Denver Snuffer's Remnant scripture project and covenant

[Arenera]

The Church and Leaders were in Zarahemla. King Benjamin, his son Mosiah.

Abinadi was sent to the over-zealous people of Zeniff who became wicked.

A curious claim considering what happened when Alma arrives in Zarahemla:

Mosiah 25:19 And it came to pass that king Mosiah granted unto Alma that he might establish churches throughout all the land of Zarahemla; and gave him power to ordain priests and teachers over every church.

20 Now this was done because there were so many people that they could not all be governed by one teacher; neither could they all hear the word of God in one assembly;

21 Therefore they did assemble themselves together in different bodies, being called churches; every church having their priests and their teachers, and every priest preaching the word according as it was delivered to him by the mouth of Alma.

Which is basically saying "do here what you did in the wilderness":

Mosiah18:16 And after this manner he did baptize every one that went forth to the place of Mormon; and they were in number about two hundred and four souls; yea, and they were baptized in the waters of Mormon, and were filled with the grace of God.

17 And they were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from that time forward. And it came to pass that whosoever was baptized by the power and authority of God was added to his church.

18 And it came to pass that Alma, having authority from God, ordained priests; even one priest to every fifty of their number did he ordain to preach unto them, and to teach them concerning the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

Doing a quick search of the Book of Mormon, there is no usage of the term Church from Second Nephi 28 until Mosiah 18. And no references to it in Zarahemla until Alma's arrival. Then the term is used extensively through out the rest of the Book of Mosiah.
It is an interesting dynamic between Mosiah and Alma. One worthy of studying and understanding.

You make some good points jdt. Some inferences I make wether right or wrong:
* Why did God send Abinadi to the people of Zeniff? There were probably some good people there. Their parents were over-zealous but that is no fault of the children.

* We know that Alma was one of the good people, actually exceptional. Although he was a wicked priest, the words of Christ touched him and he believed Abinadi, and followed the Spirit. Alma could have been a descendant of Nephi, and held the priesthood which was one reason that Noah appointed him a priest.

* Alma tells us he had a sore repentance, so he had been wicked. The Spirit can change a person if a person allows, that happened with Alma.

* Alma organizes the church and priests to teach the people. Alma gave direction on what was to be taught.


When Alma's people made it to Zarahemla, Alma meets Mosiah. Mosiah was a prophet and a seer. Why did Mosiah appoint Alma to set up churches?

Did Mosiah have an inkling that his sons would not take the kingship, or just a spiritual promping?

[underdog]

That the LDS Church is apostate. That keys and legal administrators are not relevant. These are directly at odds with the

Even the wicked court that tried Abinadi knew they had to bring him up on some specific charge. I've asked you for something specific. Let's compare what you said above to what they (with King Noah as voice here) accused Abinadi of:

17 And he said unto him: Abinadi, we have found an accusation against thee, and thou art worthy of death.

18 For thou hast said that God himself should come down among the children of men; and now, for this cause thou shalt be put to death unless thou wilt recall all the words which thou hast spoken evil concerning me and my people.

The king stretched for something specific and finally said that Abinadi said Christ would "come down among the children of men" (hmmm, that sounds a lot like Denver teaching about Christ coming down to visit him (not to mention the book, The Second Comforter)!!). But then the REAL reason spills out in crystal clarity:

They will kill (literally in Abinadi's case or metaphorically by exing Denver) Abinadi "UNLESS" he "recalls" the negative things he's said about them.

This has a STUNNING parallel to the Church demanding that Denver recall his book "which speaks evil" of the Church and that he not go out on his speaking tour.
[/color]

You and the remnants use the story of Abinadi out of context, therefore improperly.

The Church and Leaders were in Zarahemla. King Benjamin, his son Mosiah.

Abinadi was sent to the over-zealous people of Zeniff who became wicked. Denver is no parallel, especially since he didn't go before President Monson and the apostles. Denver wrote his slanderous book.

Arenera,

I appreciate your effort at defense.

I don't think you're understanding the standard for arguing or debating or persuasion or proving a point. Think of a court room. There are two sides. Both are bringing forth evidences and testimonies. Some are objected to and sustained by the judge, for very specific reasoning and logic.

Regarding the submission of testimony or evidence, anytime one side brings conjecture, opinion, assertions, assumptions, tradition, etc., the other side would properly object. The judge would say, "Sustained!" and the testimony or evidence you entered would be thrown out, not because of a technicality but because it's biased, subjective, and non factual. It's a complete waste of time to keep bringing up your assertion, opinion, assumption, tradition that "the Church is true." However you want to say it (see examples below). None of these premises can be allowed because they are assertions. The other side can assert the opposite.

• The Church is true.

• We have the keys.

• The Lord would not lead Church astray.

• The Brethren can't lead us astray.

• The president of the Church can't lead us astray.

All the above is opinion. None of it is factual.

And yet, everything on your list of defense of the Church or allegations against Denver are based on these assertions.

None of it is valid. You base your entire defense on a sacred cow that just isn't true. The "keystone" of your defense is now a tradition. But the arch crumbles, the house of cards falls, because you can't use it. Even Shadow and Seek the Truth (and everyone else) realizes this finally.

Compare my list of 8 things. Every single one is fact. Undeniable.

How you interpret the fact is another story. I know there are differences of opinions. I say, where there's smoke, there's fire.

Now to your other point...you said:

You and the remnants use the story of Abinadi out of context, therefore improperly.

The Church and Leaders were in Zarahemla. King Benjamin, his son Mosiah.

Abinadi was sent to the over-zealous people of Zeniff who became wicked. Denver is no parallel, especially since he didn't go before President Monson and the apostles. Denver wrote his slanderous book.

Jdt makes a good point. There was no church in the land of Zarahemla. He knows his BoM. And it's true. His quotations show that.

The point of Abinadi being a "type" of Denver is very simple. 1) Abinadi was sent by God. So is Denver. 2) Abinadi called the religious leadership where he lived to repentance. So has Denver.

He did go before Pres Monson. He appealed, remember?

As for the charge of slander, please provide ONE quote of slander. Don't just lazily say "read the book." Please share something specific.

[Arenera]

That the LDS Church is apostate. That keys and legal administrators are not relevant. These are directly at odds with the

Even the wicked court that tried Abinadi knew they had to bring him up on some specific charge. I've asked you for something specific. Let's compare what you said above to what they (with King Noah as voice here) accused Abinadi of:

17 And he said unto him: Abinadi, we have found an accusation against thee, and thou art worthy of death.

18 For thou hast said that God himself should come down among the children of men; and now, for this cause thou shalt be put to death unless thou wilt recall all the words which thou hast spoken evil concerning me and my people.

The king stretched for something specific and finally said that Abinadi said Christ would "come down among the children of men" (hmmm, that sounds a lot like Denver teaching about Christ coming down to visit him (not to mention the book, The Second Comforter)!!). But then the REAL reason spills out in crystal clarity:

They will kill (literally in Abinadi's case or metaphorically by exing Denver) Abinadi "UNLESS" he "recalls" the negative things he's said about them.

This has a STUNNING parallel to the Church demanding that Denver recall his book "which speaks evil" of the Church and that he not go out on his speaking tour.
[/color]

You and the remnants use the story of Abinadi out of context, therefore improperly.

The Church and Leaders were in Zarahemla. King Benjamin, his son Mosiah.

Abinadi was sent to the over-zealous people of Zeniff who became wicked. Denver is no parallel, especially since he didn't go before President Monson and the apostles. Denver wrote his slanderous book.

Arenera,

I appreciate your effort at defense.

I don't think you're understanding the standard for arguing or debating or persuasion or proving a point. Think of a court room. There are two sides. Both are bringing forth evidences and testimonies. Some are objected to and sustained by the judge, for very specific reasoning and logic.

Regarding the submission of testimony or evidence, anytime one side brings conjecture, opinion, assertions, assumptions, tradition, etc., the other side would properly object. The judge would say, "Sustained!" and the testimony or evidence you entered would be thrown out, not because of a technicality but because it's biased, subjective, and non factual. It's a complete waste of time to keep bringing up your assertion, opinion, assumption, tradition that "the Church is true." However you want to say it (see examples below). None of these premises can be allowed because they are assertions. The other side can assert the opposite.

• The Church is true.

• We have the keys.

• The Lord would not lead Church astray.

• The Brethren can't lead us astray.

• The president of the Church can't lead us astray.

All the above is opinion. None of it is factual.

And yet, everything on your list of defense of the Church or allegations against Denver are based on these assertions.

None of it is valid. You base your entire defense on a sacred cow that just isn't true. The "keystone" of your defense is now a tradition. But the arch crumbles, the house of cards falls, because you can't use it. Even Shadow and Seek the Truth (and everyone else) realizes this finally.

Compare my list of 8 things. Every single one is fact. Undeniable.

How you interpret the fact is another story. I know there are differences of opinions. I say, where there's smoke, there's fire.

Now to your other point...you said:

You and the remnants use the story of Abinadi out of context, therefore improperly.

The Church and Leaders were in Zarahemla. King Benjamin, his son Mosiah.

Abinadi was sent to the over-zealous people of Zeniff who became wicked. Denver is no parallel, especially since he didn't go before President Monson and the apostles. Denver wrote his slanderous book.

Jdt makes a good point. There was no church in the land of Zarahemla. He knows his BoM. And it's true. His quotations show that.

The point of Abinadi being a "type" of Denver is very simple. 1) Abinadi was sent by God. So is Denver. 2) Abinadi called the religious leadership where he lived to repentance. So has Denver.

He did go before Pres Monson. He appealed, remember?

As for the charge of slander, please provide ONE quote of slander. Don't just lazily say "read the book." Please share something specific.

You want to practice court of law. Religion isn't a court of law.

I received a powerful witness that Harold B Lee was a Prophet of God. That also means the Church isn't in apostasy.

Saying that Denver is Abinadi is weak, extremely weak. Abinadi didn't go to King Mosiah did he? Abinadi preached repentance and Christ. Denver preaches the church is in apostasy. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not in apostasy. I know that by Spiritual confirmation.

Denver is also not Alma. Denver didn't start organizing a church, he said he would not. Are you saying that Denver has changed his mind? It sure seems like he is organizing a church, although haphazardly (recall the John Doe incident).

Don't forget, when Christ was crucified, he setup the new church organization. That includes Prophets and Apostles, none of which are around Denver.

You preach the Church is in apostasy. So what, what do you propose next? People have been watching Denver for a few years and it is a circus spectacle. What do you propose underdog?

You say we are just following traditions. You are most incorrect. We are following the Spirit.

[shadow]

That the LDS Church is apostate. That keys and legal administrators are not relevant. These are directly at odds with the

Even the wicked court that tried Abinadi knew they had to bring him up on some specific charge. I've asked you for something specific. Let's compare what you said above to what they (with King Noah as voice here) accused Abinadi of:



The king stretched for something specific and finally said that Abinadi said Christ would "come down among the children of men" (hmmm, that sounds a lot like Denver teaching about Christ coming down to visit him (not to mention the book, The Second Comforter)!!). But then the REAL reason spills out in crystal clarity:

They will kill (literally in Abinadi's case or metaphorically by exing Denver) Abinadi "UNLESS" he "recalls" the negative things he's said about them.

This has a STUNNING parallel to the Church demanding that Denver recall his book "which speaks evil" of the Church and that he not go out on his speaking tour.
[/color]

You and the remnants use the story of Abinadi out of context, therefore improperly.

The Church and Leaders were in Zarahemla. King Benjamin, his son Mosiah.

Abinadi was sent to the over-zealous people of Zeniff who became wicked. Denver is no parallel, especially since he didn't go before President Monson and the apostles. Denver wrote his slanderous book.

Arenera,

I appreciate your effort at defense.

I don't think you're understanding the standard for arguing or debating or persuasion or proving a point. Think of a court room. There are two sides. Both are bringing forth evidences and testimonies. Some are objected to and sustained by the judge, for very specific reasoning and logic.

Regarding the submission of testimony or evidence, anytime one side brings conjecture, opinion, assertions, assumptions, tradition, etc., the other side would properly object. The judge would say, "Sustained!" and the testimony or evidence you entered would be thrown out, not because of a technicality but because it's biased, subjective, and non factual. It's a complete waste of time to keep bringing up your assertion, opinion, assumption, tradition that "the Church is true." However you want to say it (see examples below). None of these premises can be allowed because they are assertions. The other side can assert the opposite.

