LDS Freedom Forum

AI2.0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 11:10 am

Thomas wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 10:02 am Here is a statement from one of the twelve apostles. Joseph Smith's own brother.

That the church funds have been misapplied, I have no hesitation in asserting, for of necessity I have been made acquainted with the fact, that several houses have been tilled up with women who have been secretly married to Brigham Young, H. C. Kimble [Heber C. Kimball], and Willard Richards—women with little children in their arms, who had no means of support except from the tithing funds.... I heard my brother Joseph declare before his death, that Brigham Young was a man, whose passions, if unrestrained, were calculated to make him the most licentious man in the world, and should the time ever come, said he, that this man should lead the church, he would certainly lead it to destruction. (William Smith, A Proclamation, Warsaw Signal, Warsaw, Illinois [October 1845], page 1, column 4; italics added)

Thomas, why are you quoting critics/ dissidents and expecting us to ignore their agendas? William Smith was feuding with the church leadership and he was later excommunicated, he even argued/came to blows with Joseph on occasions.

He's not a reliable source.

William didn't like Sidney either, called his teachings Rigdonism.

Doesn't matter, Brigham Young was sustained by God.

Thomas wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 9:53 am So, you all suppose Joseph trusted and loved BY more than his own wife and children?

You think numbers equal God's approval. So why not join the Catholics or better yet the Muslims?

You claim (from a few pages ago) the LDS church is apostate because top leaders receive a stipend. Joseph Smith was paid by the church and he made sure church leaders from Bishops up to the president were all paid. Heck, his Dad was charging money for Patriarchal blessings as were all the other Patriarchs. Why claim to follow Joseph when, according to your standards, he was apostate? Why not find a church that isn't linked to such apostate behavior?

Thomas wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 9:57 am

"I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives.... I am innocent of all these charges.... What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers."

—Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6:410–411

That quote is commonly understood to be legalistically literal when he refers to "adultery" and/or "wives" - since it would not be considered adultery if the wives were sealed to him by his priesthood authority, i.e. given to him of the Lord, etc. Also, he is careful in his language to say "I can find only one". All of these he could publicly claim and still say he was "innocent".

Also, William Smith at that point, October 1845, was excommunicated by BY for apostasy and certainly had an axe to grind with BY & Twelve at that point. As much as the Laws and Williams had an axe to grind with Joseph when they published the Nauvoo Expositor, which exposed Joseph's secret polygamy, and the destroying of which press led to Carthage and death.

I do think it is telling that Joseph's family did not follow Brigham: Lucy Mack, Emma (& Joseph III), and William fell out with BY & Twelve too. But Mary Fielding Smith (& Joseph F.), Hyrum's widow, did follow.

The contemporary evidence for polygamy in Nauvoo is pretty overwhelming and cannot be seriously accused of being fabricated. The conspiracy/coverup theory falls apart under the weight of people who were obviously loyal to Joseph and firmly in the LDS mainstream movement at that point. Too close to Joseph, too close to the Twelve. The level of inconsistency and conspiracy that must be adopted to separate the Twelve from Joseph, his closest confidantes, is too great to take seriously.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... 04_221.pdf

Authors who approach Nauvoo plural marriage are faced with many ambiguities and deficits in the historical record. Joseph Smith dictated only the revelation that is now Doctrine and Covenants 132, never expounded the topic in public except to deny its practice, and does not refer to it explicitly in his personal writings.2 The only polygamy insider and journal-writer friendly to the Prophet who left a contemporary record is William Clayton.3 Four men (John C. Bennett, Oliver Olney, William Law, and Joseph H. Jackson) left contemporary writings, but all were dis- senters who had their own, hostile perspectives on Joseph Smith and polygamy. In addition to these five men, a few sources con- temporary with the three years between Joseph's 1844 death and the 1847 trek west provide additional, but also limited, insights.4 Beyond these sources, everything learned about Joseph Smith's polygamy comes from later recollections, which are subject to im- portant limitations.

2. Two ofJoseph Smith's manuscripts deal with plural marriage but in a way that connects to polygamy only in context. The first is the ceremonial prayer that the Prophet dictated by which Newel K. Whitney united him with his daughter, Sarah Ann Whitney. H. Michael Marquardt, The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text and Commentary (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1999), 315-16. The second is Joseph Smith, Letter to Nancy Rigdon, April 1842, "Happiness is the object and design of our existence" published in "Sixth Letter from John C. Bennett," SangamoJournal (Springfield Illinois), August 19, 1842; rpt., inJohn C. Bennett, The History ofthe Saints: Or an Expose of Joe Smith and Mormonism (Boston: Leland & Whiting, 1842), 243-44.
3. See George D. Smith, ed., An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995).
4. Among these are Willard Richards, Diary, 19 vols., and Brigham Young, Diary, both in LDS Church History Library. See also the Nauvoo Temple Record and Lisle Brown, ed., Nauvoo Sealings, Adoptions, and Anointings: A Comprehensive Register ofPersons Receiving LDS Temple Ordi- nances, 1841-1846 (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2006)

However, I recognize that most people are only going to see what they want to see here. Historical evidences, many of which are just hearsay now, are so easily dismissed (with a wave of the hand really). So it's easy to rewrite history or re-interpret almost any way you want, picking and choosing the evidence that fits your paradigm and invalidating historical sources based on perceived biases (e.g. dismissing all antagonists). And then argue endlessly in favor of your interpretation.

I don't know all the answers, but the weight of even the circumstantial evidence seems to favor heavily that Joseph was involved with and taught polygamy. The alternative really is a conspiracy theory - for example, "the William Clayton journals were doctored (he was in BY's pocket by then, end of story - conspiracy theory plausible)."

Jesef wrote: ↑September 17th, 2017, 9:15 pm The Snufferites dismiss all of these post-1844 accounts & testimonies on the assumption/assertion that BY & Twelve were corrupt power/whore-mongers, and because they are "conveniently" belated. They consider these tainted non-evidences. They even try to incriminate them in the deaths of Joseph & Hyrum. But the irony is that Joseph trusted BY & Twelve completely, with the most sacred things, including the keys of the kingdom and the higher ordinances and the second anointing. So more than good enough for Joseph, but not for Snuffer & his followers.

Good morning, Jesef.

I apologize for not being able to respond. Busy weekend, including a whole day of special leadership training yesterday. Lunch was served! One thing I'll say I really liked about what was said, by the visiting authority, was that our sacrament meetings tend to be bereft of Jesus Christ. Often whole sacrament meetings will transpire with no reference to the Atonement. He was giving suggestions to us leaders on ways to encourage members to bring Christ and the Atonement into these meetings. Other things of note: 1) He said to read the Handbook. He said there are audio recordings of the Handbook and we should listen to it in the car. 2) He said we should address leaders by their titles so the members respect them and, 3) that if any members should speak frequently in Sacrament Meeting, it should be the EQ President and RS President, the reason given was so that members would respect them more since the EQ pres has the keys and since the RS president has delegated authority. 4) I liked that he said speakers should not read their talks. And that if they're going to quote a GC talk, it should only be a sentence or two. We have an epidemic problem of "regurgitalks" given. 5) Unfortunately he did make mention of the mandate coming from SLC that Priesthood and RS meetings the 3rd hour will be required to centers lesson on recent GC talks, which means even more regurgitalks in the future.

