Denver Snuffer's Remnant scripture project and covenant

[AI2.0]

AI2.0, your response to me did come off sort of like an attack/rebuke - try reading it with name inserted - it's quite personal and directed specifically at me:

Just because that was not enough for you/Jesef, doesn't mean it isn't just right and perfectly sound for others. Often the simple faith of some believers is the most profound and is the means of daily miracles and evidence of God's hand in their lives. But would you/Jesef even know that? (very condescending sounding, btw)
I guess because I wrote it, I don't read it as an attack, but if it came off that way, I'm sorry, that really was not my intention.
I think that's one reason for the warning by God to the 'learned' and those who think they are wise--for them, it's not enough and so they'll (implied "you"/Jesef here) dismiss the faith and testimony of those who can't adequately explain their belief and how they 'know' in such a way as to appeal to those such as yourself/Jesef.

I'm not offended, though. No harm done. Please don't take offense to me either, none intended. This is a healthy debate on some topics that are obviously important and close to the chest for all of us. It's also a legitimate challenge against at least a portion of my position, about knowing versus believing. But I do think you're missing part of my point. I'm perfectly okay with people who simply believe certain things, with little or no evidence. I'm challenging all the folks who upgrade that belief to saying they "know" (without doubt, or know that they know) and yet their evidence is flimsy, and they've never bothered to examine the context and bias of their spiritual experiences/assurances.

A lot of people challenge those who say 'I know' and think they don't really KNOW. And don't worry, I'm not offended by your questions, I'm just not sure I or anyone else can really answer in a way which will satisfy you.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify.

[Jesef]

Thomas wrote:

Many people that read the Book of Mormon do not receive any answer or manifestation because they have not planted the seed. Go on the internet and see all the videos with other Christians talking about the darkness that overcomes them when they read the book.

I agree with that. I know several people personally (firsthand) who either did not receive an answer about the Book of Mormon or who felt/interpreted their answer to mean "swim away!" This is a quandary for the LDS/Mormon/Restoration paradigm. Didn't God promise a manifestation by the power of the Holy Ghost? So what do we do? We typically accuse that person of insincerity, not having "real intent", or lack of faith - we blame them in some way for God not answering them or for their getting the wrong answer - evil/false spirits, the devil, etc. But is that really the case? Is that the only explanation for their "failure"? I don't think so. God is Great, God is Big, God is the Creator of All. And there are reasons why LDS/Mormonism/Restorationism is just a drop in the world bucket (less than 0.01% effectively). And it ain't because we're more special/chosen/righteous/elite.

[Finrock]

Alaris, I appreciate your sharing and actually answering my question, from your perspective. I think you are wrong, though, about "every single time they received an answer" (meaning that applies universally) and that, if they didn't, it's somehow their fault. I understand why you believe this, but I think you are incorrect and making a huge extrapolation based on very limited evidence/experience.

drtanner, you are quite Socratic - you are answering questions with questions. That's fine, I'll just assume you can't describe your answer in real, actual, English words. It was unfathomable and indescribable (which would actually make it un-rememberable). I'm being a little sarcastic.

Underdog, I would still love to hear your story. And how you specifically and definitively arrived at a witness without doubt. Also, how you dissociated your answer about the Book of Mormon and Jesus Christ with the LDS Church. While, as you can see, many members like drtanner clearly and powerfully associate their answers directly in connection with the LDS Church, the Brethren, and the priesthood keys and authority claimed by the mainstream Church.

I may share my experience and more of my perspective at some point. The summary would be: after much experimentation - not with sin, but rather - with inspiration, revelation, the Spirit, etc., I believe many of our spiritual experiences do not mean universally what we might think they mean - but that we attach a lot the meaning to those spiritual experiences based on our context and biases and culture, very much influenced by our high-demand group/religion (Mormonism, whatever flavor - most of us LDS, some Snufferite or Remnant or whatever they call themselves, etc.). That most revelation is personal, not universal, and not extrapolatable to anyone/everyone else (i.e. it applies to every soul just as I feel it applies to me). That's the short answer. And I've had no shortage of spiritual experiences in my life, ranging from overwhelming spiritually powerful engulfment (consumed by the power of the Spirit and the Love of God), to visions/dreams and visitations in them, to out-of-body experiences and visitations.

But some of you just know that you know and you know what it all meant/means and there ain't no other way. Been there, done that - I was wrong.