• The Church is true.

• We have the keys.

• The Lord would not lead Church astray.

• The Brethren can't lead us astray.

• The president of the Church can't lead us astray.

All the above is opinion. None of it is factual.

And yet, everything on your list of defense of the Church or allegations against Denver are based on these assertions.

None of it is valid. You base your entire defense on a sacred cow that just isn't true. The "keystone" of your defense is now a tradition. But the arch crumbles, the house of cards falls, because you can't use it. Even Shadow and Seek the Truth (and everyone else) realizes this finally.

Compare my list of 8 things. Every single one is fact. Undeniable.

How you interpret the fact is another story. I know there are differences of opinions. I say, where there's smoke, there's fire.

Now to your other point...you said:

You and the remnants use the story of Abinadi out of context, therefore improperly.

The Church and Leaders were in Zarahemla. King Benjamin, his son Mosiah.

Abinadi was sent to the over-zealous people of Zeniff who became wicked. Denver is no parallel, especially since he didn't go before President Monson and the apostles. Denver wrote his slanderous book.

Jdt makes a good point. There was no church in the land of Zarahemla. He knows his BoM. And it's true. His quotations show that.

The point of Abinadi being a "type" of Denver is very simple. 1) Abinadi was sent by God. So is Denver. 2) Abinadi called the religious leadership where he lived to repentance. So has Denver.

He did go before Pres Monson. He appealed, remember?

As for the charge of slander, please provide ONE quote of slander. Don't just lazily say "read the book." Please share something specific.

You want to practice court of law. Religion isn't a court of law.

I received a powerful witness that Harold B Lee was a Prophet of God. That also means the Church isn't in apostasy.

Saying that Denver is Abinadi is weak, extremely weak. Abinadi didn't go to King Mosiah did he? Abinadi preached repentance and Christ. Denver preaches the church is in apostasy. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not in apostasy. I know that by Spiritual confirmation.

Denver is also not Alma. Denver didn't start organizing a church, he said he would not. Are you saying that Denver has changed his mind? It sure seems like he is organizing a church, although haphazardly (recall the John Doe incident).

Don't forget, when Christ was crucified, he setup the new church organization. That includes Prophets and Apostles, none of which are around Denver.

You preach the Church is in apostasy. So what, what do you propose next? People have been watching Denver for a few years and it is a circus spectacle. What do you propose underdog?

You say we are just following traditions. You are most incorrect. We are following the Spirit.

It's impossible to argue any points with underdog. He's so entrenched in Snufferism that he literally can't process info correctly.

First of all, lets take his court of law requirements- he says premises can't be allowed. All of his arguments are based on premise. He claims Denver was sent by God. Sorry dog, that's not provable. He says Snuffer is a true prophet. Sorry dog, that's not provable. The funny thing is that he says you can't say Monson is a prophet but he claims Snuffer is. The guy can't keep anything straight. His list of 8 has been completely blown apart but he still says it's untouchable. He won't even address it. You can't reason with the unreasonable.

Then the silly thing is he compares this to a court of law but like you said, it isn't. Joseph Smith said this-

10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

So any church or religious society can work under it's own premises and treat them as factual. That's their right.
Based on the church's rules, Snuffer was dealt with. Snuffer has claimed that the church doesn't have the keys and authority it claims it has. He called church leaders the "proud decedents of Nauvoo", the "new Popes". Those are facts. The church asked him to stop and he refused so a court was ordered for him. He refused to attend even tho he was there at the church. He was excommunicated. He appealed to the first presidency and they let the excommunication stand. It was all correct and by the rules and laws of the church which was their right and responsibility to exercise. Based alone on his absence from his court, Joseph Smith said excommunications are valid (I've documented this in earlier posts). So even if Snufferites feel his excommunication was unwarranted because of his book, his absence alone validates it. No keys were wrested.

30 For unto you, the Twelve, and those, the First Presidency, who are appointed with you to be your counselors and your leaders, is the power of this priesthood given, for the last days and for the last time, in the which is the dispensation of the fulness of times,

31 Which power you hold, in connection with all those who have received a dispensation at any time from the beginning of the creation;

32 For verily I say unto you, the keys of the dispensation, which ye have received, have come down from the fathers, and last of all, being sent down from heaven unto you.

The nice thing is that, as dog posted in an earlier thread, the church says the power of the Holy Ghost will let you know the truthfulness of not only The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's mission, but that the church is restored and here today in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I've accepted the challenge and God confirmed to me that the church is Christ's, that the Prophets and Apostles are His and that He recognizes them What a wonderful blessing to know these things.

The tradition of Satan is to remove ones self from the Lord's true and living church. I suggest underdog reconsider the false tradition he's following.

[AI2.0]

• God's prophets: a true prophet is one SENT by God. Meaning, God personally FACE TO FACE meets and commissions the man to perform a specific mission.

Would you like to discuss how this can be incorrect?

Can we stay focused and not go off on tangents please?

The focus: you're supposed to provide evidence of Denver's teachings or actions being apostate.

Please provide a teaching of Denver's that shows apostasy, of evidence of falling away from Christ, or to use Mormon's words, something that Denver is doing that persuades "men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God." Why go through this exercise? Because "then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil", in short, that it is apostate.

Same standard for my list of 8 things.

Underdog, do you agree that Denver Snuffer was a member of the CofJCofLDS for 40 years?

So, if he was a member, then should we not assume that he was a devout believer, that he kept the word ofwisdom, paid a full tithe, kept the commandments and teachings of the CofJCofLDS, was worthy of a temple recommend and attended. Correct?

Therefore, we can assume that Denver Snuffer was ordained and exercise priesthood, submitted himself and recognized the authority of his church leaders, also submitting to their authority to issue him a temple recommend, also submitted to their authority in accepting and fulfilling callings, correct?

As a devout member of the LDS church, Denver would have believed that this is the Only true and living church on the earth, that we have living prophets who lead and guide the church and that he should listen to their counsel and follow it.

So, If we agree on these things, then we agree that for 40 years, Denver Snuffer believed that NOT doing these things was putting himself in jeopardy of falling away from Christ, and doing evil and not serving God. Of course.

Denver Snuffer has made the choice to defy his church leaders, give up the word of wisdom, abandon his callings, and lose his temple recommend, essentially abandoning his temple covenants and stop living the teachings which he believed were embodied in the Church of Jesus christ of Latter day saints.


So, right there, you have proof that Denver Snuffer is an apostate. He chose to turn against everything that he was taught and believed. And frankly, it doesn't matter if the church's claims are true or not, HE believed them to be true and now he's turned against them and is actively recruiting others to do the same. That's called apostasy.

Now, if you want to know what teachings he preaches which are contrary to the LDS faith, and what he was told to stop teaching--there are many.

1. He preaches that you must see God in the flesh while on earth, otherwise you cannot enter the Celestial kingdom. This is false. The LDS church teaches the Baptism is the entrance to the Celestial kingdom and seeing Jesus in the Flesh is not necessary for entrance into the Celestial kingdom.

2. He says that if you follow a man/prophet, you are going to hell--telestial kingdom. The LDS church teaches in accordance with scriptures, that true prophets are the lord's servants on earth and that there is only one on the earth at a time who holds the keys and authority to lead us. The Lord expects us to listen to our prophets and if we do not, we will be 'cut off'.

3. He teaches that not everyone on earth is being tested, some are already Gods. This is false, it is also Anti christ (teaching that some don't need the atonement of Christ). The LDS church teaches that we ALL are here to receive a body and to be tested. None of us are God and we ALL need the atonement or we cannot be saved.

4. He teaches that the LDS church was rejected by God back in 1841. This is false. The LDS church was not rejected and it is the only true church on the earth today.

5. He now claims to have wrested the keys from Pres. Monson and is telling others that he now has the saving ordinances. Obvious apostasy.

6. He's written his own scriptures, he's added to them and taken away from them. Obvious apostasy.

And there are others--he's rejected the LDS church form of baptism, sacrament and the temple ordinances. He's also rejected the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Tithing.

That's obvious apostasy from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints.

[underdog]

You and the remnants use the story of Abinadi out of context, therefore improperly.

The Church and Leaders were in Zarahemla. King Benjamin, his son Mosiah.

Abinadi was sent to the over-zealous people of Zeniff who became wicked. Denver is no parallel, especially since he didn't go before President Monson and the apostles. Denver wrote his slanderous book.

Arenera,

I appreciate your effort at defense.

I don't think you're understanding the standard for arguing or debating or persuasion or proving a point. Think of a court room. There are two sides. Both are bringing forth evidences and testimonies. Some are objected to and sustained by the judge, for very specific reasoning and logic.

Regarding the submission of testimony or evidence, anytime one side brings conjecture, opinion, assertions, assumptions, tradition, etc., the other side would properly object. The judge would say, "Sustained!" and the testimony or evidence you entered would be thrown out, not because of a technicality but because it's biased, subjective, and non factual. It's a complete waste of time to keep bringing up your assertion, opinion, assumption, tradition that "the Church is true." However you want to say it (see examples below). None of these premises can be allowed because they are assertions. The other side can assert the opposite.

• The Church is true.

• We have the keys.

• The Lord would not lead Church astray.

• The Brethren can't lead us astray.

• The president of the Church can't lead us astray.

All the above is opinion. None of it is factual.

And yet, everything on your list of defense of the Church or allegations against Denver are based on these assertions.

None of it is valid. You base your entire defense on a sacred cow that just isn't true. The "keystone" of your defense is now a tradition. But the arch crumbles, the house of cards falls, because you can't use it. Even Shadow and Seek the Truth (and everyone else) realizes this finally.

Compare my list of 8 things. Every single one is fact. Undeniable.

How you interpret the fact is another story. I know there are differences of opinions. I say, where there's smoke, there's fire.

Now to your other point...you said:

You and the remnants use the story of Abinadi out of context, therefore improperly.

The Church and Leaders were in Zarahemla. King Benjamin, his son Mosiah.

Abinadi was sent to the over-zealous people of Zeniff who became wicked. Denver is no parallel, especially since he didn't go before President Monson and the apostles. Denver wrote his slanderous book.

Jdt makes a good point. There was no church in the land of Zarahemla. He knows his BoM. And it's true. His quotations show that.

The point of Abinadi being a "type" of Denver is very simple. 1) Abinadi was sent by God. So is Denver. 2) Abinadi called the religious leadership where he lived to repentance. So has Denver.

He did go before Pres Monson. He appealed, remember?

As for the charge of slander, please provide ONE quote of slander. Don't just lazily say "read the book." Please share something specific.

You want to practice court of law. Religion isn't a court of law.

I received a powerful witness that Harold B Lee was a Prophet of God. That also means the Church isn't in apostasy.

Saying that Denver is Abinadi is weak, extremely weak. Abinadi didn't go to King Mosiah did he? Abinadi preached repentance and Christ. Denver preaches the church is in apostasy. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not in apostasy. I know that by Spiritual confirmation.

Denver is also not Alma. Denver didn't start organizing a church, he said he would not. Are you saying that Denver has changed his mind? It sure seems like he is organizing a church, although haphazardly (recall the John Doe incident).

Don't forget, when Christ was crucified, he setup the new church organization. That includes Prophets and Apostles, none of which are around Denver.

You preach the Church is in apostasy. So what, what do you propose next? People have been watching Denver for a few years and it is a circus spectacle. What do you propose underdog?

You say we are just following traditions. You are most incorrect. We are following the Spirit.

It's impossible to argue any points with underdog. He's so entrenched in Snufferism that he literally can't process info correctly.

First of all, lets take his court of law requirements- he says premises can't be allowed. All of his arguments are based on premise. He claims Denver was sent by God. Sorry dog, that's not provable. He says Snuffer is a true prophet. Sorry dog, that's not provable. The funny thing is that he says you can't say Monson is a prophet but he claims Snuffer is. The guy can't keep anything straight. His list of 8 has been completely blown apart but he still says it's untouchable. He won't even address it. You can't reason with the unreasonable.

Then the silly thing is he compares this to a court of law but like you said, it isn't. Joseph Smith said this-

10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

So any church or religious society can work under it's own premises and treat them as factual. That's their right.
Based on the church's rules, Snuffer was dealt with. Snuffer has claimed that the church doesn't have the keys and authority it claims it has. He called church leaders the "proud decedents of Nauvoo", the "new Popes". Those are facts. The church asked him to stop and he refused so a court was ordered for him. He refused to attend even tho he was there at the church. He was excommunicated. He appealed to the first presidency and they let the excommunication stand. It was all correct and by the rules and laws of the church which was their right and responsibility to exercise. Based alone on his absence from his court, Joseph Smith said excommunications are valid (I've documented this in earlier posts). So even if Snufferites feel his excommunication was unwarranted because of his book, his absence alone validates it. No keys were wrested.

