Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
https://ldsfreedomforum.com/
That moment when a man asks the opinions of men concerning a man who trusted a man...inquirringmind wrote: ↑February 27th, 2018, 6:59 pm I'd like to know what you all think of this?
https://latterdaycommentary.com/2018/02 ... /#comments
I neither believe or disbelieve. God is not telling me Log is right or that Log is wrong. His experiences have no bearing on me. Neither is it relevant to my opinion of what Log's post means. I'm giving you my perspective as an outside observer. When everything is condensed down and you take away the irrelevant rhetoric and claims what you have left is this: Log disagrees with Denver and Log wants others to agree with him. Nothing special here, just your garden variety disputation and contention between different perspectives.inquirringmind wrote: ↑February 28th, 2018, 10:43 amBut do you believe that Jared (log) had been in God's presence, and was cut off because he said "yes" at that remnant conference in Boise?Finrock wrote: ↑February 28th, 2018, 8:58 am Although I respect Log and I appreciate some of his views and can at least in many cases understand where he is coming from, even if I don't agree, it seems that in this case he can't avoid the conclusion that he is making an appeal for people to follow his personal understanding, interpretation, and view of things. He is saying don't follow man (Denver Snuffer), but, you need to believe and follow what he is saying because what he is saying is from God. Its circular reasoning and its just another appeal to follow a man as opposed to following God, even if he believes he is following God. He is just playing the role of speaking for God. He needs to just let God speak for Himself I guess if he doesn't want any man to try to explain what God believes and wants. Ultimately this is a disputation and a contention over who's view, understanding, and belief is correct.
-Finrock
And did you see this comment?
https://latterdaycommentary.com/2018/02 ... nd-arise/hAdrian Larsen on February 25, 2018 at 9:08 pm
3 0 Rate This
Jared,
The following two statements clearly claim you have been in the Lord’s presence, which implies you have seen Him face to face:
“The Lord had therefore cut me off from his presence, leaving me to be led by the Holy Ghost.”
“Afterwards, I fasted and prayed and was baptized again, confessing my sin, in the hopes that the Lord might receive me again into his presence.”
My question is simple: Are we to take these statements literally?—i.e. you previously met the Lord face to face, and that the covenant incident caused Him to deny you access to His presence?
Is this what we are to understand by these statements?
This is just my impression of what's going on. The controversy seems to be over the Guide and Standard, which is being written by a committee and was required supposedly from the Lord to Denver Snuffer. Also, it's getting more testy because they wanted this done by the time of their conference in March. Log's issue is that he made that 'covenant' back in August and then the group appointed a committee to make this 'guide and standard' and I guess did something with a lottery?--which Log disagrees with, and frankly, I can see his point. There's no question what a committee comes up with is not the same as what is given as revelation from a prophet. He wasn't even sure if the 12 page statement Denver had read before they made the covenant was actually given by the Lord--Log's a believer, so it's hard for him to see that it was NOT the Lord who gave it, it's not his 'voice' at all, it's got Snuffer's 'voice' all through it, IMO.inquirringmind wrote: ↑February 27th, 2018, 6:59 pm I'd like to know what you all think of this?
https://latterdaycommentary.com/2018/02 ... /#comments
https://latterdaycommentary.com/tag/remnant-movement/
The guide and standard conflict has been solved.
1. I shall not yield on the adoption of The Rock of Jesus Christ.
2. I shall and do dispute the adoption of any other guide and standard document.
3. You have no power to exclude me from the body of covenant participants.
4. If the people abide the Lord’s requirement that the guide and standard be adopted by mutual agreement, then The Rock of Jesus Christ shall be adopted.
If any choose to dispute the adoption of The Rock of Jesus Christ: A Statement of Our Principles as the guide and standard, then we will wait until such disputations cease.
The guide and standard test is simple: do you indeed desire to be the Lord’s people? Then accept and do as he has required.
This makes it possible to fulfill the Lord’s requirement in righteousness.