Just because that was not enough for you, doesn't mean it isn't just right and perfectly sound for others. Often the simple faith of some believers is the most profound and is the means of daily miracles and evidence of God's hand in their lives. But would you even know that?

I think that's one reason for the warning by God to the 'learned' and those who think they are wise--for them, it's not enough and so they'll dismiss the faith and testimony of those who can't adequately explain their belief and how they 'know' in such a way as to appeal to those such as yourself.

Your response is condescending and it makes a boatload of assumptions about Jesef. Why? First, you assume that whatever experiences Jesef has had, regardless of what they were, were not "enough for him." You also lump in him with the "prideful and the learned" which God condemns. In this case implying that Jesef is one of those described in the scriptures as the wise and the learned who God "hates".

Translation: You just personally attacked Jesef, calling him prideful and lumping him in with those who are "wise and learned", or those who God condemns.

Not cool.

-Finrock

You misunderstood what I said to Jesef--I was referring to other people's experiences and the subtle ways they receive a witness that was 'not enough for him--as far as evidence goes', I was not referring to his own experiences because to be honest, I thought Jesef was a person who questioned all spiritual experiences and wanted to understand how people could claim to have received a witness. That's why I was surprised that Silver Pie said Jesef had seen Christ, that was new to me. I referred to the scripture where the Lord warns us of two groups who can stumble--'When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God..' and 'but to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God' (2 ne 9:28-29) I don't read condemnation in this counsel, The scriptures can be read as God condemning us or they can be read as his counsel, warnings and commands--which is how I perceive them.

With this latest post, I've come to a realization of why I try to avoid interacting with you, Finrock. You have an extremely low opinion of me and this influences how you view my posts. You see me as personally attacking Jesef when that was never my intent, but yet, I'm drawn into having to defend myself, which takes us off on a useless tangent. This is a constant pattern with you as you interact with me. I also find that your interactions with me always take the focus off the discussion and into an area where I am forced to go off topic and answer your accusations, which is distracting for others.

This is not why I come to the forum. If you think I am personally attacking Jesef, which is against the forum rules, then report my posts. Please let the moderators deal with me, as I'd rather not have to leave threads because you continue to take me to task on what you perceive as my 'attacks', name calling and condemnation of others. I'm certain that if they see my posts as violating forum rules, they'll do what's necessary to keep the forum civil.

Jesef, if you read condemnation and attacking in my posts, then I apologize. It was not my intent at all.

AI2.0,

You are solely responsible for all of your actions, thoughts, and words.

Your mindreading skills have failed you again, btw. I don't have an extremely low opinion of you and it doesn't influence how I view your posts. You can only speak for yourself. If those thoughts are in your mind and heart, they don't belong to me, they belong to you.

Personally attacking another person is not some relativistic, subjective thing.

-Finrock

[Jesef]

AI2.0, thanks for that.

A lot of people challenge those who say 'I know' and think they don't really KNOW. And don't worry, I'm not offended by your questions, I'm just not sure I or anyone else can really answer in a way which will satisfy you.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify.

You make a really good point here. How can I or anyone know if someone else knows what they claim they know? (Ha, ha, a lot of knowing going on there!) I don't think it's totally possible, since knowledge/experience is not transferrable - but I think we can come close with some faith/trust.

For example, let's say you claim you've not only seen Christ but touched Him. I haven't had that experience but we sit down and converse and I'm asking you questions about your witness/experience. In the process I've gotten to know you a little bit and I can discern, at the very least, that you are a good, sincere, honest person. So you could still be deceived or delusional. As we talk further, I can discern that you are a pretty level-headed, sound-minded individual (you're not crazy). So I eliminate delusional. Maybe you are deceived. Then I'm asking you all kinds of questions to verify that you were awake, conscious - not asleep - after all, you're claiming it was a real and physical encounter - and you supply details that support that claim. Physical touch, bio-feedback, tears. And not only that, but you had a lifelong physical ailment or disability that Christ healed you of as part of the encounter. And the whole time, as we are talking, I'm feeling the power of the Holy Ghost grow stronger and stronger (in my spirit). Guess what? I believe you know what you're talking about and that you experienced what you said you did. I would have little doubt - because if I had experienced what you described, I would say "I KNOW" too. So I think we can come close in believing another person's claims - it still requires some faith.