30 For unto you, the Twelve, and those, the First Presidency, who are appointed with you to be your counselors and your leaders, is the power of this priesthood given, for the last days and for the last time, in the which is the dispensation of the fulness of times,

31 Which power you hold, in connection with all those who have received a dispensation at any time from the beginning of the creation;

32 For verily I say unto you, the keys of the dispensation, which ye have received, have come down from the fathers, and last of all, being sent down from heaven unto you.

The nice thing is that, as dog posted in an earlier thread, the church says the power of the Holy Ghost will let you know the truthfulness of not only The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's mission, but that the church is restored and here today in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I've accepted the challenge and God confirmed to me that the church is Christ's, that the Prophets and Apostles are His and that He recognizes them What a wonderful blessing to know these things.

The tradition of Satan is to remove ones self from the Lord's true and living church. I suggest underdog reconsider the false tradition he's following.

I am so happy that you finally understand and hopefully Arenera understands what I've been saying for the last month on this forum.

Assertions can't be used to justify any case. Of course a testimony of Jesus or a testimony of Joseph or a testimony of anybody is only an assertion. That is what I have been saying.

You have thought the "keys" assertion is a panacea, but it's only an assertion, even only a tradition. The Jews said the same thing.

Of course any testimony that I have of Jesus Christ or Joseph Smith or even of Denver Snuffer cannot be presented as evidence, because they are in fact just assertions.

That is why I have been dealing with facts when I bring the case against the LDS church as being apostate. And I have just given a small sample list. Perhaps not even the best ones are on the list.

And also I am very grateful that you understand, because you actually said it, what excommunication is about.

OF COURSE the church can excommunicate anybody it pleases. It could excommunicate people for not wearing a Daniel Boone raccoon hat, if they so chose to do so.

The church has the right to excommunicate. So I'm not sure what point you're even making. Other than it seems to illustrate that you're confused.

And so that we can stay focused and not digress and get distracted let me bring us back to the challenge I've made to you, which is...

Specifically state how Denver opposes Christ!

[Arenera]

Arenera,

I appreciate your effort at defense.

I don't think you're understanding the standard for arguing or debating or persuasion or proving a point. Think of a court room. There are two sides. Both are bringing forth evidences and testimonies. Some are objected to and sustained by the judge, for very specific reasoning and logic.

Regarding the submission of testimony or evidence, anytime one side brings conjecture, opinion, assertions, assumptions, tradition, etc., the other side would properly object. The judge would say, "Sustained!" and the testimony or evidence you entered would be thrown out, not because of a technicality but because it's biased, subjective, and non factual. It's a complete waste of time to keep bringing up your assertion, opinion, assumption, tradition that "the Church is true." However you want to say it (see examples below). None of these premises can be allowed because they are assertions. The other side can assert the opposite.

• The Church is true.

• We have the keys.

• The Lord would not lead Church astray.

• The Brethren can't lead us astray.

• The president of the Church can't lead us astray.

All the above is opinion. None of it is factual.

And yet, everything on your list of defense of the Church or allegations against Denver are based on these assertions.

None of it is valid. You base your entire defense on a sacred cow that just isn't true. The "keystone" of your defense is now a tradition. But the arch crumbles, the house of cards falls, because you can't use it. Even Shadow and Seek the Truth (and everyone else) realizes this finally.

Compare my list of 8 things. Every single one is fact. Undeniable.

How you interpret the fact is another story. I know there are differences of opinions. I say, where there's smoke, there's fire.

Now to your other point...you said:



Jdt makes a good point. There was no church in the land of Zarahemla. He knows his BoM. And it's true. His quotations show that.

The point of Abinadi being a "type" of Denver is very simple. 1) Abinadi was sent by God. So is Denver. 2) Abinadi called the religious leadership where he lived to repentance. So has Denver.

He did go before Pres Monson. He appealed, remember?

As for the charge of slander, please provide ONE quote of slander. Don't just lazily say "read the book." Please share something specific.

You want to practice court of law. Religion isn't a court of law.

I received a powerful witness that Harold B Lee was a Prophet of God. That also means the Church isn't in apostasy.

Saying that Denver is Abinadi is weak, extremely weak. Abinadi didn't go to King Mosiah did he? Abinadi preached repentance and Christ. Denver preaches the church is in apostasy. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not in apostasy. I know that by Spiritual confirmation.

Denver is also not Alma. Denver didn't start organizing a church, he said he would not. Are you saying that Denver has changed his mind? It sure seems like he is organizing a church, although haphazardly (recall the John Doe incident).

Don't forget, when Christ was crucified, he setup the new church organization. That includes Prophets and Apostles, none of which are around Denver.

You preach the Church is in apostasy. So what, what do you propose next? People have been watching Denver for a few years and it is a circus spectacle. What do you propose underdog?

You say we are just following traditions. You are most incorrect. We are following the Spirit.

It's impossible to argue any points with underdog. He's so entrenched in Snufferism that he literally can't process info correctly.

First of all, lets take his court of law requirements- he says premises can't be allowed. All of his arguments are based on premise. He claims Denver was sent by God. Sorry dog, that's not provable. He says Snuffer is a true prophet. Sorry dog, that's not provable. The funny thing is that he says you can't say Monson is a prophet but he claims Snuffer is. The guy can't keep anything straight. His list of 8 has been completely blown apart but he still says it's untouchable. He won't even address it. You can't reason with the unreasonable.

Then the silly thing is he compares this to a court of law but like you said, it isn't. Joseph Smith said this-

10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

So any church or religious society can work under it's own premises and treat them as factual. That's their right.
Based on the church's rules, Snuffer was dealt with. Snuffer has claimed that the church doesn't have the keys and authority it claims it has. He called church leaders the "proud decedents of Nauvoo", the "new Popes". Those are facts. The church asked him to stop and he refused so a court was ordered for him. He refused to attend even tho he was there at the church. He was excommunicated. He appealed to the first presidency and they let the excommunication stand. It was all correct and by the rules and laws of the church which was their right and responsibility to exercise. Based alone on his absence from his court, Joseph Smith said excommunications are valid (I've documented this in earlier posts). So even if Snufferites feel his excommunication was unwarranted because of his book, his absence alone validates it. No keys were wrested.

30 For unto you, the Twelve, and those, the First Presidency, who are appointed with you to be your counselors and your leaders, is the power of this priesthood given, for the last days and for the last time, in the which is the dispensation of the fulness of times,

31 Which power you hold, in connection with all those who have received a dispensation at any time from the beginning of the creation;

32 For verily I say unto you, the keys of the dispensation, which ye have received, have come down from the fathers, and last of all, being sent down from heaven unto you.

The nice thing is that, as dog posted in an earlier thread, the church says the power of the Holy Ghost will let you know the truthfulness of not only The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's mission, but that the church is restored and here today in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I've accepted the challenge and God confirmed to me that the church is Christ's, that the Prophets and Apostles are His and that He recognizes them What a wonderful blessing to know these things.

The tradition of Satan is to remove ones self from the Lord's true and living church. I suggest underdog reconsider the false tradition he's following.

I am so happy that you finally understand and hopefully Arenera understands what I've been saying for the last month on this forum.

Assertions can't be used to justify any case. Of course a testimony of Jesus or a testimony of Joseph or a testimony of anybody is only an assertion. That is what I have been saying.

You have thought the "keys" assertion is a panacea, but it's only an assertion, even only a tradition. The Jews said the same thing.

Of course any testimony that I have of Jesus Christ or Joseph Smith or even of Denver Snuffer cannot be presented as evidence, because they are in fact just assertions.

That is why I have been dealing with facts when I bring the case against the LDS church as being apostate. And I have just given a small sample list. Perhaps not even the best ones are on the list.

And also I am very grateful that you understand, because you actually said it, what excommunication is about.

OF COURSE the church can excommunicate anybody it pleases. It could excommunicate people for not wearing a Daniel Boone raccoon hat, if they so chose to do so.

The church has the right to excommunicate. So I'm not sure what point you're even making. Other than it seems to illustrate that you're confused.

And so that we can stay focused and not digress and get distracted let me bring us back to the challenge I've made to you, which is...

Specifically state how Denver opposes Christ!

That's easy, he opposes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. That includes Christ's Prophets and Apostles, which includes the keys and ordinances.

You can't get back to Christ without the Church.

[shadow]

As you, underdog, and I have agreed, leading people away from God's Prophets is in opposition to Christ. Denver has done this, he has opposed the Lord's Prophets. This has been proven. And you have proved nothing. Your list of 8 was blown out of the water. You're afraid to even discuss it further.

[jdt]

You make some good points jdt. Some inferences I make wether right or wrong:
* Why did God send Abinadi to the people of Zeniff? There were probably some good people there. Their parents were over-zealous but that is no fault of the children.

* We know that Alma was one of the good people, actually exceptional. Although he was a wicked priest, the words of Christ touched him and he believed Abinadi, and followed the Spirit. Alma could have been a descendant of Nephi, and held the priesthood which was one reason that Noah appointed him a priest.

* Alma tells us he had a sore repentance, so he had been wicked. The Spirit can change a person if a person allows, that happened with Alma.

* Alma organizes the church and priests to teach the people. Alma gave direction on what was to be taught.

I agree with your inferences.

When Alma's people made it to Zarahemla, Alma meets Mosiah. Mosiah was a prophet and a seer. Why did Mosiah appoint Alma to set up churches?

My speculation is that Mosiah wanted to separate the governmental authority from the religious. Nephi did this, with his line being the kingly and Jacob's being the priestly. This model continued until Ameleki who then gave the plates to Benjamin due to his lack of children.
Which is kind of interesting because Alma the younger then temporarily holds the role of Chief Judge and High Priest. But he then given up Chief Judge to focus on the religious.

Did Mosiah have an inkling that his sons would not take the kingship, or just a spiritual promping?

This is indirectly related, but I once had a moment of inspiration that told me that Mosiah really wanted to end the role of King after he received and translated the Jaredite record.
Even ignoring the inspiration, anyone who reads that record knew that record should know the Kingship model is fraught with peril.
Whether there was more involved, I do not know.

[underdog]

That the LDS Church is apostate. That keys and legal administrators are not relevant. These are directly at odds with the

Even the wicked court that tried Abinadi knew they had to bring him up on some specific charge. I've asked you for something specific. Let's compare what you said above to what they (with King Noah as voice here) accused Abinadi of:



The king stretched for something specific and finally said that Abinadi said Christ would "come down among the children of men" (hmmm, that sounds a lot like Denver teaching about Christ coming down to visit him (not to mention the book, The Second Comforter)!!). But then the REAL reason spills out in crystal clarity:

They will kill (literally in Abinadi's case or metaphorically by exing Denver) Abinadi "UNLESS" he "recalls" the negative things he's said about them.

This has a STUNNING parallel to the Church demanding that Denver recall his book "which speaks evil" of the Church and that he not go out on his speaking tour.
[/color]

You and the remnants use the story of Abinadi out of context, therefore improperly.

The Church and Leaders were in Zarahemla. King Benjamin, his son Mosiah.

Abinadi was sent to the over-zealous people of Zeniff who became wicked. Denver is no parallel, especially since he didn't go before President Monson and the apostles. Denver wrote his slanderous book.

Arenera,

I appreciate your effort at defense.

I don't think you're understanding the standard for arguing or debating or persuasion or proving a point. Think of a court room. There are two sides. Both are bringing forth evidences and testimonies. Some are objected to and sustained by the judge, for very specific reasoning and logic.

Regarding the submission of testimony or evidence, anytime one side brings conjecture, opinion, assertions, assumptions, tradition, etc., the other side would properly object. The judge would say, "Sustained!" and the testimony or evidence you entered would be thrown out, not because of a technicality but because it's biased, subjective, and non factual. It's a complete waste of time to keep bringing up your assertion, opinion, assumption, tradition that "the Church is true." However you want to say it (see examples below). None of these premises can be allowed because they are assertions. The other side can assert the opposite.

• The Church is true.

• We have the keys.

• The Lord would not lead Church astray.

• The Brethren can't lead us astray.

• The president of the Church can't lead us astray.