Jared Livesey
And I would also be surprised if he budges on this, but miracles can happen.AI2.0 wrote: ↑February 28th, 2018, 3:57 pm
This is just my impression of what's going on. The controversy seems to be over the Guide and Standard, True dat. which is being written by a committee and was required supposedly from the Lord to Denver Snuffer. It's more complicated than that, but we'll let that stand in the interest of time and space.Also, it's getting more testy because they wanted this done by the time of their conference in March. No date specified except by individuals hoping to rush the process which has been going on for nearly a year now, but it would be nice to get it over with. Log's issue is that he made that 'covenant' back in August September is the earliest he could have made it, but that's a small point. and then the group appointed a committee to make this 'guide and standard' and I guess did something with a lottery? (yes, a lottery in the sense that the Apostle chosen to replace Judas was chosen by lottery.--which Log disagrees with, and frankly, I can see his point. An honest person could disagree with the process, but a scriptural case can also be made for it. I don't remember that the early Christians rejected Matthias as a member of the 12 because he had been chosen by lot. I suspect a great deal of prayer went into it, and certainly a great deal of prayer on the part of many went into this process. If I remember correctly, Log was disagreeing with previous processes long before we got around to the lottery, and with everyone proposed since, except his own, of course. There's no question what a committee comes up with is not the same as what is given as revelation from a prophet. He wasn't even sure if the 12 page statement Denver had read before they made the covenant was actually given by the Lord--Log's a believer, well, maybe not so much if the truth were to be known. He has said recently that he disagrees with anything that comes from any prophet. That's pretty limiting if you think about it. You'd only be left with parts of 3rd Nephi, parts of the gospels, and a few other spots here and there where Christ spoke in person. So if he is a "believer," then I haven't exactly figured out, in what? He would say, in Christ, and that's great, but most of what we have from Christ came through prophets. It's not like he wrote an autobiography or a giant book on doctrine. so it's hard for him to see that it was NOT the Lord who gave it, it's not his 'voice' at all, it's got Snuffer's 'voice' all through it, IMO.We will have to agree to disagree on that one.
Log feels that the guide and standard should be the 'rock of Jesus Christ' and he keeps dissenting, which is a problem for the group since they were told they all had to agree. We were told that the mutual agreement that is required was that we have to agree not to dispute. That's a different thing.
Some have suggested different ways to get around this requirement. The whole thing is very 'man-made' feel to it, and this Remnant movement is not immune to dissension within their ranks. It's true that it is not immune, and that disproves your later comment that we all just follow what Snuffer says. Were that the case, we wouldn't be in this situation, or a few others we've encountered. Freedom comes with a price, much like it did with the earliest congregations in very early Christianity. You can see Peter and Paul and John attempting to deal with those "dissensions." The more the Remnant changes the less 'LDS' they are and the more of a 'protestant, ecumenical' vibe I get from them.Not even close. What protestant, ecumenicals look to the Book of Mormon and defend Joseph Smith far beyond what the churches do that claim him as their founder? If you paid attention when Denver spoke to various Christians, he did NOT shy away from our indeptedness to either the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith. But yes, everyone from any background is welcome to get baptized that will accept the Doctrine of Christ as stated in the Bible. And they are welcome if they feel so inclined, to continue attending whatever religious group they currently do, if the group will allow it.
Log still seems to recognize that the general consensus of Remnant followers seems to be to have simply replaced the LDS prophets with Denver Snuffer and so anything Snuffer suggests, they adopt. I guess for most of them, it's okay to 'follow' a man if he's Snuffer, but any other man is the dreaded 'arm of flesh'. (already addressed above).
Also, I'm wondering if the numbers of Snuffer followers have been greatly exaggerated. I've seen estimates of 5 to 10,000 followers, which I highly doubt. I saw one comment where the number who actually entered the covenant Denver required was about 600 people. If you've heard those numbers--and I never have--then they ARE, I think, greatly exaggerated. The 600 folks were the ones on the scene in September who received the covenant. There were an unknown number at home participating remotely, and many who were not able to participate at the time who have taken it since. I would guess we have closer to 2000 in the movement, including Europe, and Africa, and Japan, and I don't know where else, but that's only a guess. Quality, not quantity!
I still follow along too, but don't try to give "news updates" as most here are not interested in such, and I try to respect their wishes.BringerOfJoy wrote: ↑February 28th, 2018, 7:58 pm If we are now getting "Remnant" news from you, AI2.0, even you must admit that is a sad state of affairs. Finrock pretty much nailed the situation. Log is well, Log, as anyone knows who has been around here for awhile. I believe he is sincere, and I hope he is sincere; but he's always been difficult. My comments are in red.
...
