LDS Freedom Forum

Finrock wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 2:22 pm

Arenera wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 1:30 pm 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

I believe you are spiritually bi-polar.

My point is that if you read and reread the Book of Mormon and pay attention, it will lead you to Christ. This is a personal journey. marc tries to get people to understand this but most don't pay attention.

Coming to Christ will not take you away from the Church, it will bring peace and love to a person. Look what it did to the sons of Mosiah, and they were vile sinners.

We still need our leaders and we will have love for them, and for others too.

This is what I'm trying to say to the remnants, who follow Denver when they shouldn't. Denver isn't any better than any of them, but Denver leads them astray.

Is the pope apostate? What about a Muslim, or a Buddhist? If the Church fell when Joseph was killed, all of us, including the world, are innocent.

If you have Christ, you have the love and that is what you should be preaching.

Finrock wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 2:32 pm

Jesef wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 2:22 pm 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

Yes, it is tough to be an Abinadi, isn't it?

Arenera wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 2:41 pm

Finrock wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 2:22 pm

Arenera wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 1:30 pm 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

I believe you are spiritually bi-polar.

My point is that if you read and reread the Book of Mormon and pay attention, it will lead you to Christ. This is a personal journey. marc tries to get people to understand this but most don't pay attention.

Coming to Christ will not take you away from the Church, it will bring peace and love to a person. Look what it did to the sons of Mosiah, and they were vile sinners.

We still need our leaders and we will have love for them, and for others too.

This is what I'm trying to say to the remnants, who follow Denver when they shouldn't. Denver isn't any better than any of them, but Denver leads them astray.

Is the pope apostate? What about a Muslim, or a Buddhist? If the Church fell when Joseph was killed, all of us, including the world, are innocent.

If you have Christ, you have the love and that is what you should be preaching.

Many have testified that they feel more peace and more love since they've left the Church. I think Meili, who isn't a Denver follower, would attest to that.

The sociocentric paradigm of LDS doesn't allow for a person to have more peace and more love and yet leave the Church. Its because we believe we are special, a peculiar people, the chosen ones, the house of Israel, the covenant people, etc. There is an error in this paradigm. It doesn't computer or jive with reality. Something is missing. Being a peculiar people probably doesn't mean what most LDS think it means. The Good has to be more encompassing and more liberal than we suppose.

By the way, I don't understand the spiritual bi-polar comment. You have a smile next to it so I'm assuming its something benign, but, outside of that I don't know what you mean.

-Finrock

Jesef wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 1:23 pm 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.

I would say, one difference is that I don't claim to be there yet. I am still just only trying but at least I know, I am still lacking. That is the problem with the LDS leaders, they do not teach us that we are lacking. They teach loyalty to the corporation brings eternal life.

Its quite clear from the scriptures what it takes. I am sorry to say that the LDS standards just don't cut it if you want eternal life. The Telestial kingdom is better than hell so I guess that's something.

I really don't know if I have what it takes to live a Celestial law. I guess, I will find out. I never meant to imply that I have attained anything better than anyone else. Its all pretty much talk at this point.

Thomas, the fact that you basically keep lumping all the LDS people and Leaders together in a bucket and judging them Telestial - at least, this is what your statements sound like - speaks volumes.

Jesef wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 2:10 pm 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.

The 15 are very much aware of Denver's message. They are the ones who ordered his excommunication and refused his appeal. As has been pointed out, they don't exactly entertain those who would like to preach to them.

Jesef wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 3:32 pm Thomas, the fact that you basically keep lumping all the LDS people and Leaders together in a bucket and judging them Telestial - at least, this is what your statements sound like - speaks volumes.

Well, you may have misunderstood me. There may be half a dozen or so Celestial people out there. My point is the Leaders do not teach us to conform with Celestial principles. Therefore, most people assume all is well.
2 Nephi 28

14 They wear stiff necks and high heads; yea, and because of pride, and wickedness, and abominations, and whoredoms, they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.

Like I said, we have enough scriptures to inform us but we don't really believe them. I think this scripture points out why. It is because we depend on the leaders. The tendency is to think, if we were not doing things right, the leaders would tell us.