All the above is opinion. None of it is factual.

And yet, everything on your list of defense of the Church or allegations against Denver are based on these assertions.

None of it is valid. You base your entire defense on a sacred cow that just isn't true. The "keystone" of your defense is now a tradition. But the arch crumbles, the house of cards falls, because you can't use it. Even Shadow and Seek the Truth (and everyone else) realizes this finally.

Compare my list of 8 things. Every single one is fact. Undeniable.

How you interpret the fact is another story. I know there are differences of opinions. I say, where there's smoke, there's fire.

Now to your other point...you said:

You and the remnants use the story of Abinadi out of context, therefore improperly.

The Church and Leaders were in Zarahemla. King Benjamin, his son Mosiah.

Abinadi was sent to the over-zealous people of Zeniff who became wicked. Denver is no parallel, especially since he didn't go before President Monson and the apostles. Denver wrote his slanderous book.

Jdt makes a good point. There was no church in the land of Zarahemla. He knows his BoM. And it's true. His quotations show that.

The point of Abinadi being a "type" of Denver is very simple. 1) Abinadi was sent by God. So is Denver. 2) Abinadi called the religious leadership where he lived to repentance. So has Denver.

He did go before Pres Monson. He appealed, remember?

As for the charge of slander, please provide ONE quote of slander. Don't just lazily say "read the book." Please share something specific.

You want to practice court of law. Religion isn't a court of law.

I received a powerful witness that Harold B Lee was a Prophet of God. That also means the Church isn't in apostasy.

Saying that Denver is Abinadi is weak, extremely weak. Abinadi didn't go to King Mosiah did he? Abinadi preached repentance and Christ. Denver preaches the church is in apostasy. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not in apostasy. I know that by Spiritual confirmation.

Denver is also not Alma. Denver didn't start organizing a church, he said he would not. Are you saying that Denver has changed his mind? It sure seems like he is organizing a church, although haphazardly (recall the John Doe incident).

Don't forget, when Christ was crucified, he setup the new church organization. That includes Prophets and Apostles, none of which are around Denver.

You preach the Church is in apostasy. So what, what do you propose next? People have been watching Denver for a few years and it is a circus spectacle. What do you propose underdog?

You say we are just following traditions. You are most incorrect. We are following the Spirit.

I appreciate your testimony about Harold B. Lee. I think he was a man of God. Too bad he died so soon. I've read testimony that he wanted to end the Corporation Sole (which we now have, where the Church is not a Church but the "Corporation of the President of the C of JC of LDS), knowing that it was corrupt and not approved of God. He was drawing up documents to dissolve this abomination and then he dies within weeks. Who knows what happened. I think there are powerful forces at work. Billions upon billions of dollars are controlled by one man and perhaps those who handle him. Not a pretty picture.

I should list the Corporate Sole as evidence #1. I should remake the list and give the Top 10. The Corporation Sole can be confirmed. It is fact. You can see the charter papers and read it for yourself. The Church is a corporation. It's a business and run like a business. The 12 are supposed to be traveling ministers bearing witness of Jesus Christ to the world. But they have no eye "witness" to share, so they confine themselves to business board meetings to discuss business dealings.

Anyway, through the years we've had some very good and righteous men of God sit in those chairs. It's just that these days it's all about image, and not the pure word of Christ. Sad, but true.

I know religion isn't a court of law. I was just trying to articulate an important point about how conjecture/ testimony /assertions are not facts. Opinion testimonies just don't cut it. Now "eyewitness" testimonies do have weight. That's why Joseph's and Denver's are to be examined.

Which leads to your sincere question (I trust it's sincere). For the first time, I feel like we connected. You said,

You preach the Church is in apostasy. So what, what do you propose next? People have been watching Denver for a few years and it is a circus spectacle. What do you propose underdog?

Great question. I've asked God that question. When I first realized there were cracks in the foundation, so to speak, of the Church, that was excruciatingly painful to me. I had build my life around the Church, and had put my trust and hopes and aspirations in the Church. Truthfully, I had put my trust in man too much. I had practiced idolatry.

God told me I need to look up and not around. That I should spend my energies on getting to know Him and not man.

Some of you TBM's rightly point out the danger of replacing one "prophet" with another. That's a fair criticism. We must not do that. Denver rebukes strongly those who would do that. It's a tough situation for those not conversing with the Lord through the veil. The temptation is to focus attention on the legal administrator. And there's value and a certain amount of necessity in doing this. I think the question is always, "Is what was taught given by the power of the Holy Ghost?" Everything should be tested, as we move forward to knowing the Lord ourselves.

If Denver is a false prophet, then his work will come to naught. No worries. What's the worst that can happen? An attempt at Zion will fail. And the blame still may not be laid at Denver's feet. Joseph failed, but was he to blame? I don't know. Possibly. Maybe he let the people depend on him too much. Maybe he should have withstood the Campbellites who wanted a New Testament Church with twelve apostles and a Q of 70, etc. Maybe it wasn't wise to go down the path of having a hierarchy.

Hindsight is 20-20.

That's the past anyway. We need to live in the present. What can we do now, individually, to come unto Christ? What would Christ have us do?

As for the circus spectacle., I honestly have no clue what you're talking about. I spend my time studying the scripture and spend a fair amount of time reading what Denver expounds on the scriptures. Like I said, I personally am filled with faith and light as I study his words and teachings.

I've even heard many TBM's on this forum, many of his critics say, "I have to acknowledge that Denver is a brilliant scriptorian who teaches a lot of truth."

So until I see evidence (which you all have failed to point out even one example) of apostasy from Denver, it would make sense to pay attention to what he's saying. Is there anybody else out there proclaiming to be "sent" from God? I'm not aware of any self-proclaimed messenger who says he's on an errand of the Lord.

I know this though. Zion must be comprised of MANY people "knowing" God. I'd like to be one of those people.

With that in mind, I apologize if I've offended anybody. I'm a bold Mormon. I've been a bold defender of the Mormon faith for many years, one of the most enthusiastic ambassadors for the Church you can imagine. I love the truth.

That's why I ask if Denver has taught or done anything that is in opposition to Christ. I'd like to know! Your all's lack of response actually confirms that he is legit. It strengthens my testimony that he is sent from God. What you and the TBM's have in common is that we both cannot point to any apostasy of Denver, in the form of word or deed. Isn't that ironic? We have that in common!

What do you propose, Arenera, may I ask?

[underdog]

As you, underdog, and I have agreed, leading people away from God's Prophets is in opposition to Christ. Denver has done this, he has opposed the Lord's Prophets. This has been proven. And you have proved nothing. Your list of 8 was blown out of the water. You're afraid to even discuss it further.

You're speaking in circles.

You've gone back to your vomit of using assertions (you have true prophets) to impugn Denver. Assertions don't matter. Facts matter. You've brought no facts. So there's no point in discussing further with you until you bring something.

Just SAYING "I responded" is circular and non progressive. You can progress the discussion by sharing what specific NON ASSERTION fact can you bring which is evidence of Denver being apostate.

So far you have brought NOTHING. So stop saying you have, Stop repeating your assertions. You have lost all credibility. I would be personally ashamed if one of my kids acted that way. I would encourage them to be honorable and man up and concede they have nothing, and to just drop it, and just say to the other guy, "I don't believe it." At least that would be an honest statement. But to go through the charade of acting like you're responding with a NON ASSERTION fact of apostasy when you haven't is truly shameful.

My list of 8 stands. Nobody has said those facts are not happening or haven't happened. You all AGREE they happened or are happening. Your interpretation of the facts is different. That's your own confirmation bias. Fine. But the facts stand.

So if you're going to honorably respond, please do. We await your answer. I'm not going to let you off the hook by accepting your non fact assertions.

What teaching or practice of Denver's opposes Jesus Christ and "persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God"? (Moroni 7:17).

Accept this wisdom (from Moroni 7:17) from the great prophet, Mormon. Surely it's great wisdom. By you revealing to us the apostate action or teaching of Denver you may persuade the readers with a "perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him."

Please tell us. Or honorably admit you have nothing.

I admit I've found nothing in his teachings that are in opposition to Jesus Christ. I would happily tell you. I have no dog in the fight.

You see, that's the thing. You DO have a dog in the fight by defending an apostate Church IF your foundation is on men and not God. Food for thought. Make your foundation the rock of Christ and you will realize you too have no dog in the fight to defend men who claim to be what they aren't. Make Christ your object of worship.

Wrapping up: What teaching or practice of Denver opposes Jesus Christ and "persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God"? (Moroni 7:17).

Sincerely,

Underdog

[Arenera]

You and the remnants use the story of Abinadi out of context, therefore improperly.

The Church and Leaders were in Zarahemla. King Benjamin, his son Mosiah.

Abinadi was sent to the over-zealous people of Zeniff who became wicked. Denver is no parallel, especially since he didn't go before President Monson and the apostles. Denver wrote his slanderous book.

Arenera,

I appreciate your effort at defense.

I don't think you're understanding the standard for arguing or debating or persuasion or proving a point. Think of a court room. There are two sides. Both are bringing forth evidences and testimonies. Some are objected to and sustained by the judge, for very specific reasoning and logic.

Regarding the submission of testimony or evidence, anytime one side brings conjecture, opinion, assertions, assumptions, tradition, etc., the other side would properly object. The judge would say, "Sustained!" and the testimony or evidence you entered would be thrown out, not because of a technicality but because it's biased, subjective, and non factual. It's a complete waste of time to keep bringing up your assertion, opinion, assumption, tradition that "the Church is true." However you want to say it (see examples below). None of these premises can be allowed because they are assertions. The other side can assert the opposite.

• The Church is true.

• We have the keys.

• The Lord would not lead Church astray.

• The Brethren can't lead us astray.

• The president of the Church can't lead us astray.

All the above is opinion. None of it is factual.

And yet, everything on your list of defense of the Church or allegations against Denver are based on these assertions.

None of it is valid. You base your entire defense on a sacred cow that just isn't true. The "keystone" of your defense is now a tradition. But the arch crumbles, the house of cards falls, because you can't use it. Even Shadow and Seek the Truth (and everyone else) realizes this finally.

Compare my list of 8 things. Every single one is fact. Undeniable.

How you interpret the fact is another story. I know there are differences of opinions. I say, where there's smoke, there's fire.

Now to your other point...you said:

You and the remnants use the story of Abinadi out of context, therefore improperly.

The Church and Leaders were in Zarahemla. King Benjamin, his son Mosiah.

Abinadi was sent to the over-zealous people of Zeniff who became wicked. Denver is no parallel, especially since he didn't go before President Monson and the apostles. Denver wrote his slanderous book.

Jdt makes a good point. There was no church in the land of Zarahemla. He knows his BoM. And it's true. His quotations show that.

The point of Abinadi being a "type" of Denver is very simple. 1) Abinadi was sent by God. So is Denver. 2) Abinadi called the religious leadership where he lived to repentance. So has Denver.

He did go before Pres Monson. He appealed, remember?

As for the charge of slander, please provide ONE quote of slander. Don't just lazily say "read the book." Please share something specific.

You want to practice court of law. Religion isn't a court of law.

I received a powerful witness that Harold B Lee was a Prophet of God. That also means the Church isn't in apostasy.

Saying that Denver is Abinadi is weak, extremely weak. Abinadi didn't go to King Mosiah did he? Abinadi preached repentance and Christ. Denver preaches the church is in apostasy. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not in apostasy. I know that by Spiritual confirmation.

Denver is also not Alma. Denver didn't start organizing a church, he said he would not. Are you saying that Denver has changed his mind? It sure seems like he is organizing a church, although haphazardly (recall the John Doe incident).

Don't forget, when Christ was crucified, he setup the new church organization. That includes Prophets and Apostles, none of which are around Denver.

You preach the Church is in apostasy. So what, what do you propose next? People have been watching Denver for a few years and it is a circus spectacle. What do you propose underdog?

You say we are just following traditions. You are most incorrect. We are following the Spirit.

I appreciate your testimony about Harold B. Lee. I think he was a man of God. Too bad he died so soon. I've read testimony that he wanted to end the Corporation Sole (which we now have, where the Church is not a Church but the "Corporation of the President of the C of JC of LDS), knowing that it was corrupt and not approved of God. He was drawing up documents to dissolve this abomination and then he dies within weeks. Who knows what happened. I think there are powerful forces at work. Billions upon billions of dollars are controlled by one man and perhaps those who handle him. Not a pretty picture.