But what I see too often is people just overstating their certainty and then, when I try to examine the evidences/experiences they are basing their claims of knowledge on, they turn out to be the rational basis of belief/assurance only, not knowledge. Why don't these folks just say they "believe" instead of they "know"? I think it's partly because our culture has run away with the idea that you're somehow lesser if you just believe, you're less faithful, less dedicated, you have a weak testimony - you "need to KNOW!"

[AI2.0]

Just because that was not enough for you, doesn't mean it isn't just right and perfectly sound for others. Often the simple faith of some believers is the most profound and is the means of daily miracles and evidence of God's hand in their lives. But would you even know that?

I think that's one reason for the warning by God to the 'learned' and those who think they are wise--for them, it's not enough and so they'll dismiss the faith and testimony of those who can't adequately explain their belief and how they 'know' in such a way as to appeal to those such as yourself.

Your response is condescending and it makes a boatload of assumptions about Jesef. Why? First, you assume that whatever experiences Jesef has had, regardless of what they were, were not "enough for him." You also lump in him with the "prideful and the learned" which God condemns. In this case implying that Jesef is one of those described in the scriptures as the wise and the learned who God "hates".

Translation: You just personally attacked Jesef, calling him prideful and lumping him in with those who are "wise and learned", or those who God condemns.

Not cool.

-Finrock

You misunderstood what I said to Jesef--I was referring to other people's experiences and the subtle ways they receive a witness that was 'not enough for him--as far as evidence goes', I was not referring to his own experiences because to be honest, I thought Jesef was a person who questioned all spiritual experiences and wanted to understand how people could claim to have received a witness. That's why I was surprised that Silver Pie said Jesef had seen Christ, that was new to me. I referred to the scripture where the Lord warns us of two groups who can stumble--'When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God..' and 'but to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God' (2 ne 9:28-29) I don't read condemnation in this counsel, The scriptures can be read as God condemning us or they can be read as his counsel, warnings and commands--which is how I perceive them.

With this latest post, I've come to a realization of why I try to avoid interacting with you, Finrock. You have an extremely low opinion of me and this influences how you view my posts. You see me as personally attacking Jesef when that was never my intent, but yet, I'm drawn into having to defend myself, which takes us off on a useless tangent. This is a constant pattern with you as you interact with me. I also find that your interactions with me always take the focus off the discussion and into an area where I am forced to go off topic and answer your accusations, which is distracting for others.

This is not why I come to the forum. If you think I am personally attacking Jesef, which is against the forum rules, then report my posts. Please let the moderators deal with me, as I'd rather not have to leave threads because you continue to take me to task on what you perceive as my 'attacks', name calling and condemnation of others. I'm certain that if they see my posts as violating forum rules, they'll do what's necessary to keep the forum civil.

Jesef, if you read condemnation and attacking in my posts, then I apologize. It was not my intent at all.

AI2.0,

You are solely responsible for all of your actions, thoughts, and words.

Your mindreading skills have failed you again, btw. I don't have an extremely low opinion of you and it doesn't influence how I view your posts. You can only speak for yourself. If those thoughts are in your mind and heart, they don't belong to me, they belong to you.

Personally attacking another person is not some relativistic, subjective thing.

-Finrock

Yes, I am solely responsible for my actions, thoughts and words.
I have no mindreading skills and I did not attempt to use fictitious mindreading skills on you.

I'm very tired of interacting with you, Finrock. Please, Finrock, if I offend you with my opinions and the way I present them, please report me and let the moderators do their job of moderating me. I'm pleading with you because I'm tired of dealing with you and I'm tired of worrying that if I attempt to post, I'll be taken to task by you, my words misrepresented, my motives mischaracterized. I don't really want this kind of interaction when I come to the forum, I have gotten to the point where I am wary of posting when I see you are participating in a thread. I will leave this thread now.

[Finrock]

Your response is condescending and it makes a boatload of assumptions about Jesef. Why? First, you assume that whatever experiences Jesef has had, regardless of what they were, were not "enough for him." You also lump in him with the "prideful and the learned" which God condemns. In this case implying that Jesef is one of those described in the scriptures as the wise and the learned who God "hates".

Translation: You just personally attacked Jesef, calling him prideful and lumping him in with those who are "wise and learned", or those who God condemns.

Not cool.