BringerOfJoy wrote: ↑February 28th, 2018, 7:58 pm If we are now getting "Remnant" news from you, AI2.0, even you must admit that is a sad state of affairs. Finrock pretty much nailed the situation. Log is well, Log, as anyone knows who has been around here for awhile. I believe he is sincere, and I hope he is sincere; but he's always been difficult. My comments are in red.
And I would also be surprised if he budges on this, but miracles can happen.AI2.0 wrote: ↑February 28th, 2018, 3:57 pm
This is just my impression of what's going on. The controversy seems to be over the Guide and Standard, True dat. which is being written by a committee and was required supposedly from the Lord to Denver Snuffer. It's more complicated than that, but we'll let that stand in the interest of time and space.Also, it's getting more testy because they wanted this done by the time of their conference in March. No date specified except by individuals hoping to rush the process which has been going on for nearly a year now, but it would be nice to get it over with. Log's issue is that he made that 'covenant' back in August September is the earliest he could have made it, but that's a small point. and then the group appointed a committee to make this 'guide and standard' and I guess did something with a lottery? (yes, a lottery in the sense that the Apostle chosen to replace Judas was chosen by lottery.--which Log disagrees with, and frankly, I can see his point. An honest person could disagree with the process, but a scriptural case can also be made for it. I don't remember that the early Christians rejected Matthias as a member of the 12 because he had been chosen by lot. I suspect a great deal of prayer went into it, and certainly a great deal of prayer on the part of many went into this process. If I remember correctly, Log was disagreeing with previous processes long before we got around to the lottery, and with everyone proposed since, except his own, of course. There's no question what a committee comes up with is not the same as what is given as revelation from a prophet. He wasn't even sure if the 12 page statement Denver had read before they made the covenant was actually given by the Lord--Log's a believer, well, maybe not so much if the truth were to be known. He has said recently that he disagrees with anything that comes from any prophet. That's pretty limiting if you think about it. You'd only be left with parts of 3rd Nephi, parts of the gospels, and a few other spots here and there where Christ spoke in person. So if he is a "believer," then I haven't exactly figured out, in what? He would say, in Christ, and that's great, but most of what we have from Christ came through prophets. It's not like he wrote an autobiography or a giant book on doctrine. so it's hard for him to see that it was NOT the Lord who gave it, it's not his 'voice' at all, it's got Snuffer's 'voice' all through it, IMO.We will have to agree to disagree on that one.
Log feels that the guide and standard should be the 'rock of Jesus Christ' and he keeps dissenting, which is a problem for the group since they were told they all had to agree. We were told that the mutual agreement that is required was that we have to agree not to dispute. That's a different thing.
Some have suggested different ways to get around this requirement. The whole thing is very 'man-made' feel to it, and this Remnant movement is not immune to dissension within their ranks. It's true that it is not immune, and that disproves your later comment that we all just follow what Snuffer says. Were that the case, we wouldn't be in this situation, or a few others we've encountered. Freedom comes with a price, much like it did with the earliest congregations in very early Christianity. You can see Peter and Paul and John attempting to deal with those "dissensions." The more the Remnant changes the less 'LDS' they are and the more of a 'protestant, ecumenical' vibe I get from them.Not even close. What protestant, ecumenicals look to the Book of Mormon and defend Joseph Smith far beyond what the churches do that claim him as their founder? If you paid attention when Denver spoke to various Christians, he did NOT shy away from our indeptedness to either the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith. But yes, everyone from any background is welcome to get baptized that will accept the Doctrine of Christ as stated in the Bible. And they are welcome if they feel so inclined, to continue attending whatever religious group they currently do, if the group will allow it.
Log still seems to recognize that the general consensus of Remnant followers seems to be to have simply replaced the LDS prophets with Denver Snuffer and so anything Snuffer suggests, they adopt. I guess for most of them, it's okay to 'follow' a man if he's Snuffer, but any other man is the dreaded 'arm of flesh'. (already addressed above).
Also, I'm wondering if the numbers of Snuffer followers have been greatly exaggerated. I've seen estimates of 5 to 10,000 followers, which I highly doubt. I saw one comment where the number who actually entered the covenant Denver required was about 600 people. If you've heard those numbers--and I never have--then they ARE, I think, greatly exaggerated. The 600 folks were the ones on the scene in September who received the covenant. There were an unknown number at home participating remotely, and many who were not able to participate at the time who have taken it since. I would guess we have closer to 2000 in the movement, including Europe, and Africa, and Japan, and I don't know where else, but that's only a guess. Quality, not quantity!
