Who has jumped off the Denver Snuffer train?

[Jesef]

Ok, if we are going to draw a parallel, let's do it sensibly: in terms of admitting or preventing admittance to temples (I feel absurd doing this - your guys' arguing that anyone should be able to enter is nonsensical), in Moses's time, with the tabernacle, even when only supposedly Aaronic priesthood ordinances were being administered (with properly constituted divine authority under a real Melchizedek priest, Moses, even though the people had rejected "the fullness" or entering into the Lord's presence/rest, assuming D&C 84 is true), did the Lord, through Moses and those gatekeepers of the tabernacle permit every person to enter? Or perform ordinances? Or participate in ordinances? Or pray in the holy of Holies? Or touch the ark of the covenant or have a peek inside? Did God DIRECTLY administrate who could or could not enter or was this done by Moses and the priesthood/priests? Does someone sit in "Moses's seat", for lack of a better term, does someone preside, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Would Denver Snuffer even try to enter one of these temples under false pretenses? I think not. This is an an absurd argument, in my view.

[Jason]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the question we are asked is: Do you SUPPORT the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve as Prophets, Seers and Revelators?

Ah wrong . The question is do we sustain . We sustain by acknowledging their right to preside and conduct the affairs of the institution. You can sustain Obama as president even we disagree with his policies. You guys are so quick to condemn. You have no idea what conversations I have had with my bishop and SP about these matters. Really I would be more circumspect in my haste to judge others honesty or integrity if I were you.

So I will ask you again Boo. If a Snuffer had come to you while you were serving as a Bishop in the church and proclaimed that the church had now fallen into an apostate state and its presiding authorities had lost all valid priesthood authority and keys would you have issued them a recommend to attend the temple? Is it appropriate for that individual to be found making covenants in the temple that they are intending to rebel against and break? Is that merciful?

Mark I am loath to contribute to this line of inquiry.I am loath to create contention. I and my personal opinions or beliefs are of little or no consequence. The only reason I began to comment in this thread was to respond to a series of particular questions at the express request of the op. It doesn't matter what I would have done a decade ago. The issue for both of us is are we going to follow the voice of the Savior today. I pray for the 15 along with my Bishop and SP everyday and I sustain them in their ecclesiastical positions and recognize their right to hold those positions. Their actions and teachings and beliefs are between them and God and I have no right to dictate to them. Even though I mourn that the institution which i love and have given my life to isn't the one I joined more than 60 years ago. My task I presently believe is to nurture and lift those who I can and speak the truth as directed by the Spirit so long as I am permitted to do so. Tinally you may be surprised to learn that for an extended period following the publication of Passing the Heavenly Gift which essentially said the things mentioned above multiple bishops and SPs found Snuffer worthy to hold a TR.

"extended period" ....we must have different definitions of that.

Denver was excommunicated roughly a year after predictions on here regarding that publication. Versus Alan "Rock" Waterman who it took over 3 years for the excommunication to catch up with blog posts that caused consternation on here.

At the end of the day I believe this is what really matters...

Someone asked President Moyle why this man was still a member of the Church when he did things like that. “He is not a member of the Church,” President Moyle answered firmly. Another replied that he had not heard of his excommunication. “He has excommunicated himself,” President Moyle responded. “He has cut himself off from the Spirit of God. Whether or not we get around to holding a court doesn’t matter that much; he has cut himself off from the Spirit of the Lord.”

https://si.lds.org/bc/seminary/content/ ... ct_eng.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Jason]

Ok, if we are going to draw a parallel, let's do it sensibly: in terms of admitting or preventing admittance to temples (I feel absurd doing this - your guys' arguing that anyone should be able to enter is nonsensical), in Moses's time, with the tabernacle, even when only supposedly Aaronic priesthood ordinances were being administered (with properly constituted divine authority under a real Melchizedek priest, Moses, even though the people had rejected "the fullness" or entering into the Lord's presence/rest, assuming D&C 84 is true), did the Lord, through Moses and those gatekeepers of the tabernacle permit every person to enter? Or perform ordinances? Or participate in ordinances? Or pray in the holy of Holies? Or touch the ark of the covenant or have a peek inside? Did God DIRECTLY administrate who could or could not enter or was this done by Moses and the priesthood/priests? Does someone sit in "Moses's seat", for lack of a better term, does someone preside, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Would Denver Snuffer even try to enter one of these temples under false pretenses? I think not. This is an an absurd argument, in my view.