-Finrock

You misunderstood what I said to Jesef--I was referring to other people's experiences and the subtle ways they receive a witness that was 'not enough for him--as far as evidence goes', I was not referring to his own experiences because to be honest, I thought Jesef was a person who questioned all spiritual experiences and wanted to understand how people could claim to have received a witness. That's why I was surprised that Silver Pie said Jesef had seen Christ, that was new to me. I referred to the scripture where the Lord warns us of two groups who can stumble--'When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God..' and 'but to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God' (2 ne 9:28-29) I don't read condemnation in this counsel, The scriptures can be read as God condemning us or they can be read as his counsel, warnings and commands--which is how I perceive them.

With this latest post, I've come to a realization of why I try to avoid interacting with you, Finrock. You have an extremely low opinion of me and this influences how you view my posts. You see me as personally attacking Jesef when that was never my intent, but yet, I'm drawn into having to defend myself, which takes us off on a useless tangent. This is a constant pattern with you as you interact with me. I also find that your interactions with me always take the focus off the discussion and into an area where I am forced to go off topic and answer your accusations, which is distracting for others.

This is not why I come to the forum. If you think I am personally attacking Jesef, which is against the forum rules, then report my posts. Please let the moderators deal with me, as I'd rather not have to leave threads because you continue to take me to task on what you perceive as my 'attacks', name calling and condemnation of others. I'm certain that if they see my posts as violating forum rules, they'll do what's necessary to keep the forum civil.

Jesef, if you read condemnation and attacking in my posts, then I apologize. It was not my intent at all.

AI2.0,

You are solely responsible for all of your actions, thoughts, and words.

Your mindreading skills have failed you again, btw. I don't have an extremely low opinion of you and it doesn't influence how I view your posts. You can only speak for yourself. If those thoughts are in your mind and heart, they don't belong to me, they belong to you.

Personally attacking another person is not some relativistic, subjective thing.

-Finrock

Yes, I am solely responsible for my actions, thoughts and words.
I have no mindreading skills and I did not attempt to use fictitious mindreading skills on you.

I'm very tired of interacting with you, Finrock. Please, Finrock, if I offend you with my opinions and the way I present them, please report me and let the moderators do their job of moderating me. I'm pleading with you because I'm tired of dealing with you and I'm tired of worrying that if I attempt to post, I'll be taken to task by you, my words misrepresented, my motives mischaracterized. I don't really want this kind of interaction when I come to the forum, I have gotten to the point where I am wary of posting when I see you are participating in a thread. I will leave this thread now.

I'm not offended by you in any way.

-Finrock

[Jesef]

Has anyone noticed that these threads could be a lot shorter if we just quoted the relevant portion of another person's comment that we are responding to, or if it was just a post or two previous, we could just say their name "John, ..." instead of requoting entire conversations of several long posts?

[Finrock]

Has anyone noticed that these threads could be a lot shorter if we just quoted the relevant portion of another person's comment that we are responding to, or if it was just a post or two previous, we could just say their name "John, ..." instead of requoting entire conversations of several long posts?

That takes extra work. Who wants to do extra work? :))

-Finrock

[Jesef]

I know, right? It's so easy just to click that " button.

[Thomas]

Jesef wrote: Thomas? If so, please share how and in what manner?

I have been given my answer by praying and the Lord has used the scriptures to explain it to me. So for instance, you asked this:

I'm also saying that God would not expect a rational and faithful child to upend their life and potentially follow a false prophet before giving them a positive, definitive answer to prayer that that was the right and spiritually safe route to take - He is not a leap-before-you-look God. If He does not answer, does one still jump overboard? (I think not.)

So about last October, I was prompted by the spirit to read Ezekiel so I did. When I came to the part where Ezekiel is told that he must warn the people or their sins would be upon his head, the spirit told me, I was under the same obligation. So I really struggled with this, because I cannot say I have been given a big unmistakable answer about the whole thing. When God is talking to you, it is easy to just write it off and tell yourself that it didn't happen. And I mean the still small voice kind of talking to you. It is easy to dismiss and ignore.

So I studied Ezekiel some more and I asked God, if you want me to do what Ezekiel did, why wont you give me a vision because you gave Ezekiel a vision so he had sure knowledge. Instantly, I heard, what about Alma? So I turned to the of story King Noah, Abinadi and Alma and I carefully studied it. Alma had to do exactly what you just described. He had to upend his life and leap without knowing. He simply believed the words of Abinadi were true. He recognized the error even though just about everyone around him could not. Not only did he have to upend his life but King Noah wanted to kill him so his life was in grave danger over the leap he had to make. So I acknowledged that I had belief. I could see the error by which I was living and I could see the good that comes from what Snuffer teaches. It is about actually living the sermon on the mount. Not living in competition with each other, like we currently do. So I obeyed God and warned some people, which in the end will cost me friends and family.