Oh, yeah, and I forgot to add a disclaimer. I don't speak for anyone but myself. Just my opinions and you get what you paid for.
Actually, there are some. I met a group in Africa and they used the Book of Mormon, believed Joseph Smith was a prophet, claimed him as their founder--you'd be surprised how many there are out there. But, turned out, they were members of the church Sidney Rigdon founded, but other than those things they had in common, they were more aligned with Baptists or Protestants.Bringer of Joy: "Not even close. What protestant, ecumenicals look to the Book of Mormon and defend Joseph Smith far beyond what the churches do that claim him as their founder?"
See how far the Remnant movement has strayed from the path of truth? This is totally foreign to the teachings of the LDS church--even the LDS chuch in Joseph's day, this was completely not something he taught. Joseph Smith taught priesthood authority and that baptism had to be done by one having authority--into the LDS church. And when they joined the LDS church they were expected to act like it. Not be members of a whatever church they felt like.But yes, everyone from any background is welcome to get baptized that will accept the Doctrine of Christ as stated in the Bible. And they are welcome if they feel so inclined, to continue attending whatever religious group they currently do, if the group will allow it.
For my part, I don't care what is discussed. In the past, I stood up a couple of times and tried to correct what I understood to be incorrect statements about the movement. In general, I think I just added to a fire of contention, and so I stepped back to lurking.AI2.0 wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2018, 10:58 am I think I hit a nerve... is it my imagination or do you and jdt not this discussed here?
Here's the deal. Inquiring mind asked what we thought of it, and I gave my thoughts. This is one of the few topics I still feel like I can discuss at LDSFF....I hope it's not so sensitive a subject that we can't bring up what's happening in the Remnant movement.
Log does tend to be the fly in the ointment, I remember when he used to post here. But, I also believe he's sincere and so I have to concur with him, I think he's right about his concerns regarding this 'guide and standard'. If you and jdt don't have any qualms, I'd say that's a relief for you--you can accept what the committee comes up with and you won't experience the same moral quandary that Log is struggling with.
And I'll take your word for it that the conference where the covenant was offered was in Sept., sorry for the mistake.
You claim that Log now disagrees with anything that comes from any prophet--well, can you blame him? That's what Denver Snuffer was originally teaching--don't trust the arm of flesh, anyone who follows a man will go to the Telestial Kingdom, the man in white is leading Lehi to peril and danger etc. Log believed it and so, while Denver Snuffer has changed his tune (now that he's acting in the manner of a Prophet to the Remnant), Log still believes that you don't follow any man, even Snuffer. At least he's consistent with what was originally taught to your group. And he called out other Remnant followers on it, it's clear some are annoyed by his bull-headedness.
Actually, there are some. I met a group in Africa and they used the Book of Mormon, believed Joseph Smith was a prophet, claimed him as their founder--you'd be surprised how many there are out there. But, turned out, they were members of the church Sidney Rigdon founded, but other than those things they had in common, they were more aligned with Baptists or Protestants.Bringer of Joy: "Not even close. What protestant, ecumenicals look to the Book of Mormon and defend Joseph Smith far beyond what the churches do that claim him as their founder?"
And, as far as I know, they didn't mess with the scriptures which they'd kept from their time as Mormons, like the Remnant has. In truth, the Remnant reminds me of the RLDS--who removed the things from the scriptures they didn't agree with and jettisoned the temple, even got rid of the 'Smith' at the head of their church. They are now the Community of Christ and though they claim Joseph as their founder and the Book of Mormon, they are full blown ecumenicals. Denver Snuffer's Remnant movement is already bearing the 'fruits' which identify it as the 'protestant, reformation break off sect that it is, despite thinking they have a 'prophet' to lead them.
I don't speak for anyone else either. I'm just giving my thoughts, as per the OP.
I don't think it is sad, I think it just is the way LDSFF is right now. So I piped up and essentially said, there are others who could give more of an insider's view, but choose to remain silent for the time being. If people here are interested in that perspective, please ask for it. I am always glad to answer an honest question. But I, myself, don't create topics or really inject myself into many discussions. (For the record I am the same way with "Remnant" stuff as well, I could count on one hand the number of posts I have made online on "Remnant" forums/blogs).If we are now getting "Remnant" news from you, AI2.0, even you must admit that is a sad state of affairs.
