Denver Snuffer's Remnant scripture project and covenant

[jdt]

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?

Sure. But I would say the power of God was also present with europeans who fled to the United States for better religious freedoms. I would not support in either case that this proves a kind of infallibility.

You think that God went on vacation for 170 years?

Certainly not. But again this does not mean that I accept every action done in God's name as having originated with God.

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

A small aside if you will for a moment. One of the most devious logical fallacies is that of a false dichotomy (a situation where the speaker tries to present only 2 options as possible and therefore one of them must be true, when actually another option exists that is the true one). I believe there is one perpetuated and believed by most LDS that either the Church is all true or it is evil and all false. There is another option where the Church does indeed perpetuate and teach much of what the Lord restored through Joseph, but that does not mean that everything that Joseph did was correct, nor what those who succeeded Joseph did was correct. We have a reasonable expectation and understanding of the limitations of others. Of course others are going to make mistakes, I make them all the time. I am perfectly comfortable with an environment where a Bishop can admit that he made a mistake with a calling and that it came from him and not the Lord. And we ought to respond with love and compassion in that situation. And I am perfectly comfortable with a member saying (prior to the Bishop admitting it) that the same calling was also a mistake. Big whoop let's move on. Does that mean he is a bad Bishop or full of evil? Of course not. Does that mean he does not have the Spirit or priesthood? Of course not. Does it mean that someone else should be Bishop? Of course not. Now where I would have a problem, would be for him to double down and say "Oh yes, that calling was inspired of the Lord" when instead he was under a great deal of pressure, did not have enough time to duly consider and issued the calling out of desperation. That is using the Lord's name in vain (much worse than merely swearing). To me that is a much more serious offense. But the fallen person in this fallen world who makes mistakes who recognizes it, that is a good person.
All that to say, do not think for a moment that I think that early saints and leaders were devoid of the spirit and priesthood. I don't think that in any way. But I also think that mistakes were made, some of them serious. I do not ignore the sacrifice and faith many endured, but I also don't believe that the restoration was given a "you can never fail" pass either. To someone who accepts the "all or nothing" dichotomy, my position of rejecting the "all" would assume I accept the "nothing" but I don't.

[Arenera]

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?

Sure. But I would say the power of God was also present with europeans who fled to the United States for better religious freedoms. I would not support in either case that this proves a kind of infallibility.

You think that God went on vacation for 170 years?

Certainly not. But again this does not mean that I accept every action done in God's name as having originated with God.

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

A small aside if you will for a moment. One of the most devious logical fallacies is that of a false dichotomy (a situation where the speaker tries to present only 2 options as possible and therefore one of them must be true, when actually another option exists that is the true one). I believe there is one perpetuated and believed by most LDS that either the Church is all true or it is evil and all false. There is another option where the Church does indeed perpetuate and teach much of what the Lord restored through Joseph, but that does not mean that everything that Joseph did was correct, nor what those who succeeded Joseph did was correct. We have a reasonable expectation and understanding of the limitations of others. Of course others are going to make mistakes, I make them all the time. I am perfectly comfortable with an environment where a Bishop can admit that he made a mistake with a calling and that it came from him and not the Lord. And we ought to respond with love and compassion in that situation. And I am perfectly comfortable with a member saying (prior to the Bishop admitting it) that the same calling was also a mistake. Big whoop let's move on. Does that mean he is a bad Bishop or full of evil? Of course not. Does that mean he does not have the Spirit or priesthood? Of course not. Does it mean that someone else should be Bishop? Of course not. Now where I would have a problem, would be for him to double down and say "Oh yes, that calling was inspired of the Lord" when instead he was under a great deal of pressure, did not have enough time to duly consider and issued the calling out of desperation. That is using the Lord's name in vain (much worse than merely swearing). To me that is a much more serious offense. But the fallen person in this fallen world who makes mistakes who recognizes it, that is a good person.
All that to say, do not think for a moment that I think that early saints and leaders were devoid of the spirit and priesthood. I don't think that in any way. But I also think that mistakes were made, some of them serious. I do not ignore the sacrifice and faith many endured, but I also don't believe that the restoration was given a "you can never fail" pass either. To someone who accepts the "all or nothing" dichotomy, my position of rejecting the "all" would assume I accept the "nothing" but I don't.