But understand, like I said, I had been praying about this for a few years, wanting a big unmistakable spiritual manifestation. So I asked God again, How can I know? Then I was prompted to read Alma 32. The whole and sum of the answer is found in that in chapter. it is quite profound, and I cant do it justice in this post. By prayerfully reading it, God showed me that it was the exact process I had experienced. I planted the seed. I nourished it by experimenting on it. I did that by being baptized and joining a fellowship. My understanding of the gospel began to expand. My wife noticed a great change in my demeanor and our marriage improved to the best it has ever been in 25 years and it has always been good. My love for fellow man grew. My desire to know and serve Christ grew. I wanted to study scriptures all the time. My focus become more and more upon the things of God and less and less about the things of the world.

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is alight; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

The scripture is really too long to post here but I highly recommend studying it intensely, pondering and praying about it because the answer does lie right here. In Alma 32.

So this is how I know. because the seed has bourn fruit. God has explained it to me that this is process in which all people have to go through. When your faith is to the point that is actually knowledge, then God reveals himself as he did to the Brother of Jared, Nephi and others.

[Jesef]

That's a good answer, Thomas - and thank you for sharing it in such detail. I do not doubt your sincerity or your faith. It makes sense to me how and why you have interpreted your answers and inspiration to mean what you have. And also how Alma 32 would apply to that (growth, fruit, soul expanding/enlightening effect, delicious to the soul, etc.). And I know personally several people in the movement, my friends, who have expressed similarly.

This brings me to a point perhaps few or none of you will agree with. Is it possible that all of you, on both sides of the LDS/Snuffer fence/divide, are right? And by that I mean "right for you". Is it possible that the same Spirit of God is leading individuals and families into different paths which appear divergent and contradictory to them, on the surface, because of their diametrically opposed claims, objectives, and even criticisms, but that those are the right paths for those individuals or families? Can Thomas be right (for him) and Finrock also be right (for him) and DrTanner right (for him)? Why do we expect everyone to get the same answers about everything? Why do we have to be the only true, right, authorized, chosen, special, elite, saved (and everyone else deceived or dishonest, etc.)?

[e-eye2.0]

That's a good answer, Thomas - and thank you for sharing it in such detail. I do not doubt your sincerity or your faith. It makes sense to me how and why you have interpreted your answers and inspiration to mean what you have. And also how Alma 32 would apply to that (growth, fruit, soul expanding/enlightening effect, delicious to the soul, etc.). And I know personally several people in the movement, my friends, who have expressed similarly.

This brings me to a point perhaps few or none of you will agree with. Is it possible that all of you, on both sides of the LDS/Snuffer fence/divide, are right? And by that I mean "right for you". Is it possible that the same Spirit of God is leading individuals and families into different paths which appear divergent and contradictory to them, on the surface, because of their diametrically opposed claims, objectives, and even criticisms, but that those are the right paths for those individuals or families? Can Thomas be right (for him) and Finrock also be right (for him) and DrTanner right (for him)? Why do we expect everyone to get the same answers about everything? Why do we have to be the only true, right, authorized, chosen, special, elite, saved (and everyone else deceived or dishonest, etc.)?

Probably because there is one faith and one baptism. Someone holds the keys. - The contention part is brought out by Satan.

I don't disagree that there is so much good outside the gospel and so many people much better than I living good lives. However we as Latter Day Saints know that the Keys and covenants of the gospel that result in salvation or only found here. I look at other church's as stepping stones but in the end they will only get you so far.

There are people who say that they are having greater spiritual experiences now that they left the church but I would suggest that is because they are more invested in seeking God. If you are LDS it doesn't guarantee this magic elevator to blessings. In fact if you are living unfaithfully as a member you would hold more condemnation on yourself and could find yourself in a much worse position than someone not of our faith. However, those who left will be stuck, they can only go so far. They can gain knowledge, they can have the spirit testify of truth but they will max out. They will never have the fullness of the gospel and the opportunities for growth like they would if they came back to the church and put forth the faith needed to claim the blessings available.