In summary, the main thrust of the training of the GA was to do things that would encourage members to respect leaders (by calling them by their titles and by having them speak more), to read and listen to the Handbook, to speak more of Jesus Christ in sacrament meetings ("like the Baptists do"...his words not mine), and to not read talks.

Jesef and AI2, you had some good posts, I'll plan on responding. Just haven't had time, and am working now.

You said, The Snufferites dismiss all of these post-1844 accounts & testimonies on the assumption/assertion that BY & Twelve were corrupt power/whore-mongers,

Not all, just the questionable, or hearsay, or often the belated ones. The victor writes history. Wouldn't you agree it's a much, much harder assignment to try to sift through the REWRITTEN history than it is to read and parrot the history they WANT you to read. This last sentence must seem totally wacked out to you, and yet the BoM warns of secret combinations. The BoM talks about plain and precious truths being removed from the Bible. But such "rewriting" couldn't happen to "official" church history? The lesser priesthood remained with the Church

and because they are "conveniently" belated. They consider these tainted non-evidences.

Yes, that's a good explanation. They are at least tainted.

They even try to incriminate them in the deaths of Joseph & Hyrum.

Yes, the BoM does this time and again. The warnings are replete. Enemies shall be those close to you. Tares/wheat. Wolves/wheat. The blood of the prophets shall cry against the Gentiles who are guilty of killing them. The Gentles include the Mormons. It's quite clear from Joseph's day that his enemies surrounded him. It was a constant battle. He was excommunicating left and right.

But the irony is that Joseph trusted BY & Twelve completely, with the most sacred things, including the keys of the kingdom and the higher ordinances and the second anointing. So more than good enough for Joseph, but not for Snuffer & his followers.

This is where you stake your claim - that Joseph gave his authority to people whom he trusted. And yet, did they trust and honor Joseph? Joseph has no descendants outside of Emma. He didn't practice polygamy (evidence of morality). Brigham did (evidence of strong immorality). Lots of teenage wives and lots of wives in their 20's. He married many of them in the same month. Joseph gave the priesthood to black men (evidence of no racism). But Brigham overturned this and preached against it (evidence of racism).

Those are two major black eyes for your belief/assertion that there was mutual trust. Joseph liked to think the best of others. He quickly forgave. He didn't hold grudges. He trusted others, maybe to a fault. So the supposed irony you try to point out perhaps just doesn't exist.

I am not surprised by the reaction that my posts have received. Call Joseph's brother a liar, without evidence or knowledge of him. Well, you have to call a whole lot of people a liar to maintain that position. Some of them vouched for by God. Joseph Smith was the mouth piece of God, not the poligimists that followed after Brigham.

The problem is you all come from an assumption of what is true and reason everything from that assumption, instead of just looking for truth.

Jesef and AI2.0, you just don't know what you are talking about. Sheesh.

Underdog on the other hand, sits with leaders from his area and a GA, then reports back to LDSFF how misguided it was.

What is the definition of a tare?

William, Rigdon and others were exed for the same reason all dictators get rid of their detractors. It is to consolidate power. Just as Hitler got rid of his detractors so did Brigham
Get rid of his. Some of them were Joseph Smiths close kin. Then he turned around and claimed a greater kinship with Joseph than Joseph's own wife.

Jesef wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 11:40 am

Thomas wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 9:57 am

"I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives.... I am innocent of all these charges.... What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers."

—Joseph Smith, Jr., History of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 6:410–411

That quote is commonly understood to be legalistically literal when he refers to "adultery" and/or "wives" - since it would not be considered adultery if the wives were sealed to him by his priesthood authority, i.e. given to him of the Lord, etc. Also, he is careful in his language to say "I can find only one". All of these he could publicly claim and still say he was "innocent".

Also, William Smith at that point, October 1845, was excommunicated by BY for apostasy and certainly had an axe to grind with BY & Twelve at that point. As much as the Laws and Williams had an axe to grind with Joseph when they published the Nauvoo Expositor, which exposed Joseph's secret polygamy, and the destroying of which press led to Carthage and death.

I do think it is telling that Joseph's family did not follow Brigham: Lucy Mack, Emma (& Joseph III), and William fell out with BY & Twelve too. But Mary Fielding Smith (& Joseph F.), Hyrum's widow, did follow.

The contemporary evidence for polygamy in Nauvoo is pretty overwhelming and cannot be seriously accused of being fabricated. The conspiracy/coverup theory falls apart under the weight of people who were obviously loyal to Joseph and firmly in the LDS mainstream movement at that point. Too close to Joseph, too close to the Twelve. The level of inconsistency and conspiracy that must be adopted to separate the Twelve from Joseph, his closest confidantes, is too great to take seriously.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-cont ... 04_221.pdf

Authors who approach Nauvoo plural marriage are faced with many ambiguities and deficits in the historical record. Joseph Smith dictated only the revelation that is now Doctrine and Covenants 132, never expounded the topic in public except to deny its practice, and does not refer to it explicitly in his personal writings.2 The only polygamy insider and journal-writer friendly to the Prophet who left a contemporary record is William Clayton.3 Four men (John C. Bennett, Oliver Olney, William Law, and Joseph H. Jackson) left contemporary writings, but all were dis- senters who had their own, hostile perspectives on Joseph Smith and polygamy. In addition to these five men, a few sources con- temporary with the three years between Joseph's 1844 death and the 1847 trek west provide additional, but also limited, insights.4 Beyond these sources, everything learned about Joseph Smith's polygamy comes from later recollections, which are subject to im- portant limitations.

2. Two ofJoseph Smith's manuscripts deal with plural marriage but in a way that connects to polygamy only in context. The first is the ceremonial prayer that the Prophet dictated by which Newel K. Whitney united him with his daughter, Sarah Ann Whitney. H. Michael Marquardt, The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text and Commentary (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1999), 315-16. The second is Joseph Smith, Letter to Nancy Rigdon, April 1842, "Happiness is the object and design of our existence" published in "Sixth Letter from John C. Bennett," SangamoJournal (Springfield Illinois), August 19, 1842; rpt., inJohn C. Bennett, The History ofthe Saints: Or an Expose of Joe Smith and Mormonism (Boston: Leland & Whiting, 1842), 243-44.
3. See George D. Smith, ed., An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995).
4. Among these are Willard Richards, Diary, 19 vols., and Brigham Young, Diary, both in LDS Church History Library. See also the Nauvoo Temple Record and Lisle Brown, ed., Nauvoo Sealings, Adoptions, and Anointings: A Comprehensive Register ofPersons Receiving LDS Temple Ordi- nances, 1841-1846 (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2006)

However, I recognize that most people are only going to see what they want to see here. Historical evidences, many of which are just hearsay now, are so easily dismissed (with a wave of the hand really). So it's easy to rewrite history or re-interpret almost any way you want, picking and choosing the evidence that fits your paradigm and invalidating historical sources based on perceived biases (e.g. dismissing all antagonists). And then argue endlessly in favor of your interpretation.