I should list the Corporate Sole as evidence #1. I should remake the list and give the Top 10. The Corporation Sole can be confirmed. It is fact. You can see the charter papers and read it for yourself. The Church is a corporation. It's a business and run like a business. The 12 are supposed to be traveling ministers bearing witness of Jesus Christ to the world. But they have no eye "witness" to share, so they confine themselves to business board meetings to discuss business dealings.

Anyway, through the years we've had some very good and righteous men of God sit in those chairs. It's just that these days it's all about image, and not the pure word of Christ. Sad, but true.

I know religion isn't a court of law. I was just trying to articulate an important point about how conjecture/ testimony /assertions are not facts. Opinion testimonies just don't cut it. Now "eyewitness" testimonies do have weight. That's why Joseph's and Denver's are to be examined.

Which leads to your sincere question (I trust it's sincere). For the first time, I feel like we connected. You said,

You preach the Church is in apostasy. So what, what do you propose next? People have been watching Denver for a few years and it is a circus spectacle. What do you propose underdog?

Great question. I've asked God that question. When I first realized there were cracks in the foundation, so to speak, of the Church, that was excruciatingly painful to me. I had build my life around the Church, and had put my trust and hopes and aspirations in the Church. Truthfully, I had put my trust in man too much. I had practiced idolatry.

God told me I need to look up and not around. That I should spend my energies on getting to know Him and not man.

Some of you TBM's rightly point out the danger of replacing one "prophet" with another. That's a fair criticism. We must not do that. Denver rebukes strongly those who would do that. It's a tough situation for those not conversing with the Lord through the veil. The temptation is to focus attention on the legal administrator. And there's value and a certain amount of necessity in doing this. I think the question is always, "Is what was taught given by the power of the Holy Ghost?" Everything should be tested, as we move forward to knowing the Lord ourselves.

If Denver is a false prophet, then his work will come to naught. No worries. What's the worst that can happen? An attempt at Zion will fail. And the blame still may not be laid at Denver's feet. Joseph failed, but was he to blame? I don't know. Possibly. Maybe he let the people depend on him too much. Maybe he should have withstood the Campbellites who wanted a New Testament Church with twelve apostles and a Q of 70, etc. Maybe it wasn't wise to go down the path of having a hierarchy.

Hindsight is 20-20.

That's the past anyway. We need to live in the present. What can we do now, individually, to come unto Christ? What would Christ have us do?

As for the circus spectacle., I honestly have no clue what you're talking about. I spend my time studying the scripture and spend a fair amount of time reading what Denver expounds on the scriptures. Like I said, I personally am filled with faith and light as I study his words and teachings.

I've even heard many TBM's on this forum, many of his critics say, "I have to acknowledge that Denver is a brilliant scriptorian who teaches a lot of truth."

So until I see evidence (which you all have failed to point out even one example) of apostasy from Denver, it would make sense to pay attention to what he's saying. Is there anybody else out there proclaiming to be "sent" from God? I'm not aware of any self-proclaimed messenger who says he's on an errand of the Lord.

I know this though. Zion must be comprised of MANY people "knowing" God. I'd like to be one of those people.

With that in mind, I apologize if I've offended anybody. I'm a bold Mormon. I've been a bold defender of the Mormon faith for many years, one of the most enthusiastic ambassadors for the Church you can imagine. I love the truth.

That's why I ask if Denver has taught or done anything that is in opposition to Christ. I'd like to know! Your all's lack of response actually confirms that he is legit. It strengthens my testimony that he is sent from God. What you and the TBM's have in common is that we both cannot point to any apostasy of Denver, in the form of word or deed. Isn't that ironic? We have that in common!

What do you propose, Arenera, may I ask?

I'm innnnnnnnnnnn......be............taaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa......sho....................ck...................

[AI2.0]

You and the remnants use the story of Abinadi out of context, therefore improperly.

The Church and Leaders were in Zarahemla. King Benjamin, his son Mosiah.

Abinadi was sent to the over-zealous people of Zeniff who became wicked. Denver is no parallel, especially since he didn't go before President Monson and the apostles. Denver wrote his slanderous book.

Arenera,

I appreciate your effort at defense.

I don't think you're understanding the standard for arguing or debating or persuasion or proving a point. Think of a court room. There are two sides. Both are bringing forth evidences and testimonies. Some are objected to and sustained by the judge, for very specific reasoning and logic.

Regarding the submission of testimony or evidence, anytime one side brings conjecture, opinion, assertions, assumptions, tradition, etc., the other side would properly object. The judge would say, "Sustained!" and the testimony or evidence you entered would be thrown out, not because of a technicality but because it's biased, subjective, and non factual. It's a complete waste of time to keep bringing up your assertion, opinion, assumption, tradition that "the Church is true." However you want to say it (see examples below). None of these premises can be allowed because they are assertions. The other side can assert the opposite.

• The Church is true.

• We have the keys.

• The Lord would not lead Church astray.

• The Brethren can't lead us astray.

• The president of the Church can't lead us astray.

All the above is opinion. None of it is factual.

And yet, everything on your list of defense of the Church or allegations against Denver are based on these assertions.

None of it is valid. You base your entire defense on a sacred cow that just isn't true. The "keystone" of your defense is now a tradition. But the arch crumbles, the house of cards falls, because you can't use it. Even Shadow and Seek the Truth (and everyone else) realizes this finally.

Compare my list of 8 things. Every single one is fact. Undeniable.

How you interpret the fact is another story. I know there are differences of opinions. I say, where there's smoke, there's fire.

Now to your other point...you said:

You and the remnants use the story of Abinadi out of context, therefore improperly.

The Church and Leaders were in Zarahemla. King Benjamin, his son Mosiah.

Abinadi was sent to the over-zealous people of Zeniff who became wicked. Denver is no parallel, especially since he didn't go before President Monson and the apostles. Denver wrote his slanderous book.

Jdt makes a good point. There was no church in the land of Zarahemla. He knows his BoM. And it's true. His quotations show that.

The point of Abinadi being a "type" of Denver is very simple. 1) Abinadi was sent by God. So is Denver. 2) Abinadi called the religious leadership where he lived to repentance. So has Denver.

He did go before Pres Monson. He appealed, remember?

As for the charge of slander, please provide ONE quote of slander. Don't just lazily say "read the book." Please share something specific.

You want to practice court of law. Religion isn't a court of law.

I received a powerful witness that Harold B Lee was a Prophet of God. That also means the Church isn't in apostasy.

Saying that Denver is Abinadi is weak, extremely weak. Abinadi didn't go to King Mosiah did he? Abinadi preached repentance and Christ. Denver preaches the church is in apostasy. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not in apostasy. I know that by Spiritual confirmation.

Denver is also not Alma. Denver didn't start organizing a church, he said he would not. Are you saying that Denver has changed his mind? It sure seems like he is organizing a church, although haphazardly (recall the John Doe incident).

Don't forget, when Christ was crucified, he setup the new church organization. That includes Prophets and Apostles, none of which are around Denver.

You preach the Church is in apostasy. So what, what do you propose next? People have been watching Denver for a few years and it is a circus spectacle. What do you propose underdog?

You say we are just following traditions. You are most incorrect. We are following the Spirit.

I appreciate your testimony about Harold B. Lee. I think he was a man of God. Too bad he died so soon. I've read testimony that he wanted to end the Corporation Sole (which we now have, where the Church is not a Church but the "Corporation of the President of the C of JC of LDS), knowing that it was corrupt and not approved of God. He was drawing up documents to dissolve this abomination and then he dies within weeks. Who knows what happened. I think there are powerful forces at work. Billions upon billions of dollars are controlled by one man and perhaps those who handle him. Not a pretty picture.

I should list the Corporate Sole as evidence #1. I should remake the list and give the Top 10. The Corporation Sole can be confirmed. It is fact. You can see the charter papers and read it for yourself. The Church is a corporation. It's a business and run like a business. The 12 are supposed to be traveling ministers bearing witness of Jesus Christ to the world. But they have no eye "witness" to share, so they confine themselves to business board meetings to discuss business dealings.

Anyway, through the years we've had some very good and righteous men of God sit in those chairs. It's just that these days it's all about image, and not the pure word of Christ. Sad, but true.

I know religion isn't a court of law. I was just trying to articulate an important point about how conjecture/ testimony /assertions are not facts. Opinion testimonies just don't cut it. Now "eyewitness" testimonies do have weight. That's why Joseph's and Denver's are to be examined.

Which leads to your sincere question (I trust it's sincere). For the first time, I feel like we connected. You said,

You preach the Church is in apostasy. So what, what do you propose next? People have been watching Denver for a few years and it is a circus spectacle. What do you propose underdog?

Great question. I've asked God that question. When I first realized there were cracks in the foundation, so to speak, of the Church, that was excruciatingly painful to me. I had build my life around the Church, and had put my trust and hopes and aspirations in the Church. Truthfully, I had put my trust in man too much. I had practiced idolatry.

God told me I need to look up and not around. That I should spend my energies on getting to know Him and not man.

Some of you TBM's rightly point out the danger of replacing one "prophet" with another. That's a fair criticism. We must not do that. Denver rebukes strongly those who would do that. It's a tough situation for those not conversing with the Lord through the veil. The temptation is to focus attention on the legal administrator. And there's value and a certain amount of necessity in doing this. I think the question is always, "Is what was taught given by the power of the Holy Ghost?" Everything should be tested, as we move forward to knowing the Lord ourselves.

If Denver is a false prophet, then his work will come to naught. No worries. What's the worst that can happen? An attempt at Zion will fail. And the blame still may not be laid at Denver's feet. Joseph failed, but was he to blame? I don't know. Possibly. Maybe he let the people depend on him too much. Maybe he should have withstood the Campbellites who wanted a New Testament Church with twelve apostles and a Q of 70, etc. Maybe it wasn't wise to go down the path of having a hierarchy.

Hindsight is 20-20.

That's the past anyway. We need to live in the present. What can we do now, individually, to come unto Christ? What would Christ have us do?

As for the circus spectacle., I honestly have no clue what you're talking about. I spend my time studying the scripture and spend a fair amount of time reading what Denver expounds on the scriptures. Like I said, I personally am filled with faith and light as I study his words and teachings.

I've even heard many TBM's on this forum, many of his critics say, "I have to acknowledge that Denver is a brilliant scriptorian who teaches a lot of truth."

So until I see evidence (which you all have failed to point out even one example) of apostasy from Denver, it would make sense to pay attention to what he's saying. Is there anybody else out there proclaiming to be "sent" from God? I'm not aware of any self-proclaimed messenger who says he's on an errand of the Lord.

I know this though. Zion must be comprised of MANY people "knowing" God. I'd like to be one of those people.

With that in mind, I apologize if I've offended anybody. I'm a bold Mormon. I've been a bold defender of the Mormon faith for many years, one of the most enthusiastic ambassadors for the Church you can imagine. I love the truth.

That's why I ask if Denver has taught or done anything that is in opposition to Christ. I'd like to know! Your all's lack of response actually confirms that he is legit. It strengthens my testimony that he is sent from God. What you and the TBM's have in common is that we both cannot point to any apostasy of Denver, in the form of word or deed. Isn't that ironic? We have that in common!

What do you propose, Arenera, may I ask?

Do you practice selective reading? Or maybe you have me on ignore, if so, I hope someone will point out to you that you can't make these blanket statements if you aren't reading all responses.

I'll just assume that you inadvertently missed my post because once again you say that no one has responded to you--I did. I answered your challenge to give an example of a doctrine which Denver Snuffer teaches that is in opposition to Christ and his atonement--the MOST important event in pre or post mortal history and I did just that. I will cite it again for you;

Denver Snuffer teaches that only a portion of the earth's population are on 'probation'--in other words, being proven or tested. He claims that some people are already Gods and they are here to do the testing of others and teach them. Naturally all those who claim to see Jesus in the flesh are those who aren't being tested--like him. Now, if some are already Gods and are not being tested, that means they don't need to repent and they don't need the atonement. This doctrine of Denver's (which is also shared by some of the Church of the Firstborn types on this forum) is Anti-Christ, in that it negates the need for the atonement and draws some away from Christ--because they don't feel they need him or need to repent.

So, there you have it. A false doctrine, taught by Denver Snuffer, which draws people away from Christ and shows that he is in apostasy.

[underdog]

• God's prophets: a true prophet is one SENT by God. Meaning, God personally FACE TO FACE meets and commissions the man to perform a specific mission.