Not to mention Christ Himself attempting to cleanse a violated temple with a braided whip...a part man/part God that for 99% was all about peace and love for each other.

[boo]

Ok, I feel absurd doing this - your guys' arguing that anyone should be able to enter is nonsensical)

J help me here . i am not aware of anyone making that argument. I may have said it is Gods house not mans.
I believe that . Hence he should set the criteria. That is not the same as the ( straw man?) issue against which you are arguing .

[Jesef]

If it's a straw man, then I'll withdraw it, but it also addresses the argument that the presiding authorities are the ones who have the right to administer admittance to these temples and withholding information and twisting/lying answers to very specific questions asked by them, effectively trying to bypass them and their authority, under any sort of pretense - such as "it's the Lord's house, not theirs" - is disingenuous. If they knew you had been rebaptized (outside of properly approved and administered LDS/Church authority), you (not just you boo) would be barred entry and expelled (and you know it), if you declared openly and honestly that you feel Denver Snuffer (LDS/Church apostate) and his message are true and divinely authorized and authenticated, you would be barred entry and expelled (and you know it). Am I missing the point here? It sounds like you guys are contending that this should not be so, that LDS members who believe and accept Denver's message and have been rebaptized according to his instructions should be allowed to enter LDS temples? Correct me if I'm misreading or clear up my confusion.

[Zathura]

Ok, if we are going to draw a parallel, let's do it sensibly: in terms of admitting or preventing admittance to temples (I feel absurd doing this - your guys' arguing that anyone should be able to enter is nonsensical), in Moses's time, with the tabernacle, even when only supposedly Aaronic priesthood ordinances were being administered (with properly constituted divine authority under a real Melchizedek priest, Moses, even though the people had rejected "the fullness" or entering into the Lord's presence/rest, assuming D&C 84 is true), did the Lord, through Moses and those gatekeepers of the tabernacle permit every person to enter? Or perform ordinances? Or participate in ordinances? Or pray in the holy of Holies? Or touch the ark of the covenant or have a peek inside? Did God DIRECTLY administrate who could or could not enter or was this done by Moses and the priesthood/priests? Does someone sit in "Moses's seat", for lack of a better term, does someone preside, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Would Denver Snuffer even try to enter one of these temples under false pretenses? I think not. This is an an absurd argument, in my view.

I don't think anybody is arguing that just anybody should be able to enter. It doesn't make sense to allow EVERYONE AND ANYONE into the Temple The argument is only that it doesn't make sense to not allow people to enter the Temple based on their belief in a fellow man.
This was not a pre-requestite for the longest time, and there's a reason for that. If it was supposed to be that way,if that was a reflection of true righteousness, God would have to Joseph many years before this little policy was created.

[Zathura]

If it's a straw man, then I'll withdraw it, but it also addresses the argument that the presiding authorities are the ones who have the right to administer admittance to these temples and withholding information and twisting/lying answers to very specific questions asked by them, effectively trying to bypass them and their authority, under any sort of pretense - such as "it's the Lord's house, not theirs - is disingenuous. If they knew you had been rebaptized (outside of properly approved and administered LDS/Church authority), you (not just you boo) would be barred entry and expelled (and you know it), if you declared openly and honestly that you feel Denver Snuffer (LDS/Church apostate) and his message are true and divinely authorized and authenticated, you would be barred entry and expelled (and you know it). Am I missing the point here? It sounds like you guys are contending that this should not be so, that LDS members who believe and accept Denver's message and have been rebaptized according to his instructions should be allowed to enter LDS temples? Correct me if I'm misreading or clear up my confusion.

I believe that LDS members that believe in Jesus Christ and obey his commandments(Love God, love your neighbor , care for the poor etc.) who are actual Saints(sanctified) should be able to enter the Lord's house and worship him. Belief in church leader or the local pastor or next door neighbor shouldn't make a difference.
If a man or woman has been born of God and has been sanctified, that in itself means they are worthy to be in the Lord's house independent of ANYTHING else, and should not be denied entry. They shouldn't even be asked what they think about another man and his position of authority. Doesn't make sense.
If he/she has been sanctified, why would additional questions about church leaders be necessary to determine worthiness?