You missed my point again, Thomas. If Denver was "Abinadi", why didn't he go to "King Noah" and call the head to repentance? It creates another non-parallel actually. I bet he could have gotten a meeting with one or more of them if he had tried. If he was this powerful Davidic Servant he says he is, he could have met face to face with at least one of them. If he is telling the truth, the Lord didn't want him to do that. It's apparently not the same "Lord" speaking to these guys (LDS Apostles vs Denver Snuffer) - since they are diametrically opposed.

Jesef wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 3:43 pm You missed my point again, Thomas. If Denver was "Abinadi", why didn't he go to "King Noah" and call the head to repentance? It creates another non-parallel actually. I bet he could have gotten a meeting with one or more of them if he had tried. If he was this powerful Davidic Servant he says he is, he could have met face to face with at least one of them. If he is telling the truth, the Lord didn't want him to do that. It's apparently not the same "Lord" speaking to these guys (LDS Apostles vs Denver Snuffer) - since they are diametrically opposed.

Denver is not Abinadi. If you look at the comparisons in the book of Mormon, they don't match up exactly but they come close. Abinida was brought to a court in front of the king because that is what their laws dictated. But Abindai did not go directly to King Noah and his priests when he first gave his message. He went among the people and preached his message,. When word got to the higher ups, they dragged him in front the King.

Close to the same happened with Denver Snuffer. He preached his message to the public. When word of this message reached the higher ups, they wanted to discipline him but the laws of the church do not allow for the 15 to discipline a member. The laws of the church allow only for the stake high councils to discipline a member. So they ordered his stake president to do it. Which BTW is against the revelations of how the church should run but they do it all the time anyway.

You are correct. Abinadi: came among the people prophesying, including in disguise after they kicked him out the first time, then thrown in prison, then brought before the court of King Noah - apparently he never sought that audience. I stand corrected. The Brethren never even took him seriously, just another apostate nut job, excommunicate and move along.

Thomas wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 3:39 pm
Well, you may have misunderstood me. There may be half a dozen or so Celestial people out there. My point is the Leaders do not teach us to conform with Celestial principles. Therefore, most people assume all is well.

You are the one doing the assuming.

ZION/Celestial principles can be lived within one's own domain, specifically one's own family. The pattern is perfect actually: Father/Mother, children/siblings, sharing all things in common, dwelling in love and harmony, living the Golden Rule, practicing charity, making and keeping covenants and keeping the commandments together. I think you might be wrong, Thomas.

The problem with what Thomas is saying here and many other Snufferites have advanced is that the LDS church conspires against them and keeps them from reading the scriptures.

This of course is a total fallacy. Over my lifetime the directives have been to read scriptures 30 minutes per day. Nobody can keep you from reading Ezekiel or Alma 32 on your own. There is almost no way the LDS Church can limit your progression at all. And in fact if you go to the Temple the LDS Church is trying to get you to actually come into the presence of God. But this is apparently not titillating enough for some.

So they demand signs and wonders from the 15. They demand of others what they will not demand of themselves.

I can go into any sect and find people who believe their sect has made them better people. Yet in JS history God condemns those sects as fakes who have not the power unto salvation. Untrue Churches we shall not join. The bad fruit of Snufferism is the deception, dishonesty, and lying. Lying about the Nauvoo temple. Lying about the last dispensation. Lying about not starting a church. Lying about the LDS Church. Lying about not following people. Lying about not having a leader or revelator. Lying about One Mighty and Strong. The lies go back to the beginning. It's a foundation of lies. No godly fruit can come from a tree of lies.

Finrock wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 2:22 pm

Arenera wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 1:30 pm 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.
-Finrock

Didn't I read you saying that raca meant apostate and so it's really bad to calll someone that? How come you don't see a problem when thomas says it, but it's name calling when others use the word.

Thomas wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 3:55 pm

Jesef wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 3:43 pm You missed my point again, Thomas. If Denver was "Abinadi", why didn't he go to "King Noah" and call the head to repentance? It creates another non-parallel actually. I bet he could have gotten a meeting with one or more of them if he had tried. If he was this powerful Davidic Servant he says he is, he could have met face to face with at least one of them. If he is telling the truth, the Lord didn't want him to do that. It's apparently not the same "Lord" speaking to these guys (LDS Apostles vs Denver Snuffer) - since they are diametrically opposed.