I don't know all the answers, but the weight of even the circumstantial evidence seems to favor heavily that Joseph was involved with and taught polygamy. The alternative really is a conspiracy theory - for example, "the William Clayton journals were doctored (he was in BY's pocket by then, end of story - conspiracy theory plausible)."

I think you're probably right when you say most people are only going to see what they want to see.

There is the polygamy debate. There is the racism debate (and btw, is there actually a debate on this -- meaning, do TBM's also say Joseph did NOT ordain black men to the priesthood?).

But to your point, that people will see what they want to see, based on their choices and even confirmation bias, I would suggest it would make a great deal of sense to choose a "side" that has the LEAST amount of corruption and evidences that have the slightest appearance of apostasy. If there's smoke there's fire, right? So choose a side which has the least amount of apostate smoke.

Wouldn't you say that makes sense?

I am reminded of the Declaration of Independence. Before they rattled off a long list of evidences of tyranny, this was said:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I've listed just 8 and there are literally dozens of examples of "abuses and usurpations" which "invariably pursue the same object" and all show a "design" to subject the members to despotic people who claim they won't lead you astray.

So I ask you, since I'm agreeing with you, if we were to compare a list of "train of abuses" / unrighteous dominion/ examples of apostasy, what would that list look like?

It would be an interesting visual, don't you think?

The only requirement I'd say must be adhered to, is that assertions, hearsay, tradition, or anything subjective must be excluded from the list, which of course would eliminate any 'evidence' that exists because it's contrary to an opinion. In other words, you can't put an item on the list because it violates something you assume to be true (or because it contradicts your opinion). You must bring facts.

You see where I'm going with this. One column would have literally dozens of undeniable facts that can't be denied, "smoke" if you will. The other list would be populated by what? AI2 gave a few points, which I'll respond to, but each one was rooted in using a TBM interpretation of scripture or history.

In other words, one list would be pages long, and in the other list, there honestly would be a struggle to find even a couple examples of acts that oppose Christ (done or said by Denver).

So if what I've said is true (long list v. almost non existent list), then I sincerely ask the TBM's (in light of most people are only going to see what they want to see) why they would want to turn a blind eye to all the smoke? I mean, the contortions and mental gymnastics you have to labor through to try to explain where the smoke is coming from I think is a painful, unsettling exercise.

It always comes back to polygamy doesn't it?
Okay, Jesef, I will come out and say it: yes, I have a big problem with a lot of the history that gets touted as "fact". And some of it is a factor of the sheer number of subjects of which I see the same pattern.
Polygamy - "Oh there is numerous contemporary accounts of faithful people that claimed Joseph was doing". Well actually there is only 8 contemporaneous accounts, half of which are by dissidents. Two of which only touch the subject by interpretation. That leaves 2. One of which is section 132, which was written by someone who really shouldn't have been in a place to be one to write it and who really did not stand by it and was not made public for nearly a decade. Then there is William Clayton's account, not to be dismissed, but also has its own problems. Seriously that is it? Joseph was married (and apparently having sexual relations) with dozens of women and not one wrote a word about it at the time?! Joseph had numerous scribes and opportunities to write about it, and all but 2 condemn polygamy. This is hardly indisputable "fact". But so many people gave witness decades later...
But let's set this aside and look at other examples:
Brigham being transfigured to look like Joseph: no contemporary account. Many accounts were recorded the same day of the purported transfiguration, none of them mention it. It is not until over a decade later that many recall what happened. But so many people recalled decades later (some of whom weren't there on the right day to have seen it)...
D&C 110 - Stuck at the end of Revelation Book 1 by Warren Cowdery who did not write anything else in that book. Anyone who reads the Joseph Smith Papers will see that it seems out of place with the rest of the book. Joseph and Oliver never referred to the event themselves. Joseph constantly speaks after the purported visitation of references to the coming of Elijah in the future tense. Not added to the scriptures for decades after the event. The foundation of the modern interpretation of temple work - surely this could not be based on a false premise...
The last charge meeting with the keys of the kingdom given - apparently only held significance long after the fact. No contemporary account. There is an entry in the council of 50 minutes for the day of the purported event, but no keys of the kingdom are mentioned.
These are not minor subjects, we are talking about core principles of the modern church! All taught now with absolutely certainty today, there is not even a hint of a controversy. But you go back and ask the question, if these things were so great and grand decades later why were these so few to no accounts when it happened?
Call it a conspiracy or whatever you like. But after going through different subjects over and over, and seeing this same pattern, yeah I have a real hard time putting stock in events that people recall long after the fact (same with the William Smith quoted above, though I would point out that it was only a year or two instead of a decade or two). To me any one of these could be likely overlooked and excused as just coincidence, but there are just too many incidents of this by the same people to be waved off as coincidence.

Arenera wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 1:08 pm Jesef and AI2.0, you just don't know what you are talking about. Sheesh.

Underdog on the other hand, sits with leaders from his area and a GA, then reports back to LDSFF how misguided it was.

What is the definition of a tare?

What of the GA's training do you think was misguided, or what was spot-on?

I thought the report I gave was interesting and germane to our discussion. He spent most of his remarks on addressing the problem that our sacrament meetings don't have spiritual power because we're talking about everything BUT Jesus Christ and His Atonement. He said "contrast that with the Baptists! They speak of Christ, rejoice in Christ, etc. and when you walk away from one of their meetings you're really spiritually uplifted!"

I was shocked to hear him say that. He was really cutting to the chase and calling us out! I agree with him. I don't think he was misguided on that. Do you, Arenera? I do think it's over the top to be exhorting us to spend time listen to audio recordings of the Handbook. You've got to be kidding me!!!!

jdt wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 1:26 pm It always comes back to polygamy doesn't it?
Okay, Jesef, I will come out and say it: yes, I have a big problem with a lot of the history that gets touted as "fact". And some of it is a factor of the sheer number of subjects of which I see the same pattern.
Polygamy - "Oh there is numerous contemporary accounts of faithful people that claimed Joseph was doing". Well actually there is only 8 contemporaneous accounts, half of which are by dissidents. Two of which only touch the subject by interpretation. That leaves 2. One of which is section 132, which was written by someone who really shouldn't have been in a place to be one to write it and who really did not stand by it and was not made public for nearly a decade. Then there is William Clayton's account, not to be dismissed, but also has its own problems. Seriously that is it? Joseph was married (and apparently having sexual relations) with dozens of women and not one wrote a word about it at the time?! Joseph had numerous scribes and opportunities to write about it, and all but 2 condemn polygamy. This is hardly indisputable "fact". But so many people gave witness decades later...
But let's set this aside and look at other examples:
Brigham being transfigured to look like Joseph: no contemporary account. Many accounts were recorded the same day of the purported transfiguration, none of them mention it. It is not until over a decade later that many recall what happened. But so many people recalled decades later (some of whom weren't there on the right day to have seen it)...
D&C 110 - Stuck at the end of Revelation Book 1 by Warren Cowdery who did not write anything else in that book. Anyone who reads the Joseph Smith Papers will see that it seems out of place with the rest of the book. Joseph and Oliver never referred to the event themselves. Joseph constantly speaks after the purported visitation of references to the coming of Elijah in the future tense. Not added to the scriptures for decades after the event. The foundation of the modern interpretation of temple work - surely this could not be based on a false premise...
The last charge meeting with the keys of the kingdom given - apparently only held significance long after the fact. No contemporary account. There is an entry in the council of 50 minutes for the day of the purported event, but no keys of the kingdom are mentioned.
These are not minor subjects, we are talking about core principles of the modern church! All taught now with absolutely certainty today, there is not even a hint of a controversy. But you go back and ask the question, if these things were so great and grand decades later why were these so few to no accounts when it happened?
Call it a conspiracy or whatever you like. But after going through different subjects over and over, and seeing this same pattern, yeah I have a real hard time putting stock in events that people recall long after the fact (same with the William Smith quoted above, though I would point out that it was only a year or two instead of a decade or two). To me any one of these could be likely overlooked and excused as just coincidence, but there are just too many incidents of this by the same people to be waved off as coincidence.