The real question is do you believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only true church on the earth and that Thomas Monson is Christ's Prophet on the earth at this time?

Do you believe Denver Snuffer is a false prophet?

You can believe how you want, but you can't change the consequences that comes from your actions.

[jdt]

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....

I am going to play another Jesef: what did this spiritual conversion entail? How specific was the parts that are witnessed and how strong is the witness?
Was it just "The Book of Mormon is true" or was it "Yes, indeed, I, the Lord did speak to the twelve apostles in Feb 1848 and confirmed that Brigham Young was to ascend to the President of the Church", or, most likely, something in between. But what is it? And if it was not the latter, how sure are you that the latter did occur?
How far does this witness of Brigham Young extend into his teachings? Do you accept Adam-God? What about blood atonement? That those of African decent can never hold the priesthood?
This is complicated stuff and hopefully, even if you don't agree with it, you can at least see why I reject the "all or nothing" dichotomy.

[underdog]

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?

Sure. But I would say the power of God was also present with europeans who fled to the United States for better religious freedoms. I would not support in either case that this proves a kind of infallibility.

You think that God went on vacation for 170 years?

Certainly not. But again this does not mean that I accept every action done in God's name as having originated with God.

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

A small aside if you will for a moment. One of the most devious logical fallacies is that of a false dichotomy (a situation where the speaker tries to present only 2 options as possible and therefore one of them must be true, when actually another option exists that is the true one). I believe there is one perpetuated and believed by most LDS that either the Church is all true or it is evil and all false. There is another option where the Church does indeed perpetuate and teach much of what the Lord restored through Joseph, but that does not mean that everything that Joseph did was correct, nor what those who succeeded Joseph did was correct. We have a reasonable expectation and understanding of the limitations of others. Of course others are going to make mistakes, I make them all the time. I am perfectly comfortable with an environment where a Bishop can admit that he made a mistake with a calling and that it came from him and not the Lord. And we ought to respond with love and compassion in that situation. And I am perfectly comfortable with a member saying (prior to the Bishop admitting it) that the same calling was also a mistake. Big whoop let's move on. Does that mean he is a bad Bishop or full of evil? Of course not. Does that mean he does not have the Spirit or priesthood? Of course not. Does it mean that someone else should be Bishop? Of course not. Now where I would have a problem, would be for him to double down and say "Oh yes, that calling was inspired of the Lord" when instead he was under a great deal of pressure, did not have enough time to duly consider and issued the calling out of desperation. That is using the Lord's name in vain (much worse than merely swearing). To me that is a much more serious offense. But the fallen person in this fallen world who makes mistakes who recognizes it, that is a good person.
All that to say, do not think for a moment that I think that early saints and leaders were devoid of the spirit and priesthood. I don't think that in any way. But I also think that mistakes were made, some of them serious. I do not ignore the sacrifice and faith many endured, but I also don't believe that the restoration was given a "you can never fail" pass either. To someone who accepts the "all or nothing" dichotomy, my position of rejecting the "all" would assume I accept the "nothing" but I don't.

Great comment.

That's why I've frequently made the point: it's not whether there are signs of apostasy of the Church, the question is how bad is it? It seems that many people here recognize that there is corruption or problems with the institutional Church. I think that is the only honest judgment to make. And yet there are some who dig in and indicate umbrage at even the idea of apostasy creeping in to some degree or another.

I understand why the latter group is uncomfortable with this acknowledgment of "partial" apostasy. Because they fear where this admission will take them. How far down the rabbit hole do they want to go, which may rock their foundation. What they fail to realize is IF their foundation is Christ, there's no reason to fear. If it's men, then understandably, I can see why they would fear.

As I stated just in the last hour (above), I believe that the Lord had honored the patriarchal priesthood, which was with the Church up until Eldred Smith died and Denver was exed in 2013. This was significant. But the Lord, in His longsuffering, was working with the Church that Joseph founded. I am being persuaded by the actions of leaders since esp 2013 that the gap between the Lord and the Church is going to widen very rapidly now.

[Arenera]

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....