Denver is not Abinadi. If you look at the comparisons in the book of Mormon, they don't match up exactly but they come close. Abinida was brought to a court in front of the king because that is what their laws dictated. But Abindai did not go directly to King Noah and his priests when he first gave his message. He went among the people and preached his message,. When word got to the higher ups, they dragged him in front the King.

Close to the same happened with Denver Snuffer. He preached his message to the public. When word of this message reached the higher ups, they wanted to discipline him but the laws of the church do not allow for the 15 to discipline a member. The laws of the church allow only for the stake high councils to discipline a member. So they ordered his stake president to do it. Which BTW is against the revelations of how the church should run but they do it all the time anyway.

How do you know this?

jmack wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 7:50 pm

Finrock wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 2:22 pm

Arenera wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 1:30 pm 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.
-Finrock

Didn't I read you saying that raca meant apostate and so it's really bad to calll someone that? How come you don't see a problem when thomas says it, but it's name calling when others use the word.

What makes you think I don't see there is a problem when Thomas says it?

-Finrock

Finrock wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 8:08 pm

jmack wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 7:50 pm

Finrock wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 2:22 pm

Arenera wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 1:30 pm 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.
-Finrock

Didn't I read you saying that raca meant apostate and so it's really bad to calll someone that? How come you don't see a problem when thomas says it, but it's name calling when others use the word.

What makes you think I don't see there is a problem when Thomas says it?

-Finrock

You got a funny way of showing it. =p~

Jesef wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 8:50 am I agree. Underdog, now all you are saying is that Denver's teachings/precepts are given by the power of the Holy Ghost while that of the LDS Prophets/Apostles are not. So you are essentially claiming that your discernment (and those in your/Denver's movement) is superior. Yes, this is correct. It doesn't matter WHO says it, but WHAT is being said.

Furthermore, this question has not received a satisfactory answer, so I'll rephrase it. If Denver's claims were objectively/universally (globally) and actually/really true, why does not the power of the Holy Ghost and the power of God confirm such to sincere seekers such as Finrock (and I would add, myself)? As a missionary, I presented the promise of the BoM to countless people (before, during, and after my mission actually), and guess? The vast majority (like 99.99% said they didn't get an answer. You know the answer why. Moroni stipulates the conditions. Nobody likes to hear that they're not sincere or exercising faith in Christ. And we exercise faith in Christ, as a reminder, when we DO his word, or in other words, make sacrifices. The answer I got (meaning the answer/advice I got from members of the movement when no Divine answer was given), when I asked this at the time I was investigating him, was basically "you have to have the faith to jump ship (follow him and get re-baptized, leave the Church) first, then you'll get an answer" and similar leap-before-you-look (or jump off the cliff to see if you can fly) methods. I tend to agree. The principles is to DO, to make sacrifices. You receive no witness until after the trial of your faith. Joseph Smith didn't do it this way. Missionaries present the Book of Mormon to sincere investigators that they can then read and pray and get a manifestation (Moroni 10:3-5). And remember, when the Lord answers, He is testifying that the BoM is true, not that TSM is a true prophet. Why isn't reading/listening to Denver's words and then praying about it sufficient to draw forth an a divine answer to change directions so drastically? Joseph taught that doubt and faith cannot exist in the mind simultaneously. We are so steeped in unbelief, that I believe our false traditions have really damaged our ability to exercise faith. But obviously it's being done. Many testify of even receiving the Second Comforter. Of course, if you mention that in the LDS Church, you're likely to be excommunicated. How sad and apostate. Particularly if the eternal consequences are so dire, as you guys keep putting it ("left behind", "too late", you won't be able to join the covenant Gentile group, etc.). It's a ridiculous double-bind. I belief indeed the consequences are dire. I'll believe you'll come around. That's my sense. Many more will repent, but after much devastation and destruction, unfortunately.

