LDS Freedom Forum

shadow wrote:

natasha wrote: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?

Sustain

Sustain and support are synonymous. https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/sustain" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Priesthood is the authority and the power which God has granted to men on earth to act for Him. When priesthood authority is exercised properly, priesthood bearers do what He would do if He were present. I am so thankful for you men who speak truth and exercise your authority properly by standing as a witness. You are an example to me.

boo wrote:

natasha wrote: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.

Ah, not wrong...the words are synonymous, although the word sustain is used in the temple questions..

Stahura wrote:Kudos to those who defend Jesus Christ, since it's his Church and it's him that we worship

How can anyone worship someone they do not know? Or believe? Christ says we are to receive his servants, if not, we do not receive him. So which church are you referring to?

jockeybox wrote:I do find it interesting that LDS members must sustain the leaders in order to enter the temple for saving ordinances.

But in return, the same leaders do not need to show the fruits of prophecy, seership or revelation to the members.

Why would God give us more? Is the body of the church living up to everything we've received thus far? Are members feasting on the word? Are they sustaining church leaders? Are they keeping the commandments? Do they remember the Savior at all times? Do they proclaim Jesus instead of going with the PC crowd? Are they ashamed of the gospel or do they stand up and defend Christ? Are they a witness in all things, in all places and at all times even unto death? Mosiah 18:9 Are they keeping their covenants?
Just like we can gain eternal salvation through faithfulness via the temple ordinances we call an endowment, we also must be faithful every day in doing those things that would please God. And if we are not, then why would God reveal even more? Until we're steadfast and immovable in doing what God has already given us, he is not likely going to give us more. And I don't blame him for not doing so. It is us the members of the church that have to prove our worthiness before God will give us more. We are to be in the world but not of the world. How many of the members fall into the category of "the few"?

Matthew 7:14
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Matt 7:22,33
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
JST Matt. 7:33 And then will I say, Ye never knew me : depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Do the members of the church have the image of God in their countenances?

Alma 5:19
19 I say unto you, can ye look up to God at that day with a pure heart and clean hands? I say unto you, can you look up, having the image of God engraven upon your countenances?

Are we stripped of pride, envy and mocking? SEE: Alma 5:26-40
Are we walking blameless before God? Alma 5:27

Are we really ready for more revelation?

shadow wrote:

SempiternalHarbinger wrote:
D&C 1: 15: For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant.

14 And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and 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;

15 For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant


And we see this today. Those who neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles are cut off. You're a part of that crowd, aren't you Semp? The Lords ordinances are found in His restored church. Going elsewhere for baptism etc. is straying. Amen.

Verse 14 couldn't be any clearer. Yet it is the very apostate attitude coming from the dropouts that blame the Lord's church for their lack of belief, faithfulness, steadfastness and immovability.
Believe me, when it comes to repentance, it is the sinning person that has to take a long, hard look at themselves and admit they are out of the way and have to make changes within themselves that allows the atonement to work for them. It is called humility and admission of guilt. Then going forth with a broken heart and contrite spirit with real intent before Christ will remit sins. He does not accept wooden nickles. Sin many times causes members of the church to find fault and stray...not the church. Using the church as a causing factor of dropping out is not an excuse for sin or unbelief.

Stahura wrote:

Wolverine wrote::ymapplause: :ymapplause: :ymapplause:

AI2.0 wrote:It just seems like we keep going round and round on this and never get anywhere.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints believes in a living prophet that leads and guides the church. We also believe in 12 apostles who help lead and guide the church, some of whom one day become the head of the church, if they live long enough. The Prophet, through continuing revelation, makes changes to the way the church is run. We ARE NOT a stagnant organization and things will change over time. If you all don't figure that out, you're going to have problems--I'm talking to those of you who continually complain about the changes within the church.