I am going to play another Jesef: what did this spiritual conversion entail? How specific was the parts that are witnessed and how strong is the witness?
Was it just "The Book of Mormon is true" or was it "Yes, indeed, I, the Lord did speak to the twelve apostles in Feb 1848 and confirmed that Brigham Young was to ascend to the President of the Church", or, most likely, something in between. But what is it? And if it was not the latter, how sure are you that the latter did occur?
How far does this witness of Brigham Young extend into his teachings? Do you accept Adam-God? What about blood atonement? That those of African decent can never hold the priesthood?
This is complicated stuff and hopefully, even if you don't agree with it, you can at least see why I reject the "all or nothing" dichotomy.

It was strong, very strong, very strong, that Harold B. Lee was a true prophet of God. Knowing this is true, then the line of prophets from Joseph Smith are also all true.

This is also why I accept Orson Hyde's information. This is also how I know polygamy was commanded by God.

Neither you nor I lived in the 1800's and know what life was about then. I don't know your testimony, but as Elder Uchtdorf said, Doubt your Doubts.

[shadow]

"stuff"

But Snuffer does claim he has the keys. You all claim he's a Prophet. Would you like to go back through these pages and see the multiple times LDS members have been accused of apostasy and of denying Christ?? It's all here. So please be a bit more intellectually honest.

And yes, Snuffer was excommunicated, and rightfully so. He taught false doctrine. It's one thing to believe false doctrine, it's another to teach it. Snuff taught false stuff. His SP worked with him for almost 2 years. Excommunication is Christ's way of dealing with those who refuse to obey him and his servants. This is a mandate that's even found in the Book of Mormon. Heck, Joseph Smith took part in excommunicating those who taught that he was a false prophet. And the final bam in his excom was his failure to appear at his own court. You're aware of what Joseph Smith taught about those who didn't show up at their courts, right?? I've quoted him numerous times on this thread. If you fail to show then your excommunication is automatically valid. There is nothing to appeal. If you fail to see how Christ works with those who are rebellious in his church then you're living in ignorance.

[Arenera]

As I stated just in the last hour (above), I believe that the Lord had honored the patriarchal priesthood, which was with the Church up until Eldred Smith died and Denver was exed in 2013. This was significant. But the Lord, in His longsuffering, was working with the Church that Joseph founded. I am being persuaded by the actions of leaders since esp 2013 that the gap between the Lord and the Church is going to widen very rapidly now.

Unfortunately, you are making up your own rules while violating the Church's rule to not publicly promote apostasy.

We are not uncomfortable, we just reject your logic.

[Jesef]

Underdog, Thomas, and/or JDT, maybe we could focus on one thing at a time - there are so many potential issues - and we're all a bit scatter-brained or shooting shotguns - maybe a sniper rifle is what we need for a little while.

If Denver's message is true, how could the Lord have possibly meant what he said in D&C 65 (the whole section).

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... 31-dc-65/1
Revelation Oct. 30th. 1831
Hearken & Lo a voice as one sent down from on high who is mighty & powerfull whose going forth is unto the ends of the Earth yea whose voice is unto men prepare ye the way of the Lord make his paths strait The keys of the kingdom of God is committed unto man on the Earth & from thence shall the Gospel roll forth unto the ends of the Earth as the stone which is hewn from the Mountain without hands shall roll forth untill it hath filled the whole Earth yea a voice crying prepare ye the way of the Lord prepare ye the supper of the Lamb make ready for the Bridegroom pray unto the Lord call upon his holy name make known his wonderfull works. among the people call upon the Lord that his kingdom may go forth upon the Earth that the inhabitants thereof may received it & be prepared for the days to come in the which the Son of man Shall come down in heaven Clothed in the brightness of his glory to meet the kingdom of God which is set up on the Earth Wherefore may the kingdom of God go forth that the kingdom of heaven may come that thou O God may be glorified in heaven so on Earth that thine enemies may be subdued for thine is the honour power & glory forever & ever Amen

Please read and notice all the references to Daniel's prophecy being applied to the work then underway with the Church set up by Joseph, as well as the references to Jacob 5. You can't imagine that The Lord had not foreknowledge that Joseph was going to be killed in 1844. None of the language in the entire cannon of JS's revelations bespeaks total rejected/failure and a 170 year apostasy. Also, what was The Lord waiting for, for that 170 years, for Denver Snuffer to be born and join the Church? Come on. Why doesn't the last part of Jacob 5 describe a huge break and a new servant and cutting down the corrupt tree (the LDS Church) or its wicked servants?