What do you say about this jdt?

8. 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)

Arenera wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 1:46 pm

jdt wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 1:26 pm It always comes back to polygamy doesn't it?
Okay, Jesef, I will come out and say it: yes, I have a big problem with a lot of the history that gets touted as "fact". And some of it is a factor of the sheer number of subjects of which I see the same pattern.
Polygamy - "Oh there is numerous contemporary accounts of faithful people that claimed Joseph was doing". Well actually there is only 8 contemporaneous accounts, half of which are by dissidents. Two of which only touch the subject by interpretation. That leaves 2. One of which is section 132, which was written by someone who really shouldn't have been in a place to be one to write it and who really did not stand by it and was not made public for nearly a decade. Then there is William Clayton's account, not to be dismissed, but also has its own problems. Seriously that is it? Joseph was married (and apparently having sexual relations) with dozens of women and not one wrote a word about it at the time?! Joseph had numerous scribes and opportunities to write about it, and all but 2 condemn polygamy. This is hardly indisputable "fact". But so many people gave witness decades later...
But let's set this aside and look at other examples:
Brigham being transfigured to look like Joseph: no contemporary account. Many accounts were recorded the same day of the purported transfiguration, none of them mention it. It is not until over a decade later that many recall what happened. But so many people recalled decades later (some of whom weren't there on the right day to have seen it)...
D&C 110 - Stuck at the end of Revelation Book 1 by Warren Cowdery who did not write anything else in that book. Anyone who reads the Joseph Smith Papers will see that it seems out of place with the rest of the book. Joseph and Oliver never referred to the event themselves. Joseph constantly speaks after the purported visitation of references to the coming of Elijah in the future tense. Not added to the scriptures for decades after the event. The foundation of the modern interpretation of temple work - surely this could not be based on a false premise...
The last charge meeting with the keys of the kingdom given - apparently only held significance long after the fact. No contemporary account. There is an entry in the council of 50 minutes for the day of the purported event, but no keys of the kingdom are mentioned.
These are not minor subjects, we are talking about core principles of the modern church! All taught now with absolutely certainty today, there is not even a hint of a controversy. But you go back and ask the question, if these things were so great and grand decades later why were these so few to no accounts when it happened?
Call it a conspiracy or whatever you like. But after going through different subjects over and over, and seeing this same pattern, yeah I have a real hard time putting stock in events that people recall long after the fact (same with the William Smith quoted above, though I would point out that it was only a year or two instead of a decade or two). To me any one of these could be likely overlooked and excused as just coincidence, but there are just too many incidents of this by the same people to be waved off as coincidence.

What do you say about this jdt?

8. 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)

I alluded to this before. Why is the quote in October 1860, and not February 1848? If it what was purported to have happened on that day happened, would it have been noteworthy enough to record then? Why wait 12 years?
So then if there is doubt, could there be any motive for the speaker to fabricate the claim? With many of the women who testified that they were married to Joseph, they came forth at the time of a trial over Missouri property in which the "true successor" church to the one Joseph founded stood to gain. In this case, Joseph Smith III had the prior April announced that he had received a revelation that he was to assume the first presidency. Now motive is certainly not proof, but it does cast further doubt on the account. I would be extremely hesitant to rest my faith upon this account or the transfiguration account (or the last charge meeting). At some point you have to ask, what did Brigham actually accomplish (this can be via teachings or actions) that show what he did to match the description of a prophet, in order for him to be a prophet.

Why is it any better than this one?

"The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ Is the Body ... with Whom the Authority Rests!"

By J. W. Nanny

During the prophetic leadership of Joseph Smith III, J. W. Nanny became concerned about which church was God's true one. After prayer he received a vision which answered his question.

Shortly after this I got quite a bundle of tracts and a little paper entitled The Return, which made some very strange claims. Also quite an assortment of tracts and papers from Utah claiming legal succession for that body [the LDS Church], and there was a Mr. Collins representing the Church of Christ [Temple Lot] which are Hedrickites, claiming they were the true Church. Now, I had asked for the divinity of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and now comes three other bodies claiming to be that Church.

The same argument that convinced me that the sects were wrong was evidence that but one of these factions could be right, so I decided to put James 1:5 to the test. I sought the Lord in prayer and continued to read everything they sent me and compare it with the Scriptures, knowing that God alone could give me light—till one day in the latter part of February I was chopping wood out of dead trees in a cotton field; being alone I was in silent prayer. I had felled a tree and sat down beside it to rest, leaning back against the log as it lay across the cotton rows. As I sat there in silent meditation I was impressed to look up, and to the northwest I saw a personage approaching me clothed in a white flowing robe. He stopped directly in front of me, and about ten feet away, and beckoning me said, "Come hither."

I immediately left my body and started with my guide, and we seemed to go many miles till we came to an exceeding high mountain which was very beautiful. For the first time since we started, my guide spoke and said, "What desirest thou?"

I answered, "Oh, my Lord, if I have found favor in thy sight, shew unto thy servant where is thine authority and upon whom it rests, and where is the true Church of Jesus Christ."

He said, "As thou hast been faithful before the Lord, and sought him in humble prayer, these things shall be made known unto thee; therefore, I say unto thee, look."

I looked and he said, "What seest thou?"

I replied, "Oh, my Lord, my reins are consumed within me, for I see an old man with full, long white beard and gray hair crowned with a radiant light and hedged about with a structure mighty and strong, which all the powers of earth and hell cannot overthrow."

He then said to me, "Knowest thou the meaning of these things?"

I said, "Be merciful unto me, oh, Lord, and declare them unto thy servant, for I know not their meaning."

He said, "The old man that thou seest is the servant and prophet of the most high God, Joseph Smith [III], the son of Joseph Smith that was slain for his testimony, and the light that crowns his head is the Spirit of revelation by which the Saints of all ages are led; and the structure thou seest is the truth, the rock on which the Church is built, and the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ is the body, the bride, the Lamb's wife, with whom the authority rests."