Would you like to discuss how this can be incorrect?

Can we stay focused and not go off on tangents please?

The focus: you're supposed to provide evidence of Denver's teachings or actions being apostate.

Please provide a teaching of Denver's that shows apostasy, of evidence of falling away from Christ, or to use Mormon's words, something that Denver is doing that persuades "men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God." Why go through this exercise? Because "then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil", in short, that it is apostate.

Same standard for my list of 8 things.

Underdog, do you agree that Denver Snuffer was a member of the CofJCofLDS for 40 years?

So, if he was a member, then should we not assume that he was a devout believer, that he kept the word ofwisdom, paid a full tithe, kept the commandments and teachings of the CofJCofLDS, was worthy of a temple recommend and attended. Correct?

Therefore, we can assume that Denver Snuffer was ordained and exercise priesthood, submitted himself and recognized the authority of his church leaders, also submitting to their authority to issue him a temple recommend, also submitted to their authority in accepting and fulfilling callings, correct?

As a devout member of the LDS church, Denver would have believed that this is the Only true and living church on the earth, that we have living prophets who lead and guide the church and that he should listen to their counsel and follow it.

So, If we agree on these things, then we agree that for 40 years, Denver Snuffer believed that NOT doing these things was putting himself in jeopardy of falling away from Christ, and doing evil and not serving God. Of course.

Denver Snuffer has made the choice to defy his church leaders, give up the word of wisdom, abandon his callings, and lose his temple recommend, essentially abandoning his temple covenants and stop living the teachings which he believed were embodied in the Church of Jesus christ of Latter day saints.


So, right there, you have proof that Denver Snuffer is an apostate. He chose to turn against everything that he was taught and believed. And frankly, it doesn't matter if the church's claims are true or not, HE believed them to be true and now he's turned against them and is actively recruiting others to do the same. That's called apostasy.

Now, if you want to know what teachings he preaches which are contrary to the LDS faith, and what he was told to stop teaching--there are many.

1. He preaches that you must see God in the flesh while on earth, otherwise you cannot enter the Celestial kingdom. This is false. The LDS church teaches the Baptism is the entrance to the Celestial kingdom and seeing Jesus in the Flesh is not necessary for entrance into the Celestial kingdom.

2. He says that if you follow a man/prophet, you are going to hell--telestial kingdom. The LDS church teaches in accordance with scriptures, that true prophets are the lord's servants on earth and that there is only one on the earth at a time who holds the keys and authority to lead us. The Lord expects us to listen to our prophets and if we do not, we will be 'cut off'.

3. He teaches that not everyone on earth is being tested, some are already Gods. This is false, it is also Anti christ (teaching that some don't need the atonement of Christ). The LDS church teaches that we ALL are here to receive a body and to be tested. None of us are God and we ALL need the atonement or we cannot be saved.

4. He teaches that the LDS church was rejected by God back in 1841. This is false. The LDS church was not rejected and it is the only true church on the earth today.

5. He now claims to have wrested the keys from Pres. Monson and is telling others that he now has the saving ordinances. Obvious apostasy.

6. He's written his own scriptures, he's added to them and taken away from them. Obvious apostasy.

And there are others--he's rejected the LDS church form of baptism, sacrament and the temple ordinances. He's also rejected the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Tithing.

That's obvious apostasy from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints.

1. He preaches that you must see God in the flesh while on earth, otherwise you cannot enter the Celestial kingdom. This is false. The LDS church teaches the Baptism is the entrance to the Celestial kingdom and seeing Jesus in the Flesh is not necessary for entrance into the Celestial kingdom.

I have never read that. Can you quote where he said this? What I have heard him say in an interview once was that he personally would not be comfortable with his status in the hereafter if God hasn’t personally told him. He asks, why not have God tell you now in the flesh? So in that statement he seems to imply something along the lines of what you’re saying. But I’ve never read that in any of his writings. If so, please show me.

However, I do see that Joseph Smith taught what you're alleging in Lectures on Faith. From Lecture 6:8:

It is in vain for persons to fancy to themselves that they are heirs with those, or can be heirs with them, who have offered their all in sacrifice, and by this means obtained faith in God and favor with him so as to obtain eternal life, unless they in like manner offer unto him the same sacrifice, and through that offering obtain the knowledge that they are accepted of him.

If Denver does in fact teach that, then he’s actually in harmony with what Joseph taught. I have an opinion about that, but my opinion is irrelevant.

2. He says that if you follow a man/prophet, you are going to hell--telestial kingdom. The LDS church teaches in accordance with scriptures, that true prophets are the lord's servants on earth and that there is only one on the earth at a time who holds the keys and authority to lead us. The Lord expects us to listen to our prophets and if we do not, we will be 'cut off'.

DC 76 backs up that following a man/prophet will lead you into the telestial kingdom.

98 And the glory of the telestial is one, even as the glory of the stars is one; for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world;
99 For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas.
100 These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch;
101 But received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant.
102 Last of all, these all are they who will not be gathered with the saints, to be caught up unto the church of the Firstborn, and received into the cloud.
103 These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.
104 These are they who suffer the wrath of God on earth.
105 These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.
106 These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work;

The key is verse 101, which says we must “receive the gospel, and the testimony of Jesus, and the prophets, and the everlasting covenant.”

The key is to receive the TRUE gospel, the testimony of Jesus (what does that mean?!), TRUE prophets, and the TRUE everlasting covenant (administered by God personally no doubt). Your belief is you have the true prophets ("the Brethren"), etc. And my belief is they are false. Both are assertions. Both can be debated.

3. He teaches that not everyone on earth is being tested, some are already Gods. This is false, it is also Anti christ (teaching that some don't need the atonement of Christ). The LDS church teaches that we ALL are here to receive a body and to be tested. None of us are God and we ALL need the atonement or we cannot be saved.

There’s a lot out there. People say Denver says a lot of things, and he’s very clear that NOBOBDY speaks for him Therefore, I ask for a citation. I’ve never read this in his writings. Chapter and verse please. I’ve heard chatter like you say, but nothing is in writing. Let’s stick to official stuff.

4. He teaches that the LDS church was rejected by God back in 1841. This is false. The LDS church was not rejected and it is the only true church on the earth today.

Section 124 (given in 1841) appears to side with Denver:

28 For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood.
31 But I command you, all ye my saints, to build a house unto me; and I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me; and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me.
32 But behold, at the end of this appointment your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me; and if you do not these things at the end of the appointment ye shall be rejected as a church, with your dead, saith the Lord your God.
33 For verily I say unto you, that after you have had sufficient time to build a house to me, wherein the ordinance of baptizing for the dead belongeth, and for which the same was instituted from before the foundation of the world, your baptisms for your dead cannot be acceptable unto me;
34 For therein are the keys of the holy priesthood ordained, that you may receive honor and glory.
35 And after this time, your baptisms for the dead, by those who are scattered abroad, are not acceptable unto me, saith the Lord.
45 And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place.
46 But if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest, because they pollute mine holy grounds, and mine holy ordinances, and charters, and my holy words which I give unto them.
47 And it shall come to pass that if you build a house unto my name, and do not do the things that I say, I will not perform the oath which I make unto you, neither fulfil the promises which ye expect at my hands, saith the Lord.
48 For instead of blessings, ye, by your own works, bring cursings, wrath, indignation, and judgments upon your own heads, by your follies, and by all your abominations, which you practice before me, saith the Lord.
49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.
50 And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God.
51 Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God.
52 And I will answer judgment, wrath, and indignation, wailing, and anguish, and gnashing of teeth upon their heads, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord your God.

The Temple was never completed. The violent persecutions that pushed them out of their place and caused them to flee indicates this prophecy was fulfilled as stated by the Lord.

I know TBM’s deny it, but it takes a serious and elaborate spin job to do that. The words are pretty in clear in the verses above. The interpretation of this prophecy is assertion. So it can be debated either way. I’m persuaded that 'is' means 'is'. And there’s no need to spin it.

5. He now claims to have wrested the keys from Pres. Monson and is telling others that he now has the saving ordinances. Obvious apostasy.

I’ve never seen Denver try to claim he’s wrested any keys. Though I do believe that is what happened. He’s very careful to not claim authority, because no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood.
This isn’t “obvious apostasy” if there is actual institutional apostasy. You’re still tempted and succumbing to using assertions as a defense or offense, and may I gently remind you that assertions go both ways. Better to use facts. Assertions can't be admitted as facts.

There is historical precedent of priesthood being removed because of wickedness. See DC 84:

24 But they hardened their hearts and could not endure his presence; therefore, the Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against them, swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory.
25 Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also;
26 And the lesser priesthood continued, which priesthood holdeth the key of the ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel;

6. He's written his own scriptures, he's added to them and taken away from them. Obvious apostasy.

True prophets reveal, so of course scriptures will be added. That’s the 9th Article of your Faith. God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

I do like that you’re at least thinking about things. I really enjoy and have respect for your posts and comments. Thank you for your thoughtfulness and insights.

You also said,

And there are others--he's rejected the LDS church form of baptism, sacrament and the temple ordinances. He's also rejected the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Tithing.

His form of baptism is in accordance with the scriptures, as is his sacrament. The temple hasn't been built. I'm not aware of his teachings on temple ordinances. That's to be revealed later at the appropriate time and place. He doesn't reject the Word of Wisdom as taught in DC 89. That's not a commandment. The Lord says so Himself. It's given in wisdom, and not by constraint. I'm not aware of Denver's specific teachings on tithing. But DC 119 lays down the law.

[underdog]

Arenera,

I appreciate your effort at defense.

I don't think you're understanding the standard for arguing or debating or persuasion or proving a point. Think of a court room. There are two sides. Both are bringing forth evidences and testimonies. Some are objected to and sustained by the judge, for very specific reasoning and logic.

Regarding the submission of testimony or evidence, anytime one side brings conjecture, opinion, assertions, assumptions, tradition, etc., the other side would properly object. The judge would say, "Sustained!" and the testimony or evidence you entered would be thrown out, not because of a technicality but because it's biased, subjective, and non factual. It's a complete waste of time to keep bringing up your assertion, opinion, assumption, tradition that "the Church is true." However you want to say it (see examples below). None of these premises can be allowed because they are assertions. The other side can assert the opposite.

• The Church is true.

• We have the keys.

• The Lord would not lead Church astray.

• The Brethren can't lead us astray.

• The president of the Church can't lead us astray.

All the above is opinion. None of it is factual.

And yet, everything on your list of defense of the Church or allegations against Denver are based on these assertions.

None of it is valid. You base your entire defense on a sacred cow that just isn't true. The "keystone" of your defense is now a tradition. But the arch crumbles, the house of cards falls, because you can't use it. Even Shadow and Seek the Truth (and everyone else) realizes this finally.

Compare my list of 8 things. Every single one is fact. Undeniable.

How you interpret the fact is another story. I know there are differences of opinions. I say, where there's smoke, there's fire.

Now to your other point...you said:



Jdt makes a good point. There was no church in the land of Zarahemla. He knows his BoM. And it's true. His quotations show that.

The point of Abinadi being a "type" of Denver is very simple. 1) Abinadi was sent by God. So is Denver. 2) Abinadi called the religious leadership where he lived to repentance. So has Denver.

He did go before Pres Monson. He appealed, remember?

As for the charge of slander, please provide ONE quote of slander. Don't just lazily say "read the book." Please share something specific.

You want to practice court of law. Religion isn't a court of law.

I received a powerful witness that Harold B Lee was a Prophet of God. That also means the Church isn't in apostasy.

Saying that Denver is Abinadi is weak, extremely weak. Abinadi didn't go to King Mosiah did he? Abinadi preached repentance and Christ. Denver preaches the church is in apostasy. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not in apostasy. I know that by Spiritual confirmation.

Denver is also not Alma. Denver didn't start organizing a church, he said he would not. Are you saying that Denver has changed his mind? It sure seems like he is organizing a church, although haphazardly (recall the John Doe incident).

Don't forget, when Christ was crucified, he setup the new church organization. That includes Prophets and Apostles, none of which are around Denver.

You preach the Church is in apostasy. So what, what do you propose next? People have been watching Denver for a few years and it is a circus spectacle. What do you propose underdog?

You say we are just following traditions. You are most incorrect. We are following the Spirit.