Why are some of you still grilling LDS members about beliefs you used to adhere to yourselves? Jeremy? Boo? Thomas? Separatist? and the rest of you who follow Snuffer but won't admit it? I'm not sure who you all are because you hide your affiliation with him these days. Those of you who've accepted Denver Snuffer as a Prophet (thereby rejecting Pres. Monson); You've decided you don't believe anymore and that's fine. You have that right. But what bothers me is that I have a right to continue to believe the church and sustain the present day leaders and how they run this church and I shouldn't have to constantly defend the basics. You all were once members and you know how things work in the church. You know that the Prophet receives revelation for the whole church and that means change. Over the almost 200 years of the existence of the church, we've been losing members every time the Prophet makes changes--because there are members who don't like change and see it as apostasy. Denver Snuffer's followers are just the latest to break off, believing they are the 'Lord's true church'. But yet, they won't openly admit what they are doing because they need to proselyte and ONLY people who are members of the LDS church are going to have any interest in their 'community'--and I assume that's why you all are here. To try to find converts.

Which brings me to Stahura. I'm sure Snuffer's adherents on this forum are working on converting Stahura to his movement, and he sounds like he's just the kind of LDS member they look for.

Stahura, We believe the living prophet makes changes, as he is inspired to do. That means if he wants to require members to sustain him and the Quorum of 12, whether it was required in the past or not, HE CAN REQUIRE IT!!! I believe you are sincere in your questions, but for you to learn anything from those questions, you're going to have to actually be open to considering the answers!! I seem to recall you are a long time member, you might have even said you served a mission, but sometimes you sound like you have virtually no knowledge of the Gospel. Have you been inactive a while? I'm not criticizing, I'm just trying to understand why you say things that are odd for an active, believing member. They're not odd for someone who's been out of the church for a while. And by the way, we don't teach that people have to go to the temple to be part of the kingdom of God--Baptism is the gateway to the Kingdom of God; Baptism is the entrance into the Celestial kingdom. It has to be done by someone having proper authority, one of those very basic things what you struggle with as well.

Denver Snuffer is not a prophet, he's simply a member who, somewhere in the last few years, lost his testimony and is now using his gifts and talents to take as many people out of the church, with him. And those who have put faith in his teachings often try to stay members in the LDS church because that's where they will find 'converts'. No one else would be interested or even have a clue what Snuffer is talking about.

: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?

Are Snufferites faithful members of the church of Christ? Or do they fall into this category?

38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

Luke 9:50
50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

Matt 12:30
30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

So it sounds like that there are people for God and some against him.

And here is what he says about those against him:

2 Ne. 10:16
16 Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.

It is we that have to choose who we want to follow, but if we follow Christ that means we do not discredit his church although there are sinners in it. We are to rid ourselves of pride, mocking and envy. Alma 5

Stahura wrote:

Jesef wrote: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?

I assert that even President Monson and the other 14 have to answer those same questions each time they have their TR renewed through their bishop and SP. They are not exempt. So what is the big issue here?

One of the big things that bugged me about thee ol Snuffer was his claim that Brigham Young and all the other Prophets and Apostles since Joseph Smith were not "Special Witnesses of Christ." Then I came across these quotes......

Modern visitations of Deity: Wilford Woodruff

"President Wilford Woodruff told some of the Saints that our Saviour had appeared unto him in the East Room in the Holy of Holies, & told him that He had accepted of the [Salt Lake] Temple & of the dedication services, & that the Lord forgave us His Saints who had assisted in any manner towards the erection and completion of the Temple—that our sins were forgiven us by the Lord Jesus Christ.… President Woodruff said the House had been full of revelation, more so than he had ever witnessed at any dedication of the previous Temples and he had been present at all of them from Kirtland to this present one.

I feel at liberty to reveal to this assembly this morning what has been revealed to me since we were here yesterday morning. If the veil could be taken from our eyes and we could see into the spirit world, we would see that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and John Taylor had gathered together every spirit that ever dwelt in the flesh in this Church since its organization. We would also see the faithful apostles and elders of the Nephites who dwelt in the flesh in the days of Jesus Christ. In that assembly we would also see Isaiah and every prophet and apostle that ever prophesied of the great work of God. In the midst of these spirits we would see the Son of God, the Savior, who presides and guides and controls the preparing of the kingdom of God on the earth and in heaven.

