my words. I have asked a question based on an observation I make about a man that many have chosen to follow and am now inviting others to use the scriptures to help them answer that question for themselves if they are or become desirous to know the answer as well. Because I haven't explicitly stated my argument as a question, let me do so here. The question in front of us is:

Do we need Denver Snuffer to understand the scriptures?

If it can be proven that we do, I will be the first to get in line and praise God that such a man has come to teach us.

If it is proven that we do not, then another set of questions needs to be addressed. First, do we take Denver Snuffer at his word? Because if we do, then, by his own admission, we don't need what he's written (and, I would argue, what he has spoken, whether it be in public or private). Second, have things for reasons unspoken fundamentally changed since Denver put forth his original argument? Do we now need Denver for some reason he couldn't foresee when he wrote those words? If that's the case, only he can argue THAT position. As he says so forcefully in his last blog post, "I have NO SPOKESMAN" (http://denversnuffer.com/2016/01/second-hand-rumors/).

You mention that he is persuasive, gifted with factual knowledge, that you perceive that he possesses some insight, and teaches truth at times. I think we can all agree he feels authorized to share his interpretations of the scriptures freely and openly. My question then, is this: if we accept everything you say about the man as true, does that prove that we NEED him in order to understand the scriptures? Or is there, even accepting your perceptions of him as factual, another way, any other way, by which we might come to understand the scriptures? If there is another way - any other way - than Snuffer is, by definition, not necessary, and each of us, according to his words, have no need for him.

Off to create the new thread. I will probably include the last couple of comments from this thread as a means to get the ball rolling. I'm also still interested where I might find the followers of Snuffer. It may be most productive to have this conversation in a forum where those who are directly affected and less likely to agree with me reside. Happy to have the conversation here as well, though, as it appears there is at least one person who might be sympathetic to Snuffer's interpretation of the scriptures. I imagine there are probably others as well. Time will tell in that regard.