I appreciate your testimony about Harold B. Lee. I think he was a man of God. Too bad he died so soon. I've read testimony that he wanted to end the Corporation Sole (which we now have, where the Church is not a Church but the "Corporation of the President of the C of JC of LDS), knowing that it was corrupt and not approved of God. He was drawing up documents to dissolve this abomination and then he dies within weeks. Who knows what happened. I think there are powerful forces at work. Billions upon billions of dollars are controlled by one man and perhaps those who handle him. Not a pretty picture.

I should list the Corporate Sole as evidence #1. I should remake the list and give the Top 10. The Corporation Sole can be confirmed. It is fact. You can see the charter papers and read it for yourself. The Church is a corporation. It's a business and run like a business. The 12 are supposed to be traveling ministers bearing witness of Jesus Christ to the world. But they have no eye "witness" to share, so they confine themselves to business board meetings to discuss business dealings.

Anyway, through the years we've had some very good and righteous men of God sit in those chairs. It's just that these days it's all about image, and not the pure word of Christ. Sad, but true.

I know religion isn't a court of law. I was just trying to articulate an important point about how conjecture/ testimony /assertions are not facts. Opinion testimonies just don't cut it. Now "eyewitness" testimonies do have weight. That's why Joseph's and Denver's are to be examined.

Which leads to your sincere question (I trust it's sincere). For the first time, I feel like we connected. You said,

You preach the Church is in apostasy. So what, what do you propose next? People have been watching Denver for a few years and it is a circus spectacle. What do you propose underdog?

Great question. I've asked God that question. When I first realized there were cracks in the foundation, so to speak, of the Church, that was excruciatingly painful to me. I had build my life around the Church, and had put my trust and hopes and aspirations in the Church. Truthfully, I had put my trust in man too much. I had practiced idolatry.

God told me I need to look up and not around. That I should spend my energies on getting to know Him and not man.

Some of you TBM's rightly point out the danger of replacing one "prophet" with another. That's a fair criticism. We must not do that. Denver rebukes strongly those who would do that. It's a tough situation for those not conversing with the Lord through the veil. The temptation is to focus attention on the legal administrator. And there's value and a certain amount of necessity in doing this. I think the question is always, "Is what was taught given by the power of the Holy Ghost?" Everything should be tested, as we move forward to knowing the Lord ourselves.

If Denver is a false prophet, then his work will come to naught. No worries. What's the worst that can happen? An attempt at Zion will fail. And the blame still may not be laid at Denver's feet. Joseph failed, but was he to blame? I don't know. Possibly. Maybe he let the people depend on him too much. Maybe he should have withstood the Campbellites who wanted a New Testament Church with twelve apostles and a Q of 70, etc. Maybe it wasn't wise to go down the path of having a hierarchy.

Hindsight is 20-20.

That's the past anyway. We need to live in the present. What can we do now, individually, to come unto Christ? What would Christ have us do?

As for the circus spectacle., I honestly have no clue what you're talking about. I spend my time studying the scripture and spend a fair amount of time reading what Denver expounds on the scriptures. Like I said, I personally am filled with faith and light as I study his words and teachings.

I've even heard many TBM's on this forum, many of his critics say, "I have to acknowledge that Denver is a brilliant scriptorian who teaches a lot of truth."

So until I see evidence (which you all have failed to point out even one example) of apostasy from Denver, it would make sense to pay attention to what he's saying. Is there anybody else out there proclaiming to be "sent" from God? I'm not aware of any self-proclaimed messenger who says he's on an errand of the Lord.

I know this though. Zion must be comprised of MANY people "knowing" God. I'd like to be one of those people.

With that in mind, I apologize if I've offended anybody. I'm a bold Mormon. I've been a bold defender of the Mormon faith for many years, one of the most enthusiastic ambassadors for the Church you can imagine. I love the truth.

That's why I ask if Denver has taught or done anything that is in opposition to Christ. I'd like to know! Your all's lack of response actually confirms that he is legit. It strengthens my testimony that he is sent from God. What you and the TBM's have in common is that we both cannot point to any apostasy of Denver, in the form of word or deed. Isn't that ironic? We have that in common!

What do you propose, Arenera, may I ask?

Do you practice selective reading? Or maybe you have me on ignore, if so, I hope someone will point out to you that you can't make these blanket statements if you aren't reading all responses.

I'll just assume that you inadvertently missed my post because once again you say that no one has responded to you--I did. I answered your challenge to give an example of a doctrine which Denver Snuffer teaches that is in opposition to Christ and his atonement--the MOST important event in pre or post mortal history and I did just that. I will cite it again for you;

Denver Snuffer teaches that only a portion of the earth's population are on 'probation'--in other words, being proven or tested. He claims that some people are already Gods and they are here to do the testing of others and teach them. Naturally all those who claim to see Jesus in the flesh are those who aren't being tested--like him. Now, if some are already Gods and are not being tested, that means they don't need to repent and they don't need the atonement. This doctrine of Denver's (which is also shared by some of the Church of the Firstborn types on this forum) is Anti-Christ, in that it negates the need for the atonement and draws some away from Christ--because they don't feel they need him or need to repent.

So, there you have it. A false doctrine, taught by Denver Snuffer, which draws people away from Christ and shows that he is in apostasy.

I've been working, AI2, and am just now responding as I scroll up on the new forum interface. I replied. Thank you for your response. I really enjoyed your response.

About your statement above in this comment, can you quote him please? Again, he is very clear that NOBODY speaks for him. Unless he approves it, he didn't say it. So please quote from his blog or one of his books. That stuff you're referring to is pretty deep stuff. And I also recognize that, as I'm sure you do, that if God were to reveal things to you, there may be things that blow your mind. I think Denver is very judicious in what he let's get put into print. If what you're saying is in print, please let me know.

[Arenera]

However, I do see that Joseph Smith taught what you're alleging in Lectures on Faith. From Lecture 6:8:

It is in vain for persons to fancy to themselves that they are heirs with those, or can be heirs with them, who have offered their all in sacrifice, and by this means obtained faith in God and favor with him so as to obtain eternal life, unless they in like manner offer unto him the same sacrifice, and through that offering obtain the knowledge that they are accepted of him.

If Denver does in fact teach that, then he’s actually in harmony with what Joseph taught. I have an opinion about that, but my opinion is irrelevant. [/color]

Did you miss the thread on the LoF being written by Sidney Rigdon? Over-zealous dissidents use L6 to do some extremes sacrifice.

The remnants and Denver have the mark of Sidney Rigdon, another point that Denver and the remnants are false.

[underdog]

However, I do see that Joseph Smith taught what you're alleging in Lectures on Faith. From Lecture 6:8:

It is in vain for persons to fancy to themselves that they are heirs with those, or can be heirs with them, who have offered their all in sacrifice, and by this means obtained faith in God and favor with him so as to obtain eternal life, unless they in like manner offer unto him the same sacrifice, and through that offering obtain the knowledge that they are accepted of him.

If Denver does in fact teach that, then he’s actually in harmony with what Joseph taught. I have an opinion about that, but my opinion is irrelevant. [/color]

Did you miss the thread on the LoF being written by Sidney Rigdon? Over-zealous dissidents use L6 to do some extremes sacrifice.

The remnants and Denver have the mark of Sidney Rigdon, another point that Denver and the remnants are false.

You pit yourself against the Joseph Smith-approved Lectures on Faith.

[jdt]

Might I sue for peace?
This thread has gone on way too long and I can't imagine anyone being edified at this point.
Underdog, since you are the only one arguing your side and it is easier for me to try to persuade one with whom I share a great deal rather than many with whom I share less, I am directing the rest of this post to you. This is not personal, just what I think is the quickest way to peace.
Preach simply. If you have the truth, then the sheep will respond. Goats will never respond no matter how you explain things. But the opposite is not true, sheep can be browbeaten into hesitant acceptance of a false message. Either way, we ought to be gentle.
Furthermore, we are the guests here. This is a pro-LDS forum. Now Brian tolerates a wide variety of thought and expression of it. But that is not license to push the boundary.
People have deep feelings about their beliefs that to change is often very painful. We should have compassion and try to make that transition as painless as possible. We should be as kind, loving, gentle, and considerate to strangers on the internet as we would be with members of our own immediate family.
Please, for my sake as a brother, let go for the time being. Reflect on your approach and see if there is a better, less debating way to share ideas. May God bless us all.

[shadow]

That is why I have been dealing with facts when I bring the case against the LDS church as being apostate.

Those so called facts don't equal apostasy. You've failed completely on all 8 counts to prove they are anything near apostasy. In fact, some only prove that you are trying to deceive.
For example-

(4) There is a faulty logic chain officially promoted by the Brethren in the Introduction to the BoM. Moroni's promise (Moroni 10:3-4) applies ONLY to the BoM and Joseph the translator, and NOT the Church/the Brethren. This is FACT. The faulty logic is listed on the Intro Page in the Church's published BoM. It's the last paragraph at https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/int ... n?lang=eng. QUESTION: Does promoting this faulty logic have the effect of enticing to believe more in Christ or in an institution/men?

The brethren included verse 5. Why do you purposefully leave it out??
This is the third time I've asked you.

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

Also, I don't see anything about Joseph Smith from Moroni. I personally know a man who believes Joseph found the Book of Mormon and didn't translate it.

We can also discus each of your 8 points. I responded to each one of them a page or 2 ago but I don't think you read it. But either way, none of them amount to anything close to apostasy.

[Arenera]

Might I sue for peace?
This thread has gone on way too long and I can't imagine anyone being edified at this point.
Underdog, since you are the only one arguing your side and it is easier for me to try to persuade one with whom I share a great deal rather than many with whom I share less, I am directing the rest of this post to you. This is not personal, just what I think is the quickest way to peace.
Preach simply. If you have the truth, then the sheep will respond. Goats will never respond no matter how you explain things. But the opposite is not true, sheep can be browbeaten into hesitant acceptance of a false message. Either way, we ought to be gentle.
Furthermore, we are the guests here. This is a pro-LDS forum. Now Brian tolerates a wide variety of thought and expression of it. But that is not license to push the boundary.
People have deep feelings about their beliefs that to change is often very painful. We should have compassion and try to make that transition as painless as possible. We should be as kind, loving, gentle, and considerate to strangers on the internet as we would be with members of our own immediate family.
Please, for my sake as a brother, let go for the time being. Reflect on your approach and see if there is a better, less debating way to share ideas. May God bless us all.

I agree, but I am suffering from beta hangover.

I would like to see more posts like your comments on Alma. It seems that most places have gone to contention.

[underdog]

That is why I have been dealing with facts when I bring the case against the LDS church as being apostate.

Those so called facts don't equal apostasy. You've failed completely on all 8 counts to prove they are anything near apostasy. In fact, some only prove that you are trying to deceive.
For example-

(4) There is a faulty logic chain officially promoted by the Brethren in the Introduction to the BoM. Moroni's promise (Moroni 10:3-4) applies ONLY to the BoM and Joseph the translator, and NOT the Church/the Brethren. This is FACT. The faulty logic is listed on the Intro Page in the Church's published BoM. It's the last paragraph at https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/int ... n?lang=eng. QUESTION: Does promoting this faulty logic have the effect of enticing to believe more in Christ or in an institution/men?

The brethren included verse 5. Why do you purposefully leave it out??
This is the third time I've asked you.

We can also discus each of your 8 points. I responded to each one of them a page or 2 ago but I don't think you read it. But either way, none of them amount to anything close to apostasy.

Those 8 things are evidence of unrighteous dominion which is a symptom of opposing Christ.

The degree of apostasy is the only question worthy of debate. Do you really believe it's 0%?

Adding verse 5 is fine. That has no bearing on the illogical train of logic on the BoM introduction page. I prefer not to keep spelling things out. It's circular. And circular means it's wasting my time.

For the objective reader out there, the point is that Moroni's promise refers to "these things" (the BoM). The sincere inquirer is exhorted to specifically ask God if the BoM is true.

God promised to reveal the truth by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Receiving an answer that the BoM is true does NOT mean any post Joseph Smith leaders are true messengers. THAT is the misrepresentation, as I've explained ad nauseum.

OF COURSE, if you ask God OTHER questions then the Holy Ghost can teach you other things. Nobody is debating that true point.

I hope this re-restatement clears up your confusion.

So the FACT (neither you nor anybody can deny the statement is printed on the Introduction Page of the Church-published BoM) the Church put that illogical and even deceptive "jump to false conclusion" statement in the Introduction raises the question of, "Why would they do that? Why would they TRY to get readers to jump to the conclusion that the promised witness of the Spirit applies to NON Book of Mormon questions, like the question of the the Church being the kingdom of God. If that logic were true then ALL Mormon offshoots could claim the same thing.