[Jesef]

Apparently, at some point, it became necessary to see if people claiming to be members of the Church were actually loyal to the Lord's legal administrators/authorized servants, not pretenders or infiltrators. I think there is ample evidence this security measure was necessary. The sustaining questions are just that, the apostasy question is just that - I notice immediately that it says the offices, not their names - would you feel better about it if "first presidency" & "twelve apostles" were replaced with "the Lord's anointed and divinely authorized servants"? Stahura, you have created a logical paradox with your statement within the context of the LDS belief system and authority paradigm: within that system, those who are sanctified would sustain and support the officers in the Lord's kingdom; the houses of the Lord, the kingdom of the Lord, the Lord's servants, judges in Israel. There's no room for Snuffers and people circumventing the gates, climbing over the walls, ordinances authorized by some other guy, house of order, the whole thing, etc. it's equivalent to believing it's okay if some guy "claims" he has the sealing power wanting to perform ordinances in an LDS temple. If you believe Snuffer, go help him build a temple. Do you disagree with that?

[kennyhs]

:ymapplause: You probably should keep cheering for the Judge-Fest! Assuming these people are as evil and lost as y'all are saying, then you'd think you need to be charitable, long suffering and kind.

Nah, it's probably just better to judge them, make assumptions about their character and then cheer others on who do the same right? Oh and lets call them to repentance!

Well done friends :ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymapplause:


Let's make fun of the Apostates!!

That's what Christ would do right?

Coming from a guy (you) who is always judging the saints as being followers of men, you're quite brave for making that post #-o

Its called the blame game.

[Zathura]

Apparently, at some point, it became necessary to see if people claiming to be members of the Church were actually loyal to the Lord's legal administrators/authorized servants, not pretenders or infiltrators. I think there is ample evidence this security measure was necessary. The sustaining questions are just that, the apostasy question is just that - I notice immediately that it says the offices, not their names - would you feel better about it if "first presidency" & "twelve apostles" were replaced with "the Lord's anointed and divinely authorized servants"? Stahura, you have created a logical paradox with your statement within the context of the LDS belief system and authority paradigm: within that system, those who are sanctified would sustain and support the officers in the Lord's kingdom; the houses of the Lord, the kingdom of the Lord, the Lord's servants, judges in Israel. There's no room for Snuffers and people circumventing the gates, climbing over the walls, ordinances authorized by some other guy, house of order, the whole thing, etc. it's equivalent to believing it's okay if some guy "claims" he has the sealing power wanting to perform ordinances in an LDS temple. If you believe Snuffer, go help him build a temple. Do you disagree with that?

That's what people don't get. The pretenders and infiltrators will get into the Temple either way. The recommend questions aren't an obstacle for them.
Being loyal to church leaders has nothing to do with righteousness. Your opinion about church leaders is not a pre-requisite to being sanctified or purified.

The purpose of the Temple recommend question is to determine worthiness. A person who has been sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost (actual reception of the Holy Ghost) and who retains it, is worthy. No interview is necessary. If a person is sanctified at a time that he still doesn't have a testimony of Church leaders, clearly God found it was okay to sanctify him , essentially approving his repentance. That in itself is the ONLY thing a man or woman should need to enter the Lord's house. If you are already sanctified or worthy, why are extra questions needed to determine worthiness?Remember, the imposters and fakers will make their way inside either way, so that's not why there are questions.

If a person has been sanctified, even if he has no testimony or opinion about church leaders, God already gave his approval and is worthy for the Templel. There's no need to seek more by asking questions.
Do you not understand what I'm saying?

[Jesef]

I understand you, you want a standard that doesn't involve mortals. In this world, it is both unrealistic and not implementable. And within the LDS belief system and structure, it is a paradox. Your assumption is that someone could be sanctified by the Lord but unwilling or unable to meet the conditions of the entrance interview established and implemented by His agents/officers. It will be interesting to see what kind of temple Snuffer builds - if I read him right, the "unworthy" will not even be able to set foot on the ground near it - they would burn up or die first (no joke). Also, the LDS officers, at present, allow the un-sanctified but obviously striving to enter and view it hopefully sanctifying, but they expect honesty. Infiltrators/pretenders, I agree, cannot be completely stopped - but it is a matter of conscience, and given the administrators and the questions, it is a question of honesty and integrity trying to circumvent them. Can a dishonest person be sanctified? You just think a sanctified person could fail the questions. But they wouldn't lie to get passed them.