I know what the will of God is concerning this people, and if they will take the counsel we give them, all will be well with them…. Speaking of the administration of angels. I never asked the Lord in my life to send me an angel or to show me any miracle…. I have had the administration of angels in my day and time, though I never prayed for an angel. I have had, in several instances, the administration of holy messengers….The room was filled with light. A messenger came to me. We had a long conversation. He laid before me as if in a panorama, the signs of the last days, and told me what was coming to pass. I saw the sun turned to darkness, the moon to blood, the stars fall from heaven. I saw the resurrection day. I saw armies of men in the first resurrection, clothed with the robes of the Holy Priesthood. I saw the second resurrection. I saw a great many signs that were presented before me, by this personage; and among the rest, there were seven lions, as of burning brass, set in the heavens. He says, "That is one of the signs that will appear in the heavens before the coming of the Son of Man. It is a sign of the various dispensations."…. Now, I have had all these testimonies, and they are true. But with all these, I have never had any testimony since I have been in the flesh, that has been greater than the testimony of the Holy Ghost. That is the strongest testimony that can be given to me or to any man in the flesh. Now, every man has a right to that, and when he obtains it, it is a living witness to him.…I know what awaits this nation. I know what awaits the Latter-day Saints. Many things have been shown to me by vision and by revelation."

Modern visitations of Deity: George Q. Cannon

“I know that Jesus lives; for I have seen Him.”

“I would not dare to tell all that the Lord has shown unto me.”

“I have been greatly favored of the Lord. My mind has been rapt in vision and have saw the beauties and Glory of God. I have saw and conversed with the Savior face to face. God will bestow this upon you.”

Modern visitations of Deity: Ezra Taft Benson

“As one of those called as special witnesses, I add my testimony to those of fellow Apostles: He lives! He lives with resurrected body. There is no truth or fact of which I am more assured, or know better by personal experience, than the truth of the literal resurrection of our Lord.”

There are many more of these experiences of other Prophets and Apostles....at the following link....

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_M ... d_Woodruff" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You can also find a review of his book PTHG...where it is clearly shown that Snuffer has taken thinks out context, distorted and twisted to his own liking.

boo wrote:

Jesef wrote: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 .

He HAS set the criteria for entrance into His holy temple Boo. That criteria was established through the voice of His servants who are sustained as Prophets/Seers/Revelators in HIS church. Those who do not give heed to their words shall be cut off from among the people of the Lord. That is what the Lord said at the time of restoration and it applies just as much today.

You and others come here again and again to argue the merits of Snuffer's declarations that those very Prophets/Seers/Revelators sustained in the church today have fallen into a state of apostasy and no longer hold the proper Priesthood keys needed to validate the ordinances of salvation and exaltation. You and your cohorts stand in open rebellion against the leadership of the church because you are doing and saying things publicly that are contrary to their directions and teachings given to the membership of the church. Being rebaptised is but one of many of those things. Accepting and teaching Snuffers so called prophetic declarations and condemnations against the church is but another.

Lets not play word games here. You know very well what the issue is here as it pertains to temple worship. Those who choose to rebel against the criteria given through those P/S/R for temple worthiness should not be given temple recommends to enter these temples run by the LDS faith. Its as simple as that. If you feel the LDS leadership are now pretenders and are defiling the temples by their actions and by rejecting true messengers like Snuffer as you obviously now believe and teach you are free to choose another avenue of temple worship. Just dont be deceitful in expecting to enter an LDS temple while doing things contrary to what the church is teaching its members are appropriate to be worthy of temple attendance. That is just wrong and shows no integrity.

boo wrote:

SempiternalHarbinger wrote:

boo wrote:

Separatist wrote:Found this:
http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/ZebC.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But wondering about the arms raised to the square bit.