Also, if some of Denver's teachings/precepts can be proven to be in error, are you willing to reconsider that his are not given by the power of the Holy Ghost? Yes, I've begged for critics to shine the light!! But there are no takers! Meanwhile, I've shined the light on 8 irrefutable facts of apostasy (see below*) which LDS Mormons cowardly refuse to acknowledge. I joined the LDS Church based on the principle that it would be cowardly to not do something you knew was right! It's a sad observation to see LDS Mormons retreating into the darkness when light is cast upon the dark deeds of apostasy of the Brethren.

Comments in blue.

* 8 Irrefutable FACTS of apostasy of the LDS Brethren. Please acknowledge or rebut, esp Seek the Truth who is so confident in the side he has chosen. I share these to help the honest seeker of truth. And I certainly invite anybody to provide a similar list (EVEN JUST ONE) regarding the apostasy of one Denver Snuffer:

• (1) The president and the Brethren can't lead us astray. Moses 4:3 (War in Heaven) totally refutes this anti Christ idea. Father permitted Satan to lead billions of God's children astray. Furthermore, this idea abrogates the free will of the president of the Church. If he "cannot" lead the Church astray, he's just a puppet or slave to God. God doesn't have slaves.

• (2) The cover up of Wilford Woodruff's excerpts added to OD 1 in 1981. No announcement. No vote. See https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... ng&query=s to see the cover-up in action!

• (3) Elder Poelman's pulled talk in 1984. Refilmed and spliced. Major changes. No announcement.

• (4) Faulty logic chain officially promoted by the Brethren in the Introduction to the BoM. Moroni's promise applies ONLY to the BoM and Joseph the translator, and NOT the Church/the Brethren.

• (5) The above examples and any examples of apostasy of the Brethren can't be brought up for discussion at church. Gross unrighteous dominion rampant at all levels of the Church scares people from bringing up sincere questions so they can be examined in the light of day.

• (6) Lectures of Faith pulled in 1921. No vote. However, they were inserted by the Prophet in 1835 and voted on by the Church.

• (7) The cover-up of Joseph's Last Vision. It's avoided like the plague. This vision obviously points to latter-day apostasy of the Church Joseph founded. The Church doesn't even try to spin the interpretation to mean something undamaging to itself. It simply ignores it and blacks it out, so that the vast majority of Mormons have never even heard of it.

• (8) The cover-up of the parable in DC 101:43-62. Talk about raising some questions! But ZERO conversation. It's never brought up. It is COVERED UP. It's so plainly referring to the Church apostasy that no leader wants the eternal ignominy of attaching their name to a spin job on it. So they just ignore it! Like you all ignore these evidences. Or perhaps Br. Lenox will offer his spin job. But alas, he's not one of the Brethren. Why not get one of them to spin the meaning to something that doesn't look or smell like apostasy of the church leaders?

Lol Snufferism has been rebutted endless times.

Here is a good introduction. All Snufferites should read it.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/passin ... ne-of-two/

Underdog said:

Also, if some of Denver's teachings/precepts can be proven to be in error, are you willing to reconsider that his are not given by the power of the Holy Ghost? Yes, I've begged for critics to shine the light!! But there are no takers! Meanwhile, I've shined the light on 8 irrefutable facts of apostasy which LDS Mormons cowardly refuse to acknowledge. I joined the LDS Church based on the principle that it would be cowardly to not do something you knew was right! It's a sad observation to see LDS Mormons retreating into the darkness when light is cast upon the dark deeds of apostasy of the Brethren.

Please consider reading this thread then: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=46431
Because it is quite clear Denver has taught grossly in error on a crucial interpretation of what "the last time" and "for the last time" mean throughout the Joseph Smith cannon.

Seek the Truth wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 8:31 pm Lol Snufferism has been rebutted endless times.

Here is a good introduction. All Snufferites should read it.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/passin ... ne-of-two/

I've read that . Very weak. NOTHING in there that scripturally shows Denver in any way is apostate. If you want to do the labor of even plagiarizing from that article, I'd like to see what you come up with. Give me one "doctrinal" way Denver is apostate and not worthy of your consideration!