[Jesef]

The Lord apparently, through His agents, did not permit handicapped Levites from officiating in the tabernacle [as high priests, per correction by kennyhs, good catch!] (if the Old Testament is accurate). Do you think that's equally unfair and/or corrupted?

[Jason]

Apparently, at some point, it became necessary to see if people claiming to be members of the Church were actually loyal to the Lord's legal administrators/authorized servants, not pretenders or infiltrators. I think there is ample evidence this security measure was necessary. The sustaining questions are just that, the apostasy question is just that - I notice immediately that it says the offices, not their names - would you feel better about it if "first presidency" & "twelve apostles" were replaced with "the Lord's anointed and divinely authorized servants"? Stahura, you have created a logical paradox with your statement within the context of the LDS belief system and authority paradigm: within that system, those who are sanctified would sustain and support the officers in the Lord's kingdom; the houses of the Lord, the kingdom of the Lord, the Lord's servants, judges in Israel. There's no room for Snuffers and people circumventing the gates, climbing over the walls, ordinances authorized by some other guy, house of order, the whole thing, etc. it's equivalent to believing it's okay if some guy "claims" he has the sealing power wanting to perform ordinances in an LDS temple. If you believe Snuffer, go help him build a temple. Do you disagree with that?

And the reality is anyone can lie to get in....but God knows the truth...and He'll judge and curse accordingly.

That's what I just don't get....why would anyone want to do that? Its like...please curse me please curse me...completely nuts!!!

[kennyhs]

The Lord apparently, through His agents, did not permit handicapped Levites from officiating in the tabernacle (if the Old Testament is accurate). Do you think that's equally unfair and/or corrupted?

Any person with a physical handicap was barred from being the high priest (see Leviticus 21:17–21). God does not view such persons as spiritually inferior. Rather, this requirement was a teaching device. The high priest was a type of Christ, the Great High Priest (see Hebrews 4:14), and the requirement for physical wholeness was to typify Christ’s perfection. The laws of natural uncleanness should be viewed in a similar light.

[Jason]

Apparently, at some point, it became necessary to see if people claiming to be members of the Church were actually loyal to the Lord's legal administrators/authorized servants, not pretenders or infiltrators. I think there is ample evidence this security measure was necessary. The sustaining questions are just that, the apostasy question is just that - I notice immediately that it says the offices, not their names - would you feel better about it if "first presidency" & "twelve apostles" were replaced with "the Lord's anointed and divinely authorized servants"? Stahura, you have created a logical paradox with your statement within the context of the LDS belief system and authority paradigm: within that system, those who are sanctified would sustain and support the officers in the Lord's kingdom; the houses of the Lord, the kingdom of the Lord, the Lord's servants, judges in Israel. There's no room for Snuffers and people circumventing the gates, climbing over the walls, ordinances authorized by some other guy, house of order, the whole thing, etc. it's equivalent to believing it's okay if some guy "claims" he has the sealing power wanting to perform ordinances in an LDS temple. If you believe Snuffer, go help him build a temple. Do you disagree with that?

That's what people don't get. The pretenders and infiltrators will get into the Temple either way. The recommend questions aren't an obstacle for them.
Being loyal to church leaders has nothing to do with righteousness. Your opinion about church leaders is not a pre-requisite to being sanctified or purified.

The purpose of the Temple recommend question is to determine worthiness. A person who has been sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost (actual reception of the Holy Ghost) and who retains it, is worthy. No interview is necessary. If a person is sanctified at a time that he still doesn't have a testimony of Church leaders, clearly God found it was okay to sanctify him , essentially approving his repentance. That in itself is the ONLY thing a man or woman should need to enter the Lord's house. If you are already sanctified or worthy, why are extra questions needed to determine worthiness?Remember, the imposters and fakers will make their way inside either way, so that's not why there are questions.

If a person has been sanctified, even if he has no testimony or opinion about church leaders, God already gave his approval and is worthy for the Templel. There's no need to seek more by asking questions.
Do you not understand what I'm saying?

They sure can get in...nothing preventing them except themselves. The recommend questions are just a self test....with the added caveat of looking someone else in the eye when they answer.