I would have kneeled down and thanked or worshiped him, but he said, "Do it not, but return unto thy body and do the work that is in store for thee." He spoke also many other words unto me which have given me strength thus far and will help me to anchor in the port when the Lord of Glory calls (Zion's Ensign, July 11, 1912; Alvin Knisley, Infallible Proofs, [Independence, Missouri: Herald Publishing House, 1930],pp. 182–184; italics added).

jdt wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 2:17 pm

Arenera wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 1:46 pm

jdt wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 1:26 pm It always comes back to polygamy doesn't it?
Okay, Jesef, I will come out and say it: yes, I have a big problem with a lot of the history that gets touted as "fact". And some of it is a factor of the sheer number of subjects of which I see the same pattern.
Polygamy - "Oh there is numerous contemporary accounts of faithful people that claimed Joseph was doing". Well actually there is only 8 contemporaneous accounts, half of which are by dissidents. Two of which only touch the subject by interpretation. That leaves 2. One of which is section 132, which was written by someone who really shouldn't have been in a place to be one to write it and who really did not stand by it and was not made public for nearly a decade. Then there is William Clayton's account, not to be dismissed, but also has its own problems. Seriously that is it? Joseph was married (and apparently having sexual relations) with dozens of women and not one wrote a word about it at the time?! Joseph had numerous scribes and opportunities to write about it, and all but 2 condemn polygamy. This is hardly indisputable "fact". But so many people gave witness decades later...
But let's set this aside and look at other examples:
Brigham being transfigured to look like Joseph: no contemporary account. Many accounts were recorded the same day of the purported transfiguration, none of them mention it. It is not until over a decade later that many recall what happened. But so many people recalled decades later (some of whom weren't there on the right day to have seen it)...
D&C 110 - Stuck at the end of Revelation Book 1 by Warren Cowdery who did not write anything else in that book. Anyone who reads the Joseph Smith Papers will see that it seems out of place with the rest of the book. Joseph and Oliver never referred to the event themselves. Joseph constantly speaks after the purported visitation of references to the coming of Elijah in the future tense. Not added to the scriptures for decades after the event. The foundation of the modern interpretation of temple work - surely this could not be based on a false premise...
The last charge meeting with the keys of the kingdom given - apparently only held significance long after the fact. No contemporary account. There is an entry in the council of 50 minutes for the day of the purported event, but no keys of the kingdom are mentioned.
These are not minor subjects, we are talking about core principles of the modern church! All taught now with absolutely certainty today, there is not even a hint of a controversy. But you go back and ask the question, if these things were so great and grand decades later why were these so few to no accounts when it happened?
Call it a conspiracy or whatever you like. But after going through different subjects over and over, and seeing this same pattern, yeah I have a real hard time putting stock in events that people recall long after the fact (same with the William Smith quoted above, though I would point out that it was only a year or two instead of a decade or two). To me any one of these could be likely overlooked and excused as just coincidence, but there are just too many incidents of this by the same people to be waved off as coincidence.

What do you say about this jdt?

8. 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)

I alluded to this before. Why is the quote in October 1860, and not February 1848? If it what was purported to have happened on that day happened, would it have been noteworthy enough to record then? Why wait 12 years?
So then if there is doubt, could there be any motive for the speaker to fabricate the claim? With many of the women who testified that they were married to Joseph, they came forth at the time of a trial over Missouri property in which the "true successor" church to the one Joseph founded stood to gain. In this case, Joseph Smith III had the prior April announced that he had received a revelation that he was to assume the first presidency. Now motive is certainly not proof, but it does cast further doubt on the account. I would be extremely hesitant to rest my faith upon this account or the transfiguration account (or the last charge meeting). At some point you have to ask, what did Brigham actually accomplish (this can be via teachings or actions) that show what he did to match the description of a prophet, in order for him to be a prophet.

It's simple. If you believe that with God's power the plates and writings could be handled for 1,000 years so we would have the Book of Mormon, then certainly with God's power the restoration continued with Brigham Young.

To say that God took a mulligan doesn't cut it. Brigham Young led one of the greatest events in all history. It's simple.

Arenera wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 1:46 pm

jdt wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 1:26 pm It always comes back to polygamy doesn't it?
Okay, Jesef, I will come out and say it: yes, I have a big problem with a lot of the history that gets touted as "fact". And some of it is a factor of the sheer number of subjects of which I see the same pattern.
Polygamy - "Oh there is numerous contemporary accounts of faithful people that claimed Joseph was doing". Well actually there is only 8 contemporaneous accounts, half of which are by dissidents. Two of which only touch the subject by interpretation. That leaves 2. One of which is section 132, which was written by someone who really shouldn't have been in a place to be one to write it and who really did not stand by it and was not made public for nearly a decade. Then there is William Clayton's account, not to be dismissed, but also has its own problems. Seriously that is it? Joseph was married (and apparently having sexual relations) with dozens of women and not one wrote a word about it at the time?! Joseph had numerous scribes and opportunities to write about it, and all but 2 condemn polygamy. This is hardly indisputable "fact". But so many people gave witness decades later...
But let's set this aside and look at other examples:
Brigham being transfigured to look like Joseph: no contemporary account. Many accounts were recorded the same day of the purported transfiguration, none of them mention it. It is not until over a decade later that many recall what happened. But so many people recalled decades later (some of whom weren't there on the right day to have seen it)...
D&C 110 - Stuck at the end of Revelation Book 1 by Warren Cowdery who did not write anything else in that book. Anyone who reads the Joseph Smith Papers will see that it seems out of place with the rest of the book. Joseph and Oliver never referred to the event themselves. Joseph constantly speaks after the purported visitation of references to the coming of Elijah in the future tense. Not added to the scriptures for decades after the event. The foundation of the modern interpretation of temple work - surely this could not be based on a false premise...
The last charge meeting with the keys of the kingdom given - apparently only held significance long after the fact. No contemporary account. There is an entry in the council of 50 minutes for the day of the purported event, but no keys of the kingdom are mentioned.
These are not minor subjects, we are talking about core principles of the modern church! All taught now with absolutely certainty today, there is not even a hint of a controversy. But you go back and ask the question, if these things were so great and grand decades later why were these so few to no accounts when it happened?
Call it a conspiracy or whatever you like. But after going through different subjects over and over, and seeing this same pattern, yeah I have a real hard time putting stock in events that people recall long after the fact (same with the William Smith quoted above, though I would point out that it was only a year or two instead of a decade or two). To me any one of these could be likely overlooked and excused as just coincidence, but there are just too many incidents of this by the same people to be waved off as coincidence.

What do you say about this jdt?

8. 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)

7 October 1860

You do realize that much history is written after the fact. There was a need for the Church during Pres Young's tenure to shore up its claims to authority, as it was being challenged in 1860. His authority was called into question while he was alive. He's no dummy. In the absence of a heavenly vision or divine mandate (as Joseph had), he needed ammunition.

The modern LDS Church does the same thing. They have to make a case that their authority is legitimate NEVER REALIZING (as you still don't because you're doing the same thing the Church does) that the very moment you try to establish your authority by pointing to it, you lose it! (refer again to DC 121:34-41). Once again, NO NO "NO power of influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood."