[Mark]

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.

Thomas would quote Ol' scratch if it would be helpful in denigrating the LDS church and its leadership. He has been kicking against the pricks for years now. That's just what pricks kickers do. Nothing changes when someone fights against the Saints and kingdom of God on earth. They are filled with a spirit of animosity toward the kingdom. What else is new?

[Thomas]

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.

Thomas would quote Ol' scratch if it would be helpful in denigrating the LDS church and its leadership. He has been kicking against the pricks for years now. That's just what pricks kickers do. Nothing changes when someone fights against the Saints of God. They are filled with a spirit of animosity toward the kingdom. What else is new?

So now a legit apostle of the Lord and the brother of Joseph Smith is the same as "old scratch"

[jdt]

It was strong, very strong, very strong, that Harold B. Lee was a true prophet of God. Knowing this is true, then the line of prophets from Joseph Smith are also all true.

This is also why I accept Orson Hyde's information. This is also how I know polygamy was commanded by God.

Neither you nor I lived in the 1800's and know what life was about then. I don't know your testimony, but as Elder Uchtdorf said, Doubt your Doubts.

Okay. Did this also come with an understanding of what it means to be a true prophet?
I still think the best way to explain it to me, is to answer the questions about Brigham Young and Adam-God and Africans never being able to hold the priesthood.

I am perhaps being a little insistent on this matter, because my way of thinking is so different. Maybe I can put it like this:
I ask "what is the message of the Lord" so I can identify "who is a prophet sent from God". But it seems that so many ask the question "who is a prophet sent from God" so I can identify "what is the message of the Lord". If you start with the message first and the fact that the prophet picks his nose is irrelevant, if you start with the man first, then maybe nose picking is part of the message? Hence I ask questions about how you know precisely what it means when a person is a "true prophet".

[clarkkent14]

Underdog, Thomas, and/or JDT, maybe we could focus on one thing at a time - there are so many potential issues - and we're all a bit scatter-brained or shooting shotguns - maybe a sniper rifle is what we need for a little while.

If Denver's message is true, how could the Lord have possibly meant what he said in D&C 65 (the whole section).

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... 31-dc-65/1
Revelation Oct. 30th. 1831
Hearken & Lo a voice as one sent down from on high who is mighty & powerfull whose going forth is unto the ends of the Earth yea whose voice is unto men prepare ye the way of the Lord make his paths strait The keys of the kingdom of God is committed unto man on the Earth & from thence shall the Gospel roll forth unto the ends of the Earth as the stone which is hewn from the Mountain without hands shall roll forth untill it hath filled the whole Earth yea a voice crying prepare ye the way of the Lord prepare ye the supper of the Lamb make ready for the Bridegroom pray unto the Lord call upon his holy name make known his wonderfull works. among the people call upon the Lord that his kingdom may go forth upon the Earth that the inhabitants thereof may received it & be prepared for the days to come in the which the Son of man Shall come down in heaven Clothed in the brightness of his glory to meet the kingdom of God which is set up on the Earth Wherefore may the kingdom of God go forth that the kingdom of heaven may come that thou O God may be glorified in heaven so on Earth that thine enemies may be subdued for thine is the honour power & glory forever & ever Amen

Please read and notice all the references to Daniel's prophecy being applied to the work then underway with the Church set up by Joseph, as well as the references to Jacob 5. You can't imagine that The Lord had not foreknowledge that Joseph was going to be killed in 1844. None of the language in the entire cannon of JS's revelations bespeaks total rejected/failure and a 170 year apostasy. Also, what was The Lord waiting for, for that 170 years, for Denver Snuffer to be born and join the Church? Come on. Why doesn't the last part of Jacob 5 describe a huge break and a new servant and cutting down the corrupt tree (the LDS Church) or its wicked servants?

God works in patterns. Look at King Benjamin, it was nearly the same amount of time passing from Nephi to King Benajmin (as us from Joseph) and this was the result: "And behold, the record of this people is engraven upon plates which is had by the kings, according to the generations; and I know of no revelation save that which has been written, neither prophecy; wherefore, that which is sufficient is written. And I make an end."