Agree to disagree. The interview is established for a reason. Since its only a self test...and the Lord has established it...it just sets someone up to either be blessed or cursed depending upon their honesty. Imposters and fakers have to lie to get in. Then only to take on covenants that they've lied to partake of...just further cursing them. The ordinances have been changed over the last several decades...they used to be much more graphic regarding the cursing. But it hasn't gone away...just not as overt. Man doesn't nor cannot restrict. Church leaders simply administrate as instructed to set people up to either succeed or fail based on their faithfulness.

You cannot be sanctified without repenting and becoming obedient to God's laws. You can't be obedient when you are lying to the Lord's servants to get in His temples. One of the basic 10 commandments.

And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.

Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-n ... ang=eng#18" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And this is the gospel, the glad tidings, which the voice out of the heavens bore record unto us—

That he came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness;

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... ang=eng#39" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb.

Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alm ... ang=eng#10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To be sanctified through the blood of Christ is to become clean, pure, and holy. If justification removes the punishment for past sin, then sanctification removes the stain or effects of sin.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2001/06/just ... n?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;

And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom.

I have spoken these few words unto you all, my sons, in the last days of my probation; and I have chosen the good part, according to the words of the prophet. And I have none other object save it be the everlasting welfare of your souls. Amen.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-n ... lang=eng#1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Zathura]

My dear friends,You keep saying the same things and my answer will be the same .

I'm bowing out.

Peace and love

[shadow]

Being loyal to church leaders has nothing to do with righteousness. Your opinion about church leaders is not a pre-requisite to being sanctified or purified.

The purpose of the Temple recommend question is to determine worthiness. A person who has been sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost (actual reception of the Holy Ghost) and who retains it, is worthy. No interview is necessary. If a person is sanctified at a time that he still doesn't have a testimony of Church leaders, clearly God found it was okay to sanctify him , essentially approving his repentance. That in itself is the ONLY thing a man or woman should need to enter the Lord's house. If you are already sanctified or worthy, why are extra questions needed to determine worthiness?Remember, the imposters and fakers will make their way inside either way, so that's not why there are questions.

If a person has been sanctified, even if he has no testimony or opinion about church leaders, God already gave his approval and is worthy for the Templel. There's no need to seek more by asking questions.
Do you not understand what I'm saying?

What's all this "testimony of church leaders" stuff? You seem to think the church has a requirement to follow of men.
What's an apostle? Is it not an office of the Priesthood? Does that office carry any responsibilities?
Once you grasp that it isn't about the man but the office you'll probably relax a bit.
As much as you denied accusing members of being followers of men, you sure accuse members of needing to be followers of men, at least to enter the Temple. You have it all wrong. As Robert Sinclair would say- Do a book report. Do a book report on the government of God that He set up in these latter days. Do a book report on the Priesthood and the various offices and responsibilities that come with those offices. You'll be glad you did

[kennyhs]

Being loyal to church leaders has nothing to do with righteousness. Your opinion about church leaders is not a pre-requisite to being sanctified or purified.

The purpose of the Temple recommend question is to determine worthiness. A person who has been sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost (actual reception of the Holy Ghost) and who retains it, is worthy. No interview is necessary. If a person is sanctified at a time that he still doesn't have a testimony of Church leaders, clearly God found it was okay to sanctify him , essentially approving his repentance. That in itself is the ONLY thing a man or woman should need to enter the Lord's house. If you are already sanctified or worthy, why are extra questions needed to determine worthiness?Remember, the imposters and fakers will make their way inside either way, so that's not why there are questions.

If a person has been sanctified, even if he has no testimony or opinion about church leaders, God already gave his approval and is worthy for the Templel. There's no need to seek more by asking questions.
Do you not understand what I'm saying?

What's all this "testimony of church leaders" stuff? You seem to think the church has a requirement to follow of men.
What's an apostle? Is it not an office of the Priesthood? Does that office carry any responsibilities?
Once you grasp that it isn't about the man but the office you'll probably relax a bit.
As much as you denied accusing members of being followers of men, you sure accuse members of needing to be followers of men, at least to enter the Temple. You have it all wrong. As Robert Sinclair would say- Do a book report. Do a book report on the government of God that He set up in these latter days. Do a book report on the Priesthood and the various offices and responsibilities that come with those offices. You'll be glad you did

:ymapplause:

[Jason]

My dear friends,You keep saying the same things and my answer will be the same .

I'm bowing out.

Peace and love

Just might be a reason for that....