Any time you guys point to your authority to win the argument that YOU should be obeyed (which is a form of unrighteous dominion), you unwittingly offer more evidence of your unworthiness to even claim the priesthood.

Let the message of truth speak for itself. The message is the truth. The message is the authority.

I guess Snuffer lost his authority since he claims it and you sustain it. That's why you follow him, he claims he wrested the keys. Again, Snuffer followers fail to see the mirror mirror on the wall.

underdog wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 2:34 pm

Arenera wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 1:46 pm

jdt wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 1:26 pm It always comes back to polygamy doesn't it?
Okay, Jesef, I will come out and say it: yes, I have a big problem with a lot of the history that gets touted as "fact". And some of it is a factor of the sheer number of subjects of which I see the same pattern.
Polygamy - "Oh there is numerous contemporary accounts of faithful people that claimed Joseph was doing". Well actually there is only 8 contemporaneous accounts, half of which are by dissidents. Two of which only touch the subject by interpretation. That leaves 2. One of which is section 132, which was written by someone who really shouldn't have been in a place to be one to write it and who really did not stand by it and was not made public for nearly a decade. Then there is William Clayton's account, not to be dismissed, but also has its own problems. Seriously that is it? Joseph was married (and apparently having sexual relations) with dozens of women and not one wrote a word about it at the time?! Joseph had numerous scribes and opportunities to write about it, and all but 2 condemn polygamy. This is hardly indisputable "fact". But so many people gave witness decades later...
But let's set this aside and look at other examples:
Brigham being transfigured to look like Joseph: no contemporary account. Many accounts were recorded the same day of the purported transfiguration, none of them mention it. It is not until over a decade later that many recall what happened. But so many people recalled decades later (some of whom weren't there on the right day to have seen it)...
D&C 110 - Stuck at the end of Revelation Book 1 by Warren Cowdery who did not write anything else in that book. Anyone who reads the Joseph Smith Papers will see that it seems out of place with the rest of the book. Joseph and Oliver never referred to the event themselves. Joseph constantly speaks after the purported visitation of references to the coming of Elijah in the future tense. Not added to the scriptures for decades after the event. The foundation of the modern interpretation of temple work - surely this could not be based on a false premise...
The last charge meeting with the keys of the kingdom given - apparently only held significance long after the fact. No contemporary account. There is an entry in the council of 50 minutes for the day of the purported event, but no keys of the kingdom are mentioned.
These are not minor subjects, we are talking about core principles of the modern church! All taught now with absolutely certainty today, there is not even a hint of a controversy. But you go back and ask the question, if these things were so great and grand decades later why were these so few to no accounts when it happened?
Call it a conspiracy or whatever you like. But after going through different subjects over and over, and seeing this same pattern, yeah I have a real hard time putting stock in events that people recall long after the fact (same with the William Smith quoted above, though I would point out that it was only a year or two instead of a decade or two). To me any one of these could be likely overlooked and excused as just coincidence, but there are just too many incidents of this by the same people to be waved off as coincidence.

What do you say about this jdt?

8. 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)

7 October 1860

You do realize that much history is written after the fact. There was a need for the Church during Pres Young's tenure to shore up its claims to authority? His authority was called into question while he was alive. He's no dummy.

The Catholics do the same thing.

The modern LDS Church does the same thing. They have to make a case that their authority is legitimate NEVER REALIZING (as you still don't because you're doing the same thing the Church does) that the very moment you try to establish your authority by pointing to it, you lose it! (refer again to DC 121:34-41). Once again, NO NO "NO power of influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood."

Any time you guys point to your authority to win the argument that YOU should be obeyed (which is a form of unrighteous dominion), you unwittingly offer more evidence of your unworthiness to even claim the priesthood.

Let the message of truth speak for itself. The message is the truth. The message is the authority.

You, jdt and others discount the power of God. Good grief, Joseph's death was an important time in the restoration. God accounted for it and Brigham Young had been prepared to lead.

The apostles and the people supported God's choice of Brigham Young. You, jdt and others wouldn't even know of things without Brigham Young. Where did you get your Book of Mormon to read, your D&C, your Pearl of Great Price? Did you get it from RLDS?

Open up your hard-headed minds. The history you promote didn't happen.

underdog wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 1:32 pm

Arenera wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 1:08 pm Jesef and AI2.0, you just don't know what you are talking about. Sheesh.

Underdog on the other hand, sits with leaders from his area and a GA, then reports back to LDSFF how misguided it was.

What is the definition of a tare?

What of the GA's training do you think was misguided, or what was spot-on?

I thought the report I gave was interesting and germane to our discussion. He spent most of his remarks on addressing the problem that our sacrament meetings don't have spiritual power because we're talking about everything BUT Jesus Christ and His Atonement. He said "contrast that with the Baptists! They speak of Christ, rejoice in Christ, etc. and when you walk away from one of their meetings you're really spiritually uplifted!"

I was shocked to hear him say that. He was really cutting to the chase and calling us out! I agree with him. I don't think he was misguided on that. Do you, Arenera? I do think it's over the top to be exhorting us to spend time listen to audio recordings of the Handbook. You've got to be kidding me!!!!

While I'm certain there are some wards that have very spiritual, Christ centered Sacrament meetings, there is no question that many are falling short. I'm glad he pointed that out and hopefully people will listen. My ward is generally good, we've had some excellent Christ centered talks that really brought the spirit.
By I have to say, Underdog, it is truly baffling to me that you are living this double life. Were you not rebaptised per Snuffer's requirements? Anyone who does this, it's considered joining another church and a sign of apostasy, grounds for excommunication, yet you say you are serving as a 'leader'? From your opinions and beliefs you've shared here, you clearly believe that all church leaders after Joseph Smith were corrupt, apostate and even some evil (Brigham Young) and yet, you are serving in a position of authority in this church that you obviously think is false?? How can you live this type of lie?

I don't understand why you don't make a choice? I think that the hypocrisy that some members live in, such as you, is what's undermining the righteousness of the collective membership. If you are no longer a believer, then admit it and move on, rather than giving Satan more power within the church by unrighteous, deceptive behaviors on the part of so called members. In this I am more pleading with you than accusing, I hope you will read it as such.

Arenera wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 2:26 pm
It's simple. If you believe that with God's power the plates and writings could be handled for 1,000 years so we would have the Book of Mormon, then certainly with God's power the restoration continued with Brigham Young.

To say that God took a mulligan doesn't cut it. Brigham Young led one of the greatest events in all history. It's simple.

I don't follow what you are saying. If you are saying that since God showed His power through the Book of Mormon, then the restoration could have continued with Brigham Young, then sure. If you are saying it must have continued, then I would disagree with that. Not because God takes mulligans but because people sometimes decline the message God offers (in fact this happens at a rate probably greater than 50% within a generation). As part of agency God let's people (or leaders) walk away.

I am curious to which event you are referring? The saints trek westward?

jdt wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 2:55 pm

Arenera wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 2:26 pm
It's simple. If you believe that with God's power the plates and writings could be handled for 1,000 years so we would have the Book of Mormon, then certainly with God's power the restoration continued with Brigham Young.

To say that God took a mulligan doesn't cut it. Brigham Young led one of the greatest events in all history. It's simple.