Meanwhile, I do provide my little home-made list of apostasy of the Brethren:

• (1) The president and the Brethren can't lead us astray. Moses 4:3 (War in Heaven) totally refutes this anti Christ idea. Father permitted Satan to lead billions of God's children astray. Furthermore, this idea abrogates the free will of the president of the Church. If he "cannot" lead the Church astray, he's just a puppet or slave to God. God doesn't have slaves.

• (2) The cover up of Wilford Woodruff's excerpts added to OD 1 in 1981. No announcement. No vote. See https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... ng&query=s to see the cover-up in action!

• (3) Elder Poelman's pulled talk in 1984. Refilmed and spliced. Major changes. No announcement.

• (4) Faulty logic chain officially promoted by the Brethren in the Introduction to the BoM. Moroni's promise applies ONLY to the BoM and Joseph the translator, and NOT the Church/the Brethren.

• (5) The above examples and any examples of apostasy of the Brethren can't be brought up for discussion at church. Gross unrighteous dominion rampant at all levels of the Church scares people from bringing up sincere questions so they can be examined in the light of day.

• (6) Lectures of Faith pulled in 1921. No vote. However, they were inserted by the Prophet in 1835 and voted on by the Church.

• (7) The cover-up of Joseph's Last Vision. It's avoided like the plague. This vision obviously points to latter-day apostasy of the Church Joseph founded. The Church doesn't even try to spin the interpretation to mean something undamaging to itself. It simply ignores it and blacks it out, so that the vast majority of Mormons have never even heard of it.

• (8) The cover-up of the parable in DC 101:43-62. Talk about raising some questions! But ZERO conversation. It's never brought up. It is COVERED UP. It's so plainly referring to the Church apostasy that no leader wants the eternal ignominy of attaching their name to a spin job on it. So they just ignore it! Like you all ignore these evidences. Or perhaps Br. Lenox will offer his spin job. But alas, he's not one of the Brethren. Why not get one of them to spin the meaning to something that doesn't look or smell like apostasy of the church leaders?

In the paraphrased words of several stalwart Mormons, put up or shut up. Not to come across as disagreeable, but your religion (of idolizing the Brethren) should be worthy of defending by you. Please defend these acts of apostasy and unrighteous dominion. Please.

In the words of the great J. Reuben Clark:

“If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”
– President J. Reuben Clark

Well, I'm harming it. And it's not me, it truly is THE BRETHREN who are doing the harm. I'm SIMPLY POINTING OUT the harm they've done.

Jesef wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 8:35 pm Underdog said:

Also, if some of Denver's teachings/precepts can be proven to be in error, are you willing to reconsider that his are not given by the power of the Holy Ghost? Yes, I've begged for critics to shine the light!! But there are no takers! Meanwhile, I've shined the light on 8 irrefutable facts of apostasy which LDS Mormons cowardly refuse to acknowledge. I joined the LDS Church based on the principle that it would be cowardly to not do something you knew was right! It's a sad observation to see LDS Mormons retreating into the darkness when light is cast upon the dark deeds of apostasy of the Brethren.

Please consider reading this thread then: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=46431
Because it is quite clear Denver has taught grossly in error on a crucial interpretation of what "the last time" and "for the last time" mean throughout the Joseph Smith cannon.

Jesef,

I'll look at that later (tomorrow). Going to bed now. But I did glance at it for 15 seconds, and it looks like you're staking everything on an interpretation that could be argued either way, even eloquently on both sides. And this, mind you, is not "evidence of apostasy."

Thank you, and good night!

Underdog

Underdog said:

* 8 Irrefutable FACTS of apostasy of the LDS Brethren. Please acknowledge or rebut, esp Seek the Truth who is so confident in the side he has chosen. I share these to help the honest seeker of truth. And I certainly invite anybody to provide a similar list (EVEN JUST ONE) regarding the apostasy of one Denver Snuffer:

(1) The president and the Brethren can't lead us astray. Moses 4:3 (War in Heaven) totally refutes this anti Christ idea. Father permitted Satan to lead billions of God's children astray. Furthermore, this idea abrogates the free will of the president of the Church. If he "cannot" lead the Church astray, he's just a puppet or slave to God. God doesn't have slaves.