I will have to hunt a bit but there are photos of LDS Sacrament Meetings in the 1920s showing the members kneeling and those blessing the Sacrament doing so with uplifted arms. Interestingly the Wiki article under Sacrament LDS acknowledges both the use of wine and the fact that the whole congregation knelt

The picture above was taken about 1894. It shows that the Melchizedek Priesthood holder is raising both hands as he offers the Sacrament Prayer. Many living LDS members recall that when a Priest in the Aaronic Priesthood offered the prayer, he raised his right hand only. The practice was discontinued in the LDS Church in the 1930s.

Good work and speedy too .Since this thread has been further derailed I assume no one will object to me pointing out that originally Priests rarely blessed the Sacrament . Because D C 20 : 46-50 specifically directs that a Priest is only to officiate in blessing the sacrament if no Elder is present. So Shadow who cares if it is in the scriptures or not .We can see that we often pay little attention to what the scriptures actually say anyway

You mean 50-52??
50 But when there is an elder present, he is only to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize,
51 And visit the house of each member, exhorting them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties.
52 In all these duties the priest is to assist the elder if occasion requires

45 The elders are to conduct the meetings as they are led by the Holy Ghost, according to the commandments and revelations of God.
46 The priest’s duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, and administer the sacrament

75 It is expedient that the church meet together often to partake of bread and wine in the remembrance of the Lord Jesus;
76 And the elder or priest shall administer it; and after this manner shall he administer it...

Nowhere does it specify that a priest cannot or should not bless the sacrament. It seems that if an Elder wants the Priest to assist by blessing the sacrament, it's his prerogative. See verse 52
But CLEARLY a Priest has authority to bless the sacrament. And I still submit that the Bishop is the one who administers the sacrament. It's all done under his direction thus he is the administrator of it. You were a Bishop once, do you not recall that it was you who was in charge of the sacrament? Did the Priests look to you for approval after every blessing? (shake your head up and down)

shadow wrote:

Stahura wrote:

shadow wrote:The wording for baptism is different (changed, altered) in the Book of Mormon vs what the Lord revealed to Joseph in the D&C. So for you guys, is the BoM false or is Joseph a false prophet?

Where's that John Wayne quote I like so much?? "Life is hard...."

It's not an equal comparison.

We've already discussed this many times. Joseph Smith talked to God face to face or heard his voice hundreds of times. He then presented it before the people to accept it before it was binding upon us.

Not true.
And it is comparable. Those words are different. They're altered from the BoM to the D&C. Semp is probably freaking out :-$

If you track down the original/earliest version of the revelation on the Joseph Smith papers, is the wording the same as the book of mormon?

shadow wrote:
Nowhere does it specify that a priest cannot or should not bless the sacrament. It seems that if an Elder wants the Priest to assist by blessing the sacrament, it's his prerogative. See verse 52
But CLEARLY a Priest has authority to bless the sacrament. And I still submit that the Bishop is the one who administers the sacrament. It's all done under his direction thus he is the administrator of it. You were a Bishop once, do you not recall that it was you who was in charge of the sacrament? Did the Priests look to you for approval after every blessing? (shake your head up and down)

Let me give you an example.
Let's say that I am your boss,okay? In the office there are 2 rules.

Rule 1: You do my paperwork. You send out my emails, you schedule appointments, and last of all, you direct meetings.

Rule 2: But when I am present, you do paperwork, emails, and appointments.

What do we see here? 3 things stay the same, but 1 thing is left out. Why? Because It's very clear that when I am present,you will not direct meetings.

Okay,now lets look at the scriptures that you so conveniently took out of order.

46 The priest's duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, and administer the sacrament,

47 And visit the house of each member, and exhort them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties.

48 And he may also aordain other priests, teachers, and deacons.

49 And he is to take the lead of meetings when there is no elder present;

50 But when there is an elder present, he is only to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize,

51 And visit the house of each member, exhorting them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties.

Isn't that weird how when an Elder is Present, the list is the EXACT SAME except for one thing? Administer the Sacrament? Hmmm. In the example I gave, it's pretty clear why that is, and it's just as clear here.