It's a subtle and clever deception I noticed (without anybody pointing it out to me) almost 30 years too late. It's a great question as to why they attempt to mislead readers.

I don't know how one can defend it. What is your defense, Shadow? Shouldn't it be removed and the promise left as stated in Moro 10:3-5? Isn't it trickery to insert it and then leave it? It seems like it's been scientifically conceived and inserted to bring about a certain result. The result being that good people conflate the witness of the BoM by the Spirit with a witness of an institution. It's truly BRILLIANT!!! Moroni doesn't invite you to pray about an institution but about the BoM.

The insertion could have been innocent though. If diabolical, it's mastermind-level ingenius.

But what positive, ethical, "of good rapport" motivation could be ascribed to its insertion?

I know for my part, I innocently parroted that promise for years. With enormous conviction and effectiveness. Many baptisms resulted. It makes for a very convincing case for the Church. But the Church does not equal the BoM. The Brethren do not equal the BoM.

I would go as far as to say that this "jump to conclusion" sleight of hand is the #1 reason for the Church's former success in gathering converts. It's the #1 "step by step" methodology for convincing people to join. It's astonishingly brilliant.

But to bring this question up in Church would get you immediately branded as a heretic.

It's an evidence of apostasy or opposing Christ for this reason: it causes a person seeking truth to look away from Christ (which is what the Spirit is testifying of when the terms of the promise are obeyed) and towards an institution.

It UNITES Christ with an institution.

Elder Poelman (in his original 1984 talk) correctly tried to SEPARATE the two and he was dealt with swiftly. Separatng the two is a big no no. Christ and the institution must be united in the minds and hearts of the people. That's the #1 mind-controlling objective of the institution.

Denver separated the two.

For that, he was cast out.

[underdog]

Might I sue for peace?
This thread has gone on way too long and I can't imagine anyone being edified at this point.
Underdog, since you are the only one arguing your side and it is easier for me to try to persuade one with whom I share a great deal rather than many with whom I share less, I am directing the rest of this post to you. This is not personal, just what I think is the quickest way to peace.
Preach simply. If you have the truth, then the sheep will respond. Goats will never respond no matter how you explain things. But the opposite is not true, sheep can be browbeaten into hesitant acceptance of a false message. Either way, we ought to be gentle.
Furthermore, we are the guests here. This is a pro-LDS forum. Now Brian tolerates a wide variety of thought and expression of it. But that is not license to push the boundary.
People have deep feelings about their beliefs that to change is often very painful. We should have compassion and try to make that transition as painless as possible. We should be as kind, loving, gentle, and considerate to strangers on the internet as we would be with members of our own immediate family.
Please, for my sake as a brother, let go for the time being. Reflect on your approach and see if there is a better, less debating way to share ideas. May God bless us all.

Jdt,

Thanks.

I had hoped for sincere debate. There has been some. That's a good thing. I learn and improve from others' viewpoints.

That's how I came to know of Mormonism in the first place.

I am LDS. So I'm not sure I see myself as a guest per se, but I am not entitled either. I seek truth. Mormons should seek truth and forsake falsehoods and tradition.

Denver exudes that. That's his appeal.

I've tried to be respectful to all people here. Frustration may slip out on occasion. I hope boldness is not confused with lack of concern or charity or overbearance. Nevertheless I apologize if I've hurt anybody's feelings.

We agree on 95% I'd say at the end of the day.

I'm fine with letting this debate die here.

Some people may ask questions. I think if it's non circular then I'll answer but if it's repeating rebutted points then there's no point in responding.

Thanks.

[Arenera]

Sadly, Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery both saw Christ, but both fell away from Joseph and the Church. Oliver Cowdery came back, Sidney Rigdon didn't.

I'm not convinced Denver Snuffer has seen Christ, his actions don't agree with what Christ says.

calumny may defame, like Denver's book. But no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing.
Neither Denver or anyone else can take Joseph's dispensation from him:

I testify again, as the Lord lives, God never will acknowledge any traitors or apostates

but when men come out and build upon other men's foundations, they do it on their own responsibility, without authority from God; and when the floods come and the winds blow, their foundations will be found to be sand, and their whole fabric will crumble to dust.

Joseph Smith

When Joseph was killed, the dispensation continued because Brigham Young was approved of God

Brigham Young received the sealing power: “by the calling of [God’s] own voice” (citing JST-Gen. 14:29). Orson Hyde described a heavenly manifestation given to all the Twelve.

In the month of February, 1848, the Twelve Apostles met at Hyde Park, Pottawattamie County, Iowa, where a small Branch of the Church was established…. We were in prayer and council, communing together; and what took place on that occasion? The voice of God came from on high, and spake to the Council. Every latent feeling was aroused, and every heart melted. What did it say unto us? “Let my servant Brigham step forth and receive the full power of the presiding Priesthood in my Church and kingdom.” This was the voice of the Almighty unto us at Council Bluffs, before I removed to what was called Kanesville. It has been said by some that Brigham was appointed by the people, and not by the voice of God. I do not know that this testimony has often, if ever, been given to the masses of the people before; but I am one that was present, and there are others here that were also present on that occasion, and did hear and feel the voice from heaven, and we were filled with the power of God. This is my testimony; these are my declarations unto the Saints—unto the members of the kingdom of God in the last days, and to all people.
Orson Hyde, in Journal of Discourses 8:233–34 (7 October 1860)

Unhallowed hands can't stop God's work.

[underdog]

For the record, I'm going to make a correction in detail but not substance to one of my 8 evidences.

I just re-read the actual wording at the Introduction to the BoM:

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.

THESE words do not actually connect a witness of the book with Joseph and the Church. It is worded so that readers assume that though. So "lawyerly" speaking these words don't explicitly connect the dots.

However what is accurate is that members, mission presidents, missionaries and leaders everywhere DO connect the dots and say that "If the BoM is true, then Joseph was a true prophet, and the Church is true."

The fact is that this logical fallacy not only goes uncorrected by the Church but it is taught with great clarity. I do not believe there is an intent to deceive. But what is being taught is absolutely false logic. I myself have taught this, believing it to be true. I was trained to teach this by I believe well-meaning leaders, even apostles and presidents of the Church.

From https://www.lds.org/manual/missionary-p ... e?lang=eng:

President Gordon B. Hinckley explained the importance of the Book of Mormon in relation to the Church and the Bible:

“If the Book of Mormon is true, the Church is true, for the same authority under which this sacred record came to light is present and manifest among us today. It is a restoration of the Church set up by the Savior in Palestine. It is a restoration of the Church set up by the Savior when he visited this continent as set forth in this sacred record.

President Ezra Taft Benson testified that the Book of Mormon is the keystone to a testimony of the truthfulness of the Restoration:

“The Book of Mormon is the keystone of testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church. But in like manner, if the Book of Mormon be true—and millions have now testified that they have the witness of the Spirit that it is indeed true—then one must accept the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it” (A Witness and a Warning [1988], 19).

We are to use the Book of Mormon in handling objections to the Church. …

“… All objections, whether they be on abortion, plural marriage, seventh-day worship, etc., basically hinge on whether Joseph Smith and his successors were and are prophets of God receiving divine revelation. Here, then, is a procedure to handle most objections through the use of the Book of Mormon.

“First, understand the objection.

“Second, give the answer from revelation.

“Third, show how the correctness of the answer really depends on whether or not we have modern revelation through modern prophets.

“Fourth, explain that whether or not we have modern prophets and revelation really depends on whether the Book of Mormon is true.

“Therefore, the only problem the objector has to resolve for himself is whether the Book of Mormon is true. For if the Book of Mormon is true, then Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith was his prophet, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, and it is being led today by a prophet receiving revelation.

“Our main task is to declare the gospel and do it effectively. We are not obligated to answer every objection. Every man eventually is backed up to the wall of faith, and there he must make his stand” (A Witness and a Warning, 4–5).

Elder Richard G. Scott of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles gave counsel that we can follow personally and share with investigators:

“Try reading the Book of Mormon because you want to, not because you have to. Discover for yourself that it is true. As you read each page, ask, ‘Could any man have written this book, or did it come as Joseph Smith testified?’ Apply the teachings you learn. They will fortify you against the evil of Satan. Follow Moroni’s counsel. Sincerely ask God the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, with real intent, if the teachings of the Book of Mormon are true (see Moroni 10:3–5). Ask with a desire to receive a confirmation personally, nothing doubting. … I know that you can receive a spiritual confirmation that the book is true. You will then know that Jesus Christ lives, that Joseph Smith was and is a prophet, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s Church (see introduction to the Book of Mormon, especially the last paragraph). You will confirm that the Savior guides His Church through a living prophet. These truths will become a foundation for your productive life” (in Conference Report, Oct. 2003, 45; or Ensign, Nov. 2003, 42–43).

I found these quotes within 5 minutes of searching. This teaching is pervasive.

But it is false teaching.

Notice how the last paragraph of the BoM Introduction is referenced in parenthesis above! That makes my point actually.

The BoM being true has absolutely NOTHING to do with subsequent leaders of the Church or what they teach. I love Benson (he's my favorite modern president of all time), but he is absolutely wrong to say "...if the Book of Mormon is true, then ... Joseph Smith was his prophet, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, and it is being led today by a prophet receiving revelation."

Joseph said it correctly, when he said our religion rises or falls with the BoM. It truly is the keystone of our religion, but Joseph did not say Church.


What can be said truthfully is that if the BoM is true, then Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of the world. The focus should be squarely on Jesus Christ. The BoM was given to convince us, Jew and Gentile, as the title page says, "that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations". That is the focus. That SHOULD be the focus, and no man, and certainly no institution.

The Church uses Moroni's promise and the divinity of the BoM to make itself divine. Another way to say it, is that the Church seeks to exalt itself by riding the coattails of the BoM.

I think this is done innocently by members, like myself, and like Pres. Benson. I don't believe he was deceitful in the least bit. So what do we make of this faulty logic that has widespread acceptance and usage? I guess I would categorize it as one of Satan's most ingenious deceptions of all time. Even the very elect will be deceived, the Scripture say.

How many members have realized this clever logical fallacy employed by Satan which seeks to unite an institution with Christ?

Why is this ingenious? Because institutions can be targeted for corruption. Satan's tried and true plan, for ALL organizations and institutions, is to centralize power and authority (step 1), and then (step 2) corrupt the top with promises of power and gain. The BoM spells it out. Power and Gain are the tools at Satan's disposal. Step 3 obviously is to corrupt the membership at which time the victory is complete. We're probably somewhere between Step 2 and 3.

Since Christ can't be corrupted, the objective would be to get people to equate Christ with an institution. And then take over the institution, even if it took decades to incrementally take it over.

Having intelligent, wholesome, righteous people (albeit not true prophets) at the helm and in the ranks would be absolutely necessary. Me and my family and my good friends at Church are the face the institution wants to give to the public.

I'm beginning to see this more clearly now.

But when folks begin to wake up and question things (like the list of 8 things I mention, which are just the tip of the iceberg), the institution... if the institution is truly authoritarian, it begins to show its true colors. True colors are manifested by censorship and the casting out of members who expose the unrighteous dominion. This is where we are at today.

The institution, with Denver Snuffer being raised up somewhat against his will to declare repentance to the Church, had a chance to repent and turn to Christ. But casting out a righteous man was the direction the Church took.

The sifting (of the tares and wheat) is still in its infancy. If the Denver-led Remnant movement is of the devil or man, as some of you believe, it will come to naught. In which case the Church should be stronger, right? The Church should have a stronger, more Christ-centered core group left, you would expect, right?

But unfortunately (for the Church), many of the people I've met in the movement are totally Christ-centered and the cream of the crop (as far as Mormons go). They're the ones who read the scriptures and forsake false traditions and want to come unto Christ and talk of redeeming Zion. If the loss of this type of people is what is desired, then that is a strange thing indeed.

[Arenera]

I testify again, as the Lord lives, God never will acknowledge any traitors or apostates
Unhallowed hands can't stop God's work.
Joseph Smith

Christ centered people don't fight against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, because it is Christ's Church.

Underdog, you continue to disparage Christ's Prophets, apostles, and members of His Church.

This is the fruit of Denver Snuffer and one of the many reasons we know you preach falsely. You should stop before you dig a hole you cannot get out of.