(2) The cover up of Wilford Woodruff's excerpts added to OD 1 in 1981. No announcement. No vote. See https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... ng&query=s to see the cover-up in action!

(3) Elder Poelman's pulled talk in 1984. Refilmed and spliced. Major changes. No announcement.

(4) Faulty logic chain officially promoted by the Brethren in the Introduction to the BoM. Moroni's promise applies ONLY to the BoM and Joseph the translator, and NOT the Church/the Brethren.

(5) The above examples and any examples of apostasy of the Brethren can't be brought up for discussion at church. Gross unrighteous dominion rampant at all levels of the Church scares people from bringing up sincere questions so they can be examined in the light of day.

(6) Lectures of Faith pulled in 1921. No vote. However, they were inserted by the Prophet in 1835 and voted on by the Church.

(7) The cover-up of Joseph's Last Vision. It's avoided like the plague. This vision obviously points to latter-day apostasy of the Church Joseph founded. The Church doesn't even try to spin the interpretation to mean something undamaging to itself. It simply ignores it and blacks it out, so that the vast majority of Mormons have never even heard of it.

(8) The cover-up of the parable in DC 101:43-62. Talk about raising some questions! But ZERO conversation. It's never brought up. It is COVERED UP. It's so plainly referring to the Church apostasy that no leader wants the eternal ignominy of attaching their name to a spin job on it. So they just ignore it! Like you all ignore these evidences. Or perhaps Br. Lenox will offer his spin job. But alas, he's not one of the Brethren. Why not get one of them to spin the meaning to something that doesn't look or smell like apostasy of the church leaders?
Last edited by underdog on Thu Aug 31, 2017 7:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Okay, right off the bat, reasons #2, #3, & #6 fall in the category of "no vote" or "no announcement" - those items don't constitute apostasy. Speaking of which, how are you defining apostasy? How do those items constitute falling away from the Lord? How do you know the Lord did not inspire or authorize those actions? Even so, one could simply classify them as leader errors or mistakes or even administrative/authoritative privilege and correction. "Whether by mine own voice, or the voice of my servants, it is the same..." The case for #6 is sketchy in its own right. Lectures on Faith isn't scripture, it is not the Lord speaking - it's not the same caliber as Joseph's revelations (that's the reason the committee gave in 1921, in fact - you may disagree with that, but does it really constitute "apostasy"?) - and the research indicates it was mostly written by Sidney Rigdon. It's still available to read for anyone who wants to. It's not necessary for salvation. How does removing it constitute "apostasy" of the Brethren? They were classes written and given by the early brethren, they probably have all kinds of errors in them of their own kind. If they were so important, why didn't the Lord reveal them as direct revelation to Joseph? Just a counter-argument. But, again, how does this definitively constitute wholesale apostasy of the Church & Leaders? And besides, official declarations don't seem like scripture to me, more like addenda or appendices.

#1 can be interpreted very differently than you have interpreted it, as I've already pointed out - i.e. "lead astray" could very well mean "lead into utter apostasy". If you read the other thread I linked to, it can be demonstrated, quite plausibly, that the Lord intended for the final/last dispensation, "the dispensation of the fulness of times", to maintain continuity, no matter what man might do - hence, he very well could remove a rebellious and errant Prophet/President, if one were to arise (which He would foresee, btw). He is able to fulfill His promises and words, in spite of man's errors or efforts to thwart. It is also possible that each Church President makes a covenant, on his life, to obey and do the Lord's will, so the consequence is voluntary, not a violation of that Prophet/President's agency. You failed to consider this possibility or contingency.