[Zathura]

Okay guys

[kennyhs]

One time I knew I had to change my method, instead of demanding an answer, or having all the answers, I had to be still.

[shadow]

“Christ was the head of the Church, the chief cornerstone, the spiritual rock upon which the Church was built, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it [see Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 2:20]. He built up the Kingdom, chose Apostles and ordained them to the Melchizedek Priesthood, giving them power to administer in the ordinances of the gospel.”

“What importance is there attached to the calling of these Twelve Apostles, different from the other callings or officers of the Church? … They are the Twelve Apostles, who are called to the office of the Traveling High Council, who are to preside over the churches of the Saints. … They are to hold the keys of this ministry, to unlock the door of the Kingdom of heaven unto all nations, and to preach the Gospel to every creature. This is the power, authority, and virtue of their apostleship.”

-Joseph Smith

One can't separate the Apostles from the Temple. If you cannot sustain them then you have no business going to the Temple. It's a key of the restoration.

[freedomforall]

You'd think the only pre requisite to entering the Lord's house would be faith in the Lord. It's just ironic that you're kicked out if you don't believe in 15 mortal men. God has never given such a commandment.
This is all besides my own personal belief.
I'm thinking with an objective mind, and none of this makes sense.
By teaching that you cannot enter the Kingdom of God without going into the Temple, and then not allowing people INTO the Temple who don't believe in 15 men, you are putting a man in between you and your God.

D&C 84:36
36 For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me;

Temple questions: 2-3
2. Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?
3. Do you sustain the other General Authorities and the local authorities of the Church?

Matt. 10:40 (40–42)
40 ¶He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.

Luke 10:16
16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

I'd say that the assertion of not believing in the 15 is a false one. Christ sure had something to say about it, did he not? And to say it is not a commandment, this idea is not validated by Christ in the least. So the notion of not believing in the servants of God does not come from God but from somewhere else, now doesn't it?
In fact, Christ says if we despise the fifteen, we despise him. Who can argue with this?

[freedomforall]

Those temples are dedicated for use by worthy members who sustain the current first presidency and quorum of the 12 as P/S/R and legitimate holders of these necessary priesthood keys.

Can you tell me when the original requisite to entering the Temple of having faith in Christ first changed to having faith in those 15 men?
It wasn't in 1836, that much I know. So when did this start?
It seems God forgot to mention this requisite to the one Church President that he visited on more than one occasion and gave hundreds of revelation to.
I suppose he's a forgetful God?

It's always been that way, even before temples. This was given in 1830-

1 Behold, there shall be a record kept among you; and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ,

2 Being inspired of the Holy Ghost to lay the foundation thereof, and to build it up unto the most holy faith.

3 Which church was organized and established in the year of your Lord eighteen hundred and thirty, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April.

4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

6 For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory.

um.. Where in that scripture does it speak of FIFTEEN men that will ever fill those positions in the Church being prophets seers and revelators , and ALSO that we must BELIEVE IN THEM to enter the Temple?

How does this scripture have anything to do with what I said?

I said that God never gave the requirement of expressing belief in 15 men before we can enter the Temple, and you post a scripture that simply shows that Joseph Smith is a prophet, seer, translator, and apostle, and that we should heed HIS words(Joseph Smith).

Temple questions 2 and 3 as shown in another post, coupled with scriptures related to this.

[freedomforall]

You'd think the only pre requisite to entering the Lord's house would be faith in the Lord. It's just ironic that you're kicked out if you don't believe in 15 mortal men. God has never given such a commandment.
This is all besides my own personal belief.
I'm thinking with an objective mind, and none of this makes sense.
By teaching that you cannot enter the Kingdom of God without going into the Temple, and then not allowing people INTO the Temple who don't believe in 15 men, you are putting a man in between you and your God.

The temple should have a Baptist day, a Catholic day, a JW day, a Methodist day etc since they all profess a belief in Christ.
You may want to think it through a bit, Stahura.

You avoid what I have to say because there's no answer to it, and you know. God simply never gave a commandment that none can enter the Temple without first verbally expressing a belief in 15 church leaders.
This did not begin with Joseph Smith, the only Church Leader that God appeared to multiple times and revealed hundreds of things to. God was very specific about his Temple and even the dimensions of it, but he forgot to tell Joseph about the questions he must ask before someone enters the Temple?

Wrong. Just read scripture. If we do not receive his servants we do not receive him. Rather simple point, I say.