[Thomas]

Underdog, Thomas, and/or JDT, maybe we could focus on one thing at a time - there are so many potential issues - and we're all a bit scatter-brained or shooting shotguns - maybe a sniper rifle is what we need for a little while.

If Denver's message is true, how could the Lord have possibly meant what he said in D&C 65 (the whole section).

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... 31-dc-65/1
Revelation Oct. 30th. 1831
Hearken & Lo a voice as one sent down from on high who is mighty & powerfull whose going forth is unto the ends of the Earth yea whose voice is unto men prepare ye the way of the Lord make his paths strait The keys of the kingdom of God is committed unto man on the Earth & from thence shall the Gospel roll forth unto the ends of the Earth as the stone which is hewn from the Mountain without hands shall roll forth untill it hath filled the whole Earth yea a voice crying prepare ye the way of the Lord prepare ye the supper of the Lamb make ready for the Bridegroom pray unto the Lord call upon his holy name make known his wonderfull works. among the people call upon the Lord that his kingdom may go forth upon the Earth that the inhabitants thereof may received it & be prepared for the days to come in the which the Son of man Shall come down in heaven Clothed in the brightness of his glory to meet the kingdom of God which is set up on the Earth Wherefore may the kingdom of God go forth that the kingdom of heaven may come that thou O God may be glorified in heaven so on Earth that thine enemies may be subdued for thine is the honour power & glory forever & ever Amen

Please read and notice all the references to Daniel's prophecy being applied to the work then underway with the Church set up by Joseph, as well as the references to Jacob 5. You can't imagine that The Lord had not foreknowledge that Joseph was going to be killed in 1844. None of the language in the entire cannon of JS's revelations bespeaks total rejected/failure and a 170 year apostasy. Also, what was The Lord waiting for, for that 170 years, for Denver Snuffer to be born and join the Church? Come on. Why doesn't the last part of Jacob 5 describe a huge break and a new servant and cutting down the corrupt tree (the LDS Church) or its wicked servants?

The church and the kingdom of God are not one and the same and Joseph never taught that they were. in fact, he was trying to establish the kingdom when he died. It was a separate entity.

As far as Jacob 5 look right here:

48 And it came to pass that the servant said unto his master: Is it not the loftiness of thy vineyard—have not the branches thereof overcome the roots which are good? And because the branches have overcome the roots thereof, behold they grew faster than the strength of the roots, taking strength unto themselves. Behold, I say, is not this the cause that the trees of thy vineyard have become corrupted?

It is the high and mighty that corrupt the vineyard. So who are the high and mighty? Those who receive the greatest benefits of the tree.( Praise, glory and money) Those who dwell in sunlight while the lowly branches labor in obscurity.

And so this is what will happen to the lofty branches:

57 And the Lord of the vineyard said unto the servant: Pluck not the wild branches from the trees, save it be those which are most bitter; and in them ye shall graft according to that which I have said.

58 And we will nourish again the trees of the vineyard, and we will trim up the branches thereof; and we will pluck from the trees those branches which are ripened, that must perish, and cast them into the fire.

Alma 1: 26 And when the priests left their labor to impart the word of God unto the people, the people also left their labors to hear the word of God. And when the priest had imparted unto them the word of God they all returned again diligently unto their labors; and the priest, not esteeming himself above his hearers, for the preacher was no better than the hearer, neither was the teacher any better than the learner; and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, every man according to his strength.

When there is equality between the branches of the tree, good fruit has a chance to thrive.

[Thomas]

So it should be obvious that in order to have equality, some drastic change has to take place. We cannot have those who esteem themselves better rule over us

[AI2.0]

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.

Wait a minute. If you and jdt are going to criticize the LDS church writers because things were not reported at the time they happened, or criticize them for 'trying to shore up' their authority, you'll have to criticize Denver Snuffer for the things he's done--he told about having his name changed to David, after the fact by a few years (so is it also suspect??) and he has used his claims of speaking with Christ to give himself authority, his most well known being his 'wresting the key's claim.

And sorry, but no one is pointing to authority to say they should be obeyed. We believe in agency. You are over sensitive to anything an LDS church authority says but ignore the claims of authority by your own prophet, Pres. Snuffer.