Now. Tell me where on earth you have ever heard that the Bishop administers the sacrament? You haven't.

What you did is take the word administrate or administrator and tell yourself that since the words are near identical, that the Bishop must be administrating/administering the sacrament, even though this has never been said nor taught. And thus you found a cheap answer to this problem that many have pointed out.

Of the many, many times the administering of Sacrament is spoken of, I have never seen a place that says the Bishop administers the sacrament. Not even in General Conference, or the Institute Manual, Church History, Journal of Discourses. This just doesn't exist.

The word administer has 2 definitions. The first definition is the definition you are trying to throw in here. Manage/control/operate.

Here's the meaning of administering the SACRAMENT.

ispense or apply

synonyms: dispense, issue, give, provide, apply, allot, distribute, hand out, dole out, disburse
"the lifeboat crew administered first aid"
Look here at one of the examples in the dictionary.

(of a priest) perform the rites of (a sacrament, typically the Eucharist).


DISPENSE, ISSUE, GIVE, PROVIDE, ALLOT, DISTRIBUTE.

This is why you've never in your life seen the teaching that a Bishop administers the Sacrament, because he does not ever DISPENSE/GIVE/ALLOT/DISTRIBUTE the Sacrament.

I have no problem accepting your argument if you put a little more effort in, but twisting the definition of words and the order of verses isn't the way to go about it.

If you can show me a talk or essay that explains that Bishops are administering the Sacrament and not the Priest/Elder, I will gladly read it and learn.

The original D&C 20 or Articles and Covenants, circa April 1830 [D&C 20] says this:

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSumma ... 1830-dc-20

And the manner of baptism & the manner of administering the sacrament are to be done as is written in the Book of Morman. 27

27 Revelation Book 1 is more expansive at this point, including excerpts from the Book of Mormon to provide the language to be used in the ordinances: “And the way of Baptism is to be ministered in the following manner unto all those who Repent whosoever being called of God & having authority given them of Jesus Christ shall go down into the water with them & shall say calling them by name having authority given me of Jesus Christ I baptize thee in the name of Jesus Christ the Father & of the Son & of the Holy Ghost amen then Shall he immerse them in the water & come forth again out of the water And it is expedient that the Church meet together oft to partake bread & wine in Rememberance of the Lord Jesus & the Elder or Priest shall minister it & after this manner shall he do he shall kneel with the Church & call upon the Father in mighty prayer saying O God the Eternal Father we ask thee in the name of thy son Jesus Christ to Bless & sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it that they may eat in Rememberance of the body of thy son & witness unto thee O God the Eternal Father that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy son & always Remember him & keep his commandments which he hath given them that they may always have his spirit to be with them amen[.]

“The manner of administering the wine Behold they shall take the cup & say O God the Eternal Father we ask thee in the name of thy Son Jesus Christ to bless & sanctify this wine to the souls of all <those> who drink of it that they do it in Rememberance of the blood of thy Son which was shed for them that they may witness unto thee O God the Eternal Father that they do always Remember him that they may have his spirit to be with them amen[.]”a

The other earliest manuscript versions match Revelation Book 1, but a version of Articles and Covenants copied by John Whitmer into Zebedee Coltrin’s journal similarly pointed to the Book of Mormon rather than including the text from it.a


a Revelation Book 1, p. 57 [D&C 20:72–79]; see also Book of Mormon, 1830 ed., 478, 575–576 [3 Nephi 11:23–26; Moroni 4–5].

b Coltrin, Diary, [6], [9].

Coltrin, Zebedee. Diaries, 1832–1834. CHL.