I don't follow what you are saying. If you are saying that since God showed His power through the Book of Mormon, then the restoration could have continued with Brigham Young, then sure. If you are saying it must have continued, then I would disagree with that. Not because God takes mulligans but because people sometimes decline the message God offers (in fact this happens at a rate probably greater than 50% within a generation). As part of agency God let's people (or leaders) walk away.

I am curious to which event you are referring? The saints trek westward?

Being led by Brigham Young west, outside the United States at that time. Tens of thousands joined the Church and trekked westward. You don't think the power of God was involved in this? You think that God went on vacation for 170 years?

Just like Denver, you pick and choose what parts of history you want to justify how you believe.

AI2.0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 2:42 pm

underdog wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 1:32 pm

Arenera wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 1:08 pm Jesef and AI2.0, you just don't know what you are talking about. Sheesh.

Underdog on the other hand, sits with leaders from his area and a GA, then reports back to LDSFF how misguided it was.

What is the definition of a tare?

What of the GA's training do you think was misguided, or what was spot-on?

I thought the report I gave was interesting and germane to our discussion. He spent most of his remarks on addressing the problem that our sacrament meetings don't have spiritual power because we're talking about everything BUT Jesus Christ and His Atonement. He said "contrast that with the Baptists! They speak of Christ, rejoice in Christ, etc. and when you walk away from one of their meetings you're really spiritually uplifted!"

I was shocked to hear him say that. He was really cutting to the chase and calling us out! I agree with him. I don't think he was misguided on that. Do you, Arenera? I do think it's over the top to be exhorting us to spend time listen to audio recordings of the Handbook. You've got to be kidding me!!!!

While I'm certain there are some wards that have very spiritual, Christ centered Sacrament meetings, there is no question that many are falling short. I'm glad he pointed that out and hopefully people will listen. My ward is generally good, we've had some excellent Christ centered talks that really brought the spirit.
By I have to say, Underdog, it is truly baffling to me that you are living this double life. Were you not rebaptised per Snuffer's requirements? Anyone who does this, it's considered joining another church and a sign of apostasy, grounds for excommunication, yet you say you are serving as a 'leader'? From your opinions and beliefs you've shared here, you clearly believe that all church leaders after Joseph Smith were corrupt, apostate and even some evil (Brigham Young) and yet, you are serving in a position of authority in this church that you obviously think is false?? How can you live this type of lie?

I don't understand why you don't make a choice? I think that the hypocrisy that some members live in, such as you, is what's undermining the righteousness of the collective membership. If you are no longer a believer, then admit it and move on, rather than giving Satan more power within the church by unrighteous, deceptive behaviors on the part of so called members. In this I am more pleading with you than accusing, I hope you will read it as such.

It would be hard for an active member who is striving to choose the right to understand how someone could live a double life. However I think this would explain things a little better. Someone living this double life would, in no doubt, be lacking the spirit as a guide. Switching teams would be no problem and even putting one foot on each side of the line would not really cause any remorse if the person didn't have the spirit to guide them.

I have observed that many who left for the Denver Snuffer movement were already half way out the door. These people typically didn't sustain the prophets or at least were criticizing them as they were climbing on the fence or sitting there watching things play out. There are some good people who have left the church so it's not like they were not smart enough, or willing to serve, but I would say many had an issue with the church which made this transition easy. If you didn't have the spirit as your companion then it would be easy to live this double life and not think it that big of a deal.

Arenera wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 2:41 pm You, jdt and others discount the power of God.

Maybe you will answer this in response to my other question, but where do I discount the power of God?

Good grief, Joseph's death was an important time in the restoration. God accounted for it and Brigham Young had been prepared to lead.

Pretend for a moment I am an investigator and know nothing about LDS mormonism. How do you explain your position? Why was Joseph's death important? And how do you know Brigham had been prepared to lead?
It is difficult to converse about this when you make sweeping assertions about things. With more details then I can discuss beyond "God prepared Brigham to lead", "Nuh-uh". (I say this with a smile on my face).

The apostles and the people supported God's choice of Brigham Young. You, jdt and others wouldn't even know of things without Brigham Young. Where did you get your Book of Mormon to read, your D&C, your Pearl of Great Price? Did you get it from RLDS?

This is an important point and I should re-iterate my gratitude to LDS mormonism for keeping the scriptures and words of Joseph as they did. Same with Roman Catholicism and Judiasm for their roles with the New and Old Testaments. This cannot be understated. You are right to bring this up.

Open up your hard-headed minds. The history you promote didn't happen.

I am kind of turning into Jesef here, but what evidence do you accept? What is the criteria for you to accept something as "historical"?

shadow wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 2:38 pm I guess Snuffer lost his authority since he claims it and you sustain it. That's why you follow him, he claims he wrested the keys. Again, Snuffer followers fail to see the mirror mirror on the wall.

Denver doesn't try to win arguments and get you to obey him. His attitude and tone and motivation is completely different. He doesn't care if you heed his warnings. He doesn't get bent out of shape. He's not going to excommunicate you or persecute you to get you to listen to him. Like Joseph, "I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it."

I mean, look at how LDS authorities involved in Denver's excommunication handled the argument they had with Denver. They said "obey us" or be excommunicated. Denver tried to engage them in a discussion of why and reconciliation, how he's doing something the Lord wouldn't be pleased with. He got crickets on those questions. He did get the boot.

If you walked up to Denver and said "You fraud, you don't have any authority." He'd not fight you on the issue. He'd let you go in peace. He would totally honor you. He even said, he wouldn't believe himself!

From Talk #1:

These are just asides on our way to the answer to the question about how to tell whether Joseph is telling you the truth. The answer is given beginning in verse 5: “Verily I say unto you, that woe shall come unto the inhabitants of the earth if they will not hearken unto my words;” This is Christ owning the words. It's not Joseph nor Joseph’s words, but Christ’s. Then we have verses 6-7: “For hereafter you shall be ordained and go forth and deliver my words unto the children of men. Behold, if they will not believe my words, they would not believe you, my servant Joseph, if it were possible that you should show them all these things which I have committed unto you.”

God owns the words. You wouldn't believe the rest of it if you won't believe what's authorized to be spoken. Joseph confined himself to delivering what Christ wanted delivered. And it was up to them to choose. And if they recognize the Master's voice (John 10: 27) then they received the message from Him. The revelation expands this in verses 8-9: “Oh, this unbelieving and stiffnecked generation—mine anger is kindled against them. Behold, verily I say unto you, I have reserved those things which I have entrusted unto you, my servant Joseph, for a wise purpose in me, and it shall be made known unto future generations; But this generation shall have my word through you;” When we fail to heed a message coming from Christ, and fail to recognize His voice, then the Lord’s anger is riled. His disappointment is palpable. We should know better.

"By their fruits ye shall know them", the Savior teaches.

Jesus taught us how we know if somebody is legit or not.

Denver concluded Talk 10 with this:

Whether or not these talks make any difference at all does not depend on how well I have spoken them. They depend entirely upon what you now do. If there is any fruit to be produced, the fruit will not be me talking, or the CDs, or a book, ultimately. That is not the fruit. The fruit is to be found in your lives. The fruit is to be found in your influence, in your family, with your children, in the Light that comes into your lives and the lives of those who know you.