[Thomas]

Jesef wrote: Also, what was The Lord waiting for, for that 170 years, for Denver Snuffer to be born and join the Church? Come on.

What was the Lord waiting on during the middle ages? Come on, why is there an expectation for God to treat us with special favor over all previous generations?

Here is why God waited:

D&C 124: 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.

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.

Somewhere between 3-4 generations had to pass because they were cursed. Symbolically, if not literally, Eldridge Smith's passing marked the end of the curse, however the church remains under the curse because they refuse to repent, so they fall under the distinction of those who repent not.

[AI2.0]

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.

Jesef is right, you are all over the map. I can't keep up with what line of argument you are taking.

Now, you are referring to Patriarch Eldred Smith. You are suggesting he had 'authority' while at the time, you've suggested that the Prophets with whom he served did not--and they are the ones who ordained him! You are a believer in the claims of Denver Snuffer, who's said the church was rejected almost 180 years ago. That means, there was no priesthood authority to pass down to Eldred Smith. So, what's it going to be? Either the church had priesthood authority up till 2013, or only till 1841. You and Denver are both putting forward contradictory claims. I'm sorry, but I don't find him to be talking like 2 + 2= 4, he's not logical, he's scattered and contradictory in his arguments.

Look, you Remnant people need to decide which church you belong to, you can't be in both. You can't serve two masters, but we are seeing the truth of the Lord's words--'either you will love the one and hate the other'---that's you all. You loved the LDS church for a time, but now you love Snuffer and you 'hate' the church. It's obvious none of us will be able to help you see logic, because you refuse to admit there are contradictions.
You also are not going to be able to convince any of us LDS that the church is apostate, and so, it's time to choose; LDS or Remnant.

[Thomas]

I don't know how many times it has to be said, the church had lesser priesthood until April 2014. And it is likely not even correct to say the church had it. The church does not hold priesthood. People hold priesthood. Denver stated, the church could no longer claim, it was led by the priesthood after the above date. Why? because they rejected the offer to repent. The curse was lifted, God offered repentance. The message was delivered by Denver Snuffer. When the leaders refused that offer, they lost their lower priesthood. The only priesthood they ever had.

The higher priesthood was briefly held by some few, in the early days of the church but it was taken from them for transgression.

[underdog]

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.

Wait a minute. If you and jdt are going to criticize the LDS church writers because things were not reported at the time they happened, or criticize them for 'trying to shore up' their authority, you'll have to criticize Denver Snuffer for the things he's done--he told about having his name changed to David, after the fact by a few years (so is it also suspect??) and he has used his claims of speaking with Christ to give himself authority, his most well known being his 'wresting the key's claim.

And sorry, but no one is pointing to authority to say they should be obeyed. We believe in agency. You are over sensitive to anything an LDS church authority says but ignore the claims of authority by your own prophet, Pres. Snuffer.

The David name revelation, true, it appeared just recently in print, though it was received back in 2011. The difference is in Denver's case that the Lord commanded him to keep the name private until he just announced it.

Remember, the belated quotes we complain about were published many years later and the motive would be to help the Church's claims to authority.

In Denver's case, revealing it sooner would have meant he was being disobedient to the Lord, when a vanity or glory seeking individual would have happily let the world know he was given the name of David. Obviously, the implications are that he's the Davidic servant. Though he will not claim it. And, aside from the commandment to keep it private, most people would probably think that revealing it earlier would help his "cult following" (per the accusations) instead of waiting 6 years.

The fact Denver waited so long to share this with the world ADDS to his credibility, if you ask me.

You said that you all don't point to authority, and yet I refer you to Section 6.7.3 of Handbook 1 (available on the Internet) which says you're "apostate" if you don't obey church leaders. You are willing to square with the fact that apostasy in the secret handbook is defined as disobedience to church authorities?

[Thomas]

I would say that now, only those who repent have priesthood. Those who acknowledge the cursing and humble themselves before God. The rest walk in the pride of their hearts, saying God was never displeased with us. Just as Laman and Lemeul.

[drtanner]

Underdog, Thomas, and/or JDT, maybe we could focus on one thing at a time - there are so many potential issues - and we're all a bit scatter-brained or shooting shotguns - maybe a sniper rifle is what we need for a little while.