Apparently we are using the wrong book, it is actually the Book of Morman, which was evidently lost in the early days of the Restoration, now one of the lost books of the Apocrypha or something... :(( Or just a spelling error #:-s

1833 Book of Commandments uses 3 Nephi 11 wording:

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSumma ... ght=manner

51 And baptism is to be administered in the fol lowing manner unto all those who repent:
52 Whosoever being called of God and having authority given them of Jesus Christ, shall go down into the water with them, and shall say, calling them by name:
53 Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
54 Then shall he immerse them in the water, and come forth again out of the water.

In 1835 Doctrine & Covenants, the language changed to "having been commissioned of Jesus Christ":

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSumma ... ght=manner

22 Baptism is to be administered in the following manner unto all those who repent: The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented him or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen. Then shall he immerse him or her in the water, and come forth again out of the water.

This is Joseph Smith at this point. You can't believe he did not approve and all the sudden the Church starts doing baptisms wrong/corrupted while he is still Prophet/Seer/Revelator and President, First Elder, and Oliver Cowdery is still Co-President and Second Elder? Denver insinuates that in the 1835 D&C, Joseph was so busy working on the Lectures on Faith - the "Doctrine" in "Doctrine and Covenants" - that he didn't have time or oversight and left the editing of all the "Covenants" to "lesser men" such as Cowdery and Hyde. Hmm... doesn't quite sit right, that analysis. So the Church goes on doing baptisms wrong from 1835-1844 under Joseph? Not likely.

It sounds like you, Stahura, and others are trying to make the argument that whenever a change is made, it constitutes corruption and a sign that the presiding leaders are out the way, apostate, and hence rejected by the Lord - I'm taking this to the extreme, because it really seems like you are trying to make that case - as is Snuffer. So you find a change, something we're doing different today than was originally done, and you cry foul and corruption. Am I reading you wrong? Please correct me if I'm wrong. But, in this case, you have to fault Joseph who presided over this change in wording and didn't change it back. Or do you think he didn't proofread the 1835 D&C before publication? Even Denver attributes the word change to Joseph in his 10 talk series.

Who has jumped off the Denver Snuffer train? Why Denver Snuffer, of course, right into a brier patch. And is he alone? The scriptures tell us that there will be many false prophets come among the saints and will try to deceive them, even the very elect. We are also asked to which spirit we list to obey.
Denver is so popular, that I wonder if the Savior, himself, has to take a back seat. And aren't there some Fundamentalists on the forum as well?

Doctrine and Covenants 29:45
45 For they love darkness rather than light, and their deeds are evil, and they receive their wages of whom they list to obey.

Mosiah 2:32
32 But, O my people, beware lest there shall arise contentions among you, and ye list to obey the evil spirit, which was spoken of by my father Mosiah.

D&C 58:33
33 Then they say in their hearts: This is not the work of the Lord, for his promises are not fulfilled. But wo unto such, for their reward lurketh beneath, and not from above.

On the other hand by feasting on the word we can remain strong and always stand in the light.

2 Nephi 32:3
3 Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.

Jacob 3:2
2 O all ye that are pure in heart, lift up your heads and receive the pleasing word of God, and feast upon his love; for ye may, if your minds are firm, forever.


The faithful, those who receive the two priesthoods and:

D&C 84:
33 For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.
34 They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.

Mark 13:20
20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect’s sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.

Does anyone here feel like they possess a sure or perfect knowledge that their position is correct, regarding Denver Snuffer vs LDS Church & Leaders (authority claims basically)? In other words, do you consider that you KNOW as well as you KNOW that you are alive/conscious/sentient that your basic position on the controversy is correct/accurate/true? On this one thing, not all things.

http://mormonbasics.com/blessing-and-pa ... sacrament/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“Teachers and priests may prepare the sacrament; priests may bless it; and deacons, teachers, and priests may pass it. Brethren who hold the Melchizedek Priesthood may prepare, bless, and pass the sacrament but normally will do so only when too few Aaronic Priesthood brethren are available. If a person has committed a serious transgression, he should not prepare, bless, or pass the sacrament until he has repented and resolved the matter with his bishop or branch president.