Inasmuch as the LDS Church has taught correct ideas, the fruits have been there. The lesser priesthood continued even after Joseph's and Hyrum's deaths. God honored the lesser priesthood up until the Patriarch died a few years ago (whom the Brethren had retired early). You should look at WHY they did what they did to Eldred Smith.

I just copied and pasted this from Google:

Eldred Gee Smith was the patriarch emeritus of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and held the calling of Patriarch to the Church from 1947 to 1979. Wikipedia

Born: January 9, 1907, Lehi, UT
Died: April 4, 2013, Salt Lake City, UT
Education: LDS High School

The Twelve's power was threatened by this patriarchal line. They terminated his patriarchal duties in 1979. and Eldred died in 2013 (what a coincidence!). God had honored the Church through the decades because of this priesthood.

The gist of what happened is as follows. Maybe Thomas or JDT can offer more:

The Lord gave the office of “priesthood and patriarch” to Hyrum, to be held in honorable remembrance in the church within Hyrum’s descendants. That office was made emeritus in 1979, but the “priesthood and patriarch” remained in the church. Eldred Smith lived to be the oldest man in Utah, and died at age 106, just days before the 2013 conference.

Denver Snuffer, who had already entered into the patriarchal order, became the oldest living patriarch upon Eldred's death. But Denver was still a member of the church at that point. There was still a thread of a claim that the church retained priesthood. Then they exed Denver. Then they voted to sustain the action. And the Lord, who gave the church every chance possible to repent, at that point made it permanent. The patriarchal priesthood continues on the earth through Denver, but it no longer continues with the church. This ended the church’s ability to even “claim” to have honored the “priesthood and patriarch” line established by God. Up until that point, there was at least a colorable claim.

You could spend weeks on studying Denver's writings on Priesthood. He obviously is on a much higher level of understanding, and yet he talks like it's 2+2=4. He speaks like a prophet. How I can say this? Read his stuff.

jdt wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 3:13 pm

Arenera wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 2:41 pm You, jdt and others discount the power of God.

Maybe you will answer this in response to my other question, but where do I discount the power of God?

Good grief, Joseph's death was an important time in the restoration. God accounted for it and Brigham Young had been prepared to lead.

Pretend for a moment I am an investigator and know nothing about LDS mormonism. How do you explain your position? Why was Joseph's death important? And how do you know Brigham had been prepared to lead?
It is difficult to converse about this when you make sweeping assertions about things. With more details then I can discuss beyond "God prepared Brigham to lead", "Nuh-uh". (I say this with a smile on my face).

The apostles and the people supported God's choice of Brigham Young. You, jdt and others wouldn't even know of things without Brigham Young. Where did you get your Book of Mormon to read, your D&C, your Pearl of Great Price? Did you get it from RLDS?

This is an important point and I should re-iterate my gratitude to LDS mormonism for keeping the scriptures and words of Joseph as they did. Same with Roman Catholicism and Judiasm for their roles with the New and Old Testaments. This cannot be understated. You are right to bring this up.

Open up your hard-headed minds. The history you promote didn't happen.

I am kind of turning into Jesef here, but what evidence do you accept? What is the criteria for you to accept something as "historical"?

I had a spiritual conversion, so I can discern that "historical" evidences are correct or not. I recommend investigators get a spiritual conversion first. Otherwise, underdog and you promote evidence you consider correct but isn't.

Denver's movement has been in process for a few years now so we can see with our own eyes, and therefore we reject him. Many statements Denver has made in blog, speaking and book where he has contradicted himself. For example, trust in no man, only Christ. So why are ya'll still listening to Denver....

AI2.0 wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 2:42 pm

underdog wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 1:32 pm

Arenera wrote: ↑September 18th, 2017, 1:08 pm Jesef and AI2.0, you just don't know what you are talking about. Sheesh.

Underdog on the other hand, sits with leaders from his area and a GA, then reports back to LDSFF how misguided it was.

What is the definition of a tare?

What of the GA's training do you think was misguided, or what was spot-on?

I thought the report I gave was interesting and germane to our discussion. He spent most of his remarks on addressing the problem that our sacrament meetings don't have spiritual power because we're talking about everything BUT Jesus Christ and His Atonement. He said "contrast that with the Baptists! They speak of Christ, rejoice in Christ, etc. and when you walk away from one of their meetings you're really spiritually uplifted!"

I was shocked to hear him say that. He was really cutting to the chase and calling us out! I agree with him. I don't think he was misguided on that. Do you, Arenera? I do think it's over the top to be exhorting us to spend time listen to audio recordings of the Handbook. You've got to be kidding me!!!!

While I'm certain there are some wards that have very spiritual, Christ centered Sacrament meetings, there is no question that many are falling short. I'm glad he pointed that out and hopefully people will listen. My ward is generally good, we've had some excellent Christ centered talks that really brought the spirit.
By I have to say, Underdog, it is truly baffling to me that you are living this double life. Were you not rebaptised per Snuffer's requirements? Anyone who does this, it's considered joining another church and a sign of apostasy, grounds for excommunication, yet you say you are serving as a 'leader'? From your opinions and beliefs you've shared here, you clearly believe that all church leaders after Joseph Smith were corrupt, apostate and even some evil (Brigham Young) and yet, you are serving in a position of authority in this church that you obviously think is false?? How can you live this type of lie?

I don't understand why you don't make a choice? I think that the hypocrisy that some members live in, such as you, is what's undermining the righteousness of the collective membership. If you are no longer a believer, then admit it and move on, rather than giving Satan more power within the church by unrighteous, deceptive behaviors on the part of so called members. In this I am more pleading with you than accusing, I hope you will read it as such.

AI2, I appreciate your pleading with me.

I have to admit, I am beginning to find it more difficult with each passing week to keep the frustration within.

But keep in mind, I have many friends and deep relationships with people. Socially there's a reason to be there.

But here's the deal, there is still much in common. Like the GA was saying, we must focus more on Jesus and the Atonement. I don't feel like I'm leading a double life. If Mormonism is all about Jesus Christ, then I fit right in. I've had no "faith crisis". My foundation is Christ.

But the run-ins with people who are soo attached to the Brethren (more than Christ) is increasingly getting more exasperating, truth be told.

I was told by a former bishop and good friend of mine just a few days ago that "Mormonism has a monopoly on truth." I had to argue with him about this for 90 seconds. He really believes that. He said if TSM doesn't declare something to be true, then it's not true. And we have to wait for him to declare it. He doesn't believe that the Holy Ghost can teach great truths to people of other faiths.

I was stunned by this. He grew up in the Church and my wife said that people who grow up in the Church can get narrow minded sometimes, if not down right arrogant. He's done a good time of disguising that arrogance through the years, but it sure came out with his "monopoly" statement.

I begged to differ with him, but not sure I reached him.

Any way, even you, AI2, and I could probably be friends. I hope we could. We have so much in common. If love is the bond, then we could get along just fine, even though we're on opposite sides of the fence.