If Denver's message is true, how could the Lord have possibly meant what he said in D&C 65 (the whole section).

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... 31-dc-65/1
Revelation Oct. 30th. 1831
Hearken & Lo a voice as one sent down from on high who is mighty & powerfull whose going forth is unto the ends of the Earth yea whose voice is unto men prepare ye the way of the Lord make his paths strait The keys of the kingdom of God is committed unto man on the Earth & from thence shall the Gospel roll forth unto the ends of the Earth as the stone which is hewn from the Mountain without hands shall roll forth untill it hath filled the whole Earth yea a voice crying prepare ye the way of the Lord prepare ye the supper of the Lamb make ready for the Bridegroom pray unto the Lord call upon his holy name make known his wonderfull works. among the people call upon the Lord that his kingdom may go forth upon the Earth that the inhabitants thereof may received it & be prepared for the days to come in the which the Son of man Shall come down in heaven Clothed in the brightness of his glory to meet the kingdom of God which is set up on the Earth Wherefore may the kingdom of God go forth that the kingdom of heaven may come that thou O God may be glorified in heaven so on Earth that thine enemies may be subdued for thine is the honour power & glory forever & ever Amen

Please read and notice all the references to Daniel's prophecy being applied to the work then underway with the Church set up by Joseph, as well as the references to Jacob 5. You can't imagine that The Lord had not foreknowledge that Joseph was going to be killed in 1844. None of the language in the entire cannon of JS's revelations bespeaks total rejected/failure and a 170 year apostasy. Also, what was The Lord waiting for, for that 170 years, for Denver Snuffer to be born and join the Church? Come on. Why doesn't the last part of Jacob 5 describe a huge break and a new servant and cutting down the corrupt tree (the LDS Church) or its wicked servants?

Underdog, Thomas, JDT

Do you believe George Q Cannon lied when he said:

"I know that Jesus lives; for I have seen Him."

How about President Kimball when he said the following:

“I know that God lives. I know that Jesus Christ lives,” said John Taylor, my predecessor, “for I have seen him.” I bear this testimony to you brethren in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen."

When Elder Brough was alive he shared with a few of us in person some experiences he had with individuals on the other side. Out of respect for him I will not repeat what was said but I will never forget what was felt while visiting with him.

As powerful as these experiences are I do not hang my hat on them for my personal conversion. I rely alone upon the merits of Christ for my salvation, but I know that the power of Godliness is manifest through his authorized ordinances. I know that as we make and keep covenants we receive power from on high. The sealing power is real and only found in this church.

The 15 men who we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators have the keys of the priesthood. Thomas S Monson is the Lord's prophet. How will you really know? Put their words to the test. Commit to follow them as the Lord's mouthpiece and when you are all in and Heaven knows it you will know. Conference is right around the corner, put Heaven to the test and receive your own witness of these men.

[AI2.0]

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.

I'm sure we would be friends, but that doesn't change the fact of my concerns over what this does to my church and concern that Denver Snuffer's Remnant movement is determined to undermine and undercut my church. I recognize that people stay in the church for different reasons, but usually they don't try to be members of two competing churches. And, I think those who are social mormons hurt the collective church. They bring down the level of spirituality in a ward and they can lead others astray, especially if their private behaviors are not in keeping with the commandments and they influence others to follow their example.

You've criticized the early saints for not building the temple in a timely manner, for being contentious, for getting kicked out of Jackson county and for generally being less than valiant. But, those who profess to be LDS today, who remain for social reasons, but yet, don't live the teachings and commandments of the church (and who don't heed the counsel of our leaders) are as guilty now of bringing us all down as those who did the same to the group in the early days.

I understand why you are attempting to remain in both churches, but eventually you will have to make a choice, and if you are going to continue to criticize, accuse and undermine the LDS church, it's better that you be openly out of the church so as not to be secretly leading others astray.

[Thomas]

drtanner.

And why would I want a witness of men? Of what value is it?

The church is a vehicle not a destination. Jesus Christ is the destination. You must know Jesus Christ to have eternal life. Having a testimony of some men gains you absolutely nothing.

You talk about covenants. Why does the church not keep their end of the covenant? It takes more than one party to fulfill a covenant. Two or more parties must comply by the terms.