#4 the accusation of faulty logic is a matter of perspective. If one accepts the Lord's many indications of the final/last dispensation being continuous, then the logic is sound. The LDS Church is the kingdom of God on the earth and its leaders his authorized servants. They are the "servants" spoken of in Jacob 5 that are helping the Lord prune the whole vineyard (world) and the custodians of His gospel and word, including the Book of Mormon. What they actually say, too, in the intro is "We invite all men everywhere to read the Book of Mormon, to ponder in their hearts the message it contains, and then to ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true. Those who pursue this course and ask in faith will gain a testimony of its truth and divinity by the power of the Holy Ghost. (See Moroni 10:3–5.) Those who gain this divine witness from the Holy Spirit will also come to know by the same power that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, that Joseph Smith is His revelator and prophet in these last days, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s kingdom once again established on the earth, preparatory to the Second Coming of the Messiah." They actually stated the results of the promise quite accurately. There is no logic fault here. "He will manifest the truth of it (the Book of Mormon) unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost. (v4)" "And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things (v5)" (including if the Church is His) "And ye may know that he (Christ) is, by the power of the Holy Ghost (v6)" If the continuity of the dispensation and kingdom promises and prophecies are true, throughout the D&C and Jacob 5, then these are not far-fetched logical steps at all. No other Joseph Smith successor organization has continued its missionary efforts across the entire world and that is a HUGE charge and prophecy for the last dispensation and the kingdom Daniel prophesied about "Daniel 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." Again, read and follow the updates to "The Last Time" thread - there's more to come and it's impossible to reconcile with Denver's teaching/precept/interpretation and with his apostasy/reboot paradigm.

#7 Cover up of Joseph's Last Vision? Did you read the footnote in Denver's Preserving The Restoration book for that one? "[1296] TPJS, p. 393-394." Here's a link to the original, in the Joseph Smith Papers (you know that huge research project funded by the Church): http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... t-1844/183
So what's the cover-up? This vision is only available from the Church. Are you upset that this journal entry of one of Joseph's dreams wasn't canonized into scripture?

#8 How is D&C 101:43-62 covered up? You're big into these cover-ups. An apostasy conspiracy theorist. How is something covered up that is in every single copy of the D&C in the hands of every Church member, studied by every Seminary student and Institute student and Sunday School class? Have you considered the historical context and that that revelation was speaking to the Saints of 1833, Zion's Camp, etc.? Anyway, explain the cover up and how you think this constitutes apostasy.

#5 is also a matter of perspective. Rebellion has never been tolerated in the Kingdom. Joseph Smith excommunicated the rebellious for apostasy in his day. Alma did too. Apparently you think it should be acceptable to rise up, accuse the Brethren, be openly disloyal, and there be no consequences. Maybe. But the historical precedent doesn't seem to agree with that. Joseph doesn't seem to have operated like that. Peter struck Ananias and Sapphira dead for lying to the Lord and breaking their consecration covenants (apparently). Just saying, maybe loyalty is important to the Lord. You could be wrong.

This is just an attempt to respond to your points. It's not exhaustive. But you seem so confident that your case and points are air-tight and yet I think they're just kind of mediocre. Maybe some mistakes have been made. But you're saying these constitute wholesale apostasy and mismanagement by the Brethren and rejection by the Lord.

jmack wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 8:21 pm

Finrock wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 8:08 pm

jmack wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 7:50 pm

Finrock wrote: ↑August 31st, 2017, 2:22 pm

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.
-Finrock

Didn't I read you saying that raca meant apostate and so it's really bad to calll someone that? How come you don't see a problem when thomas says it, but it's name calling when others use the word.

What makes you think I don't see there is a problem when Thomas says it?

-Finrock

You got a funny way of showing it. =p~

Hate is a strong word and that is what I'm talking about. Maybe Thomas does hate the leaders, but, I can't conclude that he hates them based only on the fact that he calls them apostate.

Do you think the Stake President or the leaders who excommunicated Denver Snuffer hate Denver Snuffer even though they would call him apostate?

-Finrock

Underdog said:

I'll look at that later (tomorrow). Going to bed now. But I did glance at it for 15 seconds, and it looks like you're staking everything on an interpretation that could be argued either way, even eloquently on both sides. And this, mind you, is not "evidence of apostasy."

Thank you, too! And please do attempt to argue it the other way. Denver's discontinuity argument/premise rests on this interpretation - that "the last time" and "for the last time" don't mean "the final time" before the end and the world/vineyard is burned - I've found so far that all of the passages that say "last time" become nonsensical when replaced with "most recent time". But, hey, make a case for it if you can. Good night.