Moroni 4:1
1 The manner of their elders and priests administering the flesh and blood of Christ unto the church; and they administered it according to the commandments of Christ; wherefore we know the manner to be true; and the elder or priest did minister it—

BTW, here is another thread about sacrament: viewtopic.php?t=28788" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jesef wrote:Does anyone here feel like they possess a sure or perfect knowledge that their position is correct, regarding Denver Snuffer vs LDS Church & Leaders (authority claims basically)? In other words, do you consider that you KNOW as well as you KNOW that you are alive/conscious/sentient that your basic position on the controversy is correct/accurate/true? On this one thing, not all things.

You already know that the likes of FFA/Shadow/Mark will say they have a perfect knowledge.

There are people claiming that they heard the voice of the Lord tell them that Denver is his Messenger, while there are people who say they have a perfect knowledge by the Holy Ghost that Thomas Monson is a true Prophet.

There's no way to reconcile these statements, they aren't both true, and people are being deceived somewhere along the line.

You just gotta find the answer yourself, because you cannot trust the "answers" of others. This thread has probably gone through this same conversation 10 times by now, don't ya think?

I'll go continue to seek the answers to those 3 questions and I'll get back to you when I know. If we both do this and come to find the answers, it'll be interesting to see if we come up with the same answer.

Jesef wrote:Does anyone here feel like they possess a sure or perfect knowledge that their position is correct, regarding Denver Snuffer vs LDS Church & Leaders (authority claims basically)? In other words, do you consider that you KNOW as well as you KNOW that you are alive/conscious/sentient that your basic position on the controversy is correct/accurate/true? On this one thing, not all things.

I vote that DS be taken out of the equation. Let's stick to the scriptures, the official church doctrine, shall we?

Stahura wrote:

shadow wrote:
Nowhere does it specify that a priest cannot or should not bless the sacrament. It seems that if an Elder wants the Priest to assist by blessing the sacrament, it's his prerogative. See verse 52
But CLEARLY a Priest has authority to bless the sacrament. And I still submit that the Bishop is the one who administers the sacrament. It's all done under his direction thus he is the administrator of it. You were a Bishop once, do you not recall that it was you who was in charge of the sacrament? Did the Priests look to you for approval after every blessing? (shake your head up and down)

Let me give you an example.
Let's say that I am your boss,okay? In the office there are 2 rules.

Rule 1: You do my paperwork. You send out my emails, you schedule appointments, and last of all, you direct meetings.

Rule 2: But when I am present, you do paperwork, emails, and appointments.

You forgot rule #3: Assist me where and when I want you to assist me, even if I'm present. That includes paperwork, emails, appointments and directing meetings.



52 In all these duties the priest is to assist the elder if occasion requires.

Stahura wrote:

Jesef wrote:Does anyone here feel like they possess a sure or perfect knowledge that their position is correct, regarding Denver Snuffer vs LDS Church & Leaders (authority claims basically)? In other words, do you consider that you KNOW as well as you KNOW that you are alive/conscious/sentient that your basic position on the controversy is correct/accurate/true? On this one thing, not all things.

You already know that the likes of FFA/Shadow/Mark will say they have a perfect knowledge.

Yes, I do have a testimony of it which was given to me by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Best wishes to you on your search for the truth of it. I can't give it to you.

Jesef wrote:Does anyone here feel like they possess a sure or perfect knowledge that their position is correct, regarding Denver Snuffer vs LDS Church & Leaders (authority claims basically)? In other words, do you consider that you KNOW as well as you KNOW that you are alive/conscious/sentient that your basic position on the controversy is correct/accurate/true? On this one thing, not all things.

I have no doubt that the authority rest with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I've come to know this through many great personal experiences. Rest assured Brothers and Sisters we are in good hands.

Anyone exhausted yet? I am. 8-| :-$

Jesef wrote:Anyone exhausted yet? I am. 8-| :-$

Here's how exhausting: search.php?keywords=denver+snuffer+thre ... mit=Search" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's been one hot topic, one after another. I say it's time for the train to go back to the manufacturer for dismantlement.