What do you think keys do? Do you think they save you? Does the endowment ever save you or is it trying to teach how to gain salvation?

If these 15 men are the mouthpiece of God, why do they not lead us to repent and conform to the words of God? Why do they tell us all is well when we do not live by either the precepts found in the Book of Mormon or by the sermon on the mount? Why do they let us continue to walk in sin?

"20 But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin."

If they are the mouthpiece of God, why have they denied the fullness of the gospel as found in D&C 84?

Why do they try to trick us into thinking we will have eternal life by being loyal to them and the church, when God requires more?

Do you want eternal life or do you want wailing and gnashing teeth as the scriptures predict will be the case for many who think they have eternal life?

[underdog]

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.

Jesef is right, you are all over the map. I can't keep up with what line of argument you are taking.

Now, you are referring to Patriarch Eldred Smith. You are suggesting he had 'authority' while at the time, you've suggested that the Prophets with whom he served did not--and they are the ones who ordained him! You are a believer in the claims of Denver Snuffer, who's said the church was rejected almost 180 years ago. That means, there was no priesthood authority to pass down to Eldred Smith. So, what's it going to be? Either the church had priesthood authority up till 2013, or only till 1841. You and Denver are both putting forward contradictory claims. I'm sorry, but I don't find him to be talking like 2 + 2= 4, he's not logical, he's scattered and contradictory in his arguments.

Look, you Remnant people need to decide which church you belong to, you can't be in both. You can't serve two masters, but we are seeing the truth of the Lord's words--'either you will love the one and hate the other'---that's you all. You loved the LDS church for a time, but now you love Snuffer and you 'hate' the church. It's obvious none of us will be able to help you see logic, because you refuse to admit there are contradictions.
You also are not going to be able to convince any of us LDS that the church is apostate, and so, it's time to choose; LDS or Remnant.

DC 124:

91 And again, verily I say unto you, let my servant William be appointed, ordained, and anointed, as counselor unto my servant Joseph, in the room of my servant Hyrum, that my servant Hyrum may take the office of Priesthood and Patriarch, which was appointed unto him by his father, by blessing and also by right;

92 That from henceforth he shall hold the keys of the patriarchal blessings upon the heads of all my people,

93 That whoever he blesses shall be blessed, and whoever he curses shall be cursed; that whatsoever he shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever he shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

94 And from this time forth I appoint unto him that he may be a prophet, and a seer, and a revelator unto my church, as well as my servant Joseph

;


I had wondered out loud upon studying Denver's teachings, how it was possible IF the Church was apostate from the death of Joseph/ Hyrum, how was it possible that through the years that I experienced the Spirit and was blessed so much. How did the Lord seem to still be connected to an apostate institution? This is a question I've asked myself.

The answer is that the Lord was honoring the Church BECAUSE the patriarchal priesthood was with the Church by right of the descendants of Hyrum. Hyrm was ordained to the office of Priesthood and Patriarch. He held the keys of patriarchal blessings. Those verses I quoted are imbued with much power, you have to admit.

My understanding is that there was a power struggle between the First Presidency/Twelve and the Patriarch. So in 1979 they retired the office of Patriarch, ending his "power" and consolidating power at the top. Jacob 5:48 prophecies of the leadership getting prideful and their loftiness causing widespread or institutional corruption.

48 And it came to pass that the servant said unto his master: Is it not the loftiness of thy vineyard—have not the branches thereof overcome the roots which are good? And because the branches have overcome the roots thereof, behold they grew faster than the strength of the roots, taking strength unto themselves. Behold, I say, is not this the cause that the trees of thy vineyard have become corrupted?

The top leaders becoming lifted up in pride is one of the reasons Patriarch Smith was released in 1979. But he still held the patriarchal priesthood, by right. And then along comes Denver who was given that same priesthood by the Lord Himself, thus making TWO holders of the patriarchal priesthood, living inside the Church. Then Brother Smith died, leaving just Denver.

And the lower priesthood- the Aaronic Priesthood has continued up until 2014, when it was revoked FROM THE LEADERSHIP because the leadership had cast out the Lord's anointed servant.

Thomas, Jdt, have I explained this correctly?

[Thomas]

Close enough. I would call it Aaronic priesthood through a patriarchal line though. Not Patriarchal priesthood