[Thomas]

That's a good answer, Thomas - and thank you for sharing it in such detail. I do not doubt your sincerity or your faith. It makes sense to me how and why you have interpreted your answers and inspiration to mean what you have. And also how Alma 32 would apply to that (growth, fruit, soul expanding/enlightening effect, delicious to the soul, etc.). And I know personally several people in the movement, my friends, who have expressed similarly.

This brings me to a point perhaps few or none of you will agree with. Is it possible that all of you, on both sides of the LDS/Snuffer fence/divide, are right? And by that I mean "right for you". Is it possible that the same Spirit of God is leading individuals and families into different paths which appear divergent and contradictory to them, on the surface, because of their diametrically opposed claims, objectives, and even criticisms, but that those are the right paths for those individuals or families? Can Thomas be right (for him) and Finrock also be right (for him) and DrTanner right (for him)? Why do we expect everyone to get the same answers about everything? Why do we have to be the only true, right, authorized, chosen, special, elite, saved (and everyone else deceived or dishonest, etc.)?

I think God will work with us to whatever level we will accept. I see it like a dimmer switch and we control the switch. That's why people of other faiths have spiritual experiences.

as far as it being the right path, I guess that depends on where you want to go. If you want to go the Telestial kingdom, then by all means continue on with the church. The D&C says, we inherit the kingdom of which laws we have lived by. So continue to live in competition with each other. Rise up in authority and greater standing than each other and you will get that Kingdom.

The scriptures tell us few will find the path to eternal life but broad is the road that leads to hell and many find that.

If you want eternal life, then sacrifice all earthly things. , power, fame power to control or compel, acclaim and live as equals with all earthly things owned in common.

2 Nephi 26:31

31 But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.

we have so many scriptures to inform us but we don't seem to believe them.

[Jesef]

Thomas, as you know, that is exactly the same answer and judgment that an orthodox LDS adherent/follower will give to you and the Snuffer/Remnant folks. So the same competing claims, authority, and criticisms. "We're right and you're wrong", "we are more enlightened and you darkened", "we are higher and you are lower", "we are saved and you are damned", "we are celestial and you are telestial", essentially, you think or believe you are better (and better off) than anyone else (any other group, particularly your former group, which you now criticize passionately). This is the classic spiritual elitist paradigm shift. Almost every cult that has ever existed has adopted this same view.

[Arenera]

That's a good answer, Thomas - and thank you for sharing it in such detail. I do not doubt your sincerity or your faith. It makes sense to me how and why you have interpreted your answers and inspiration to mean what you have. And also how Alma 32 would apply to that (growth, fruit, soul expanding/enlightening effect, delicious to the soul, etc.). And I know personally several people in the movement, my friends, who have expressed similarly.

This brings me to a point perhaps few or none of you will agree with. Is it possible that all of you, on both sides of the LDS/Snuffer fence/divide, are right? And by that I mean "right for you". Is it possible that the same Spirit of God is leading individuals and families into different paths which appear divergent and contradictory to them, on the surface, because of their diametrically opposed claims, objectives, and even criticisms, but that those are the right paths for those individuals or families? Can Thomas be right (for him) and Finrock also be right (for him) and DrTanner right (for him)? Why do we expect everyone to get the same answers about everything? Why do we have to be the only true, right, authorized, chosen, special, elite, saved (and everyone else deceived or dishonest, etc.)?

I think God will work with us to whatever level we will accept. I see it like a dimmer switch and we control the switch. That's why people of other faiths have spiritual experiences.

as far as it being the right path, I guess that depends on where you want to go. If you want to go the Telestial kingdom, then by all means continue on with the church. The D&C says, we inherit the kingdom of which laws we have lived by. So continue to live in competition with each other. Rise up in authority and greater standing than each other and you will get that Kingdom.

The scriptures tell us few will find the path to eternal life but broad is the road that leads to hell and many find that.

If you want eternal life, then sacrifice all earthly things. , power, fame power to control or compel, acclaim and live as equals with all earthly things owned in common.

2 Nephi 26:31

31 But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.

we have so many scriptures to inform us but we don't seem to believe them.

You have some truth, but also some false.

If someone is pure in heart (Zion) then they love all people. See what happened with the sons of Mosiah? They even went to the terrible Lamanites to try to preach the Gospel.

You are not a real remnant if you are spending your time preaching against the Church, leaders and members. Can't you see that? If you are having these spiritual experiences and don't have love for the 15 apostles (and for that matter, all men) then your experiences aren't what you think they are. Can't you see that?

President Benson got us back into the Book of Mormon. Have you read it many times now? If so, you don't need David ben Snuffer for anything, it is all in the Book of Mormon. Can't you see that?

As long as some of you continue to fight against the church, you really haven't understood. Then this comes into effect:

78 Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun.

79 These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God.

Fighting against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not valiant, just the opposite.

[ajax]

I have no dog in this fight, but Arenera, would you say the same to Ezekiel, who was called to preach to the House of Israel? Supposedly God's chosen?

Or should Thomas preach elsewhere, considering that the whole need no physician.

[Arenera]

I have no dog in this fight, but Arenera, would you say the same to Ezekiel, who was called to preach to the House of Israel? Supposedly God's chosen?

Or should Thomas preach elsewhere, considering that the whole need no physician.

Apostles already preach to the covenant people, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Apostles and members invite others to come and see and check it out for themselves. Investigators are asked to pray, read the Book of Mormon and ponder, and receive a spiritual answer so they know.

If Christ wanted an Abinadi, he would send someone to the leaders, face to face, in the Church Administration Offices. The leaders could not get rid of this person until the message was delivered.

Trying to preach against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on an Internet forum isn't preaching for Christ. It is easy to debunk Denver Snuffer and the remnant stuff with all the information available now.

[Jonesy]

I have no dog in this fight, but Arenera, would you say the same to Ezekiel, who was called to preach to the House of Israel? Supposedly God's chosen?

Or should Thomas preach elsewhere, considering that the whole need no physician.

What does he have to do with how the church is administered today? To each era their different ways of administration. Joseph left the keys with the church, the legal administrator to the ordinances. If anyone wants the promise to the fullness of the blessings, they can find it in the church. If they don't have that chance, I believe God lends that person mercy. The keys matter, that's from whence the kingdom rolls. Otherwise the Gospel will be administered illegally and eventually become polluted/corrupted. I imagine much like the Zoramites.

[Jesef]

Incidentally, I asked Denver personally that very question at one point, if he had ever sought an audience with the Prophet, Apostles, as a whole or in part, to deliver his message and call them to repentance, and if not, why not? He said the Lord had never commanded him to do such, so he had not.

[Jesef]

Also incidentally, I'm not aware of Denver comparing himself to Abinadi per se. I see his followers doing that a lot, as well as Ezekiel or Samuel the Lamanite - to establish the scriptural precedent of an unpopular external prophet coming to call the establishment or established hierarchy to repentance. He has compared himself to Enoch and Melchizedek and Joseph Smith.

[ajax]

So a prophet (generally speaking) can only speak to leaders of groups, not the riff raff?

And I'm guessing in this day and age, the leaders get/got/have gotten his message.

[Jesef]

Just saying, he blogged and wrote a lot of criticisms against them. Why not go in person and do it face to face? As well as throw down the gauntlet of his supposedly firsthand witness (that he also accused them of not having)?

[Finrock]

President Benson got us back into the Book of Mormon. Have you read it many times now? If so, you don't need David ben Snuffer for anything, it is all in the Book of Mormon. Can't you see that?

I agree with what you are saying about being filled with love. Being filled with the Spirit of Christ will necessarily mean that we will have a love for all men, no matter who.

I will say that I don't see Thomas at the moment displaying hatred towards the LDS leaders. He is saying that they are apostate, but, does saying that they are apostate mean that he doesn't love them? By itself, I don't think so.

But, your statement above is where you lose me. You say that someone who has read the Book of Mormon, they don't need Denver Snuffer for anything, because it is all in the Book of Mormon. However, why doesn't your reasoning apply to President Monson and the other apostles? Maybe I'm wrong and you do believe that if someone has read the Book of Mormon then they don't need the apostles for anything, because it is all in the book. But, if you don't believe this then you are being inconsistent in your application of this principle. You are special pleading.

-Finrock

[ajax]

Speaking generally, it seems to me that scriptural precedent leans towards people like Snuffer being prophet rather than a perpetual hierarchy of title holders. That's just me.

[Finrock]

Just saying, he blogged and wrote a lot of criticisms against them. Why not go in person and do it face to face? As well as throw down the gauntlet of his supposedly firsthand witness (that he also accused them of not having)?

To be fair, though, how often do the apostles entertain those who would call them to repentance or voice a grievance against them? As far as I can tell Denver would have needed to pretty much stalk the President of the Church or one of the apostles and then confront them while they are doing their day to day business or activities.

-Finrock