Are these questions you were interested in having answered, or were these accusations in the form of rhetorical questions?AI2.0 wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2018, 11:06 am See how far the Remnant movement has strayed from the path of truth? This is totally foreign to the teachings of the LDS church--even the LDS chuch in Joseph's day, this was completely not something he taught. Joseph Smith taught priesthood authority and that baptism had to be done by one having authority--into the LDS church. And when they joined the LDS church they were expected to act like it. Not be members of a whatever church they felt like.
And you are cool with this???
I thought the whole point of Snuffer's early teachings was to get the church BACK to the way Joseph Smith had run it. How is this like Joseph's teachings? How is having 7 women 'sustain' a man's priesthood like what Joseph taught or doing away with a Prophet, first Presidency and quorum of 12 getting back to the fundamentals of the Restored church?
You don't need to answer, because truly there is no way to justify many of Snuffer's doctrines and teachings as getting back to the way Joseph Smith set up the church.
Mostly among those who are fascinated and repelled by him, lying in wait to attack or bring to light any conceived "proof" of a lie or proof of failure.
Apparently he isn't to you, but yes, he's still a 'thing'.
I said above I didn't need an answer, but that's because I know there is no valid answer--there's no way to reconcile the changes Denver Snuffer has made and still be claiming he wanted to get back to what Joseph Smith originally taught--I've got a long memory, I know that was Snuffer's complaints against the church back before he was exed--his book 'Passing the heavenly gift' spells it out. So, either he decided that Joseph's efforts weren't good enough and he's trying to 'improve' on them, or he's just decided he was wrong to try to run his 'non-church' as it was run back in the 1830's to 1840--before it was supposedly rejected by God. From an outsider's viewpoint, it now just looks like he's making his own church.jdt wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2018, 4:30 pmAre these questions you were interested in having answered, or were these accusations in the form of rhetorical questions?AI2.0 wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2018, 11:06 am See how far the Remnant movement has strayed from the path of truth? This is totally foreign to the teachings of the LDS church--even the LDS chuch in Joseph's day, this was completely not something he taught. Joseph Smith taught priesthood authority and that baptism had to be done by one having authority--into the LDS church. And when they joined the LDS church they were expected to act like it. Not be members of a whatever church they felt like.
And you are cool with this???
I thought the whole point of Snuffer's early teachings was to get the church BACK to the way Joseph Smith had run it. How is this like Joseph's teachings? How is having 7 women 'sustain' a man's priesthood like what Joseph taught or doing away with a Prophet, first Presidency and quorum of 12 getting back to the fundamentals of the Restored church?
You don't need to answer, because truly there is no way to justify many of Snuffer's doctrines and teachings as getting back to the way Joseph Smith set up the church.
https://guideandstandard.blogspot.com/2 ... e.html?m=1Dear Everyone:
We are fast approaching the end of our goal to publish a new set of scriptures. At this point it seems very likely that the scriptures will be published before we are all in agreement regarding the assignment given to the assembly to produce and agree on a Guide and Standard.For a year or so the scriptures committee has had the view that a single document would need to be mutually agreed upon and then published in the scriptures. With each rendition of the G&S, the lack of mutual agreement has kept us from feeling at liberty to publish them in the scriptures. Our initial, direct responsibility for a replacement for D&C Section 20 shaped our perspective and it has taken us this long to relinquish that view. We apologize that it took us so long. Looking back, this should have happened when the assembly determined that any G&S had to be put through a submissions process and approved by them. Though belatedly, we wish to entirely off-load every and all responsibility for the G&S to the assembly - where it rightly belongs.
We now have a new view on the Lord's requirements that allows us to finally step aside. The Lord's words are, When you have an agreed statement of principles I require it to also be added as a guide and standard for my people to follow. A statement of principles could be added in many ways:
handwritten in the blank notes section of the forthcoming scriptures.
typed on a sticky note and added.
glued in or just stuck in like a bookmark.
posted as a PDF for download, trimming and inserting in our scriptures.
We also choose to no longer limit our previously myopic view of the Lord’s requirement and to include this view of what it might mean to “add.” Up to now, the idea of being required to "publish" a G&S has kept this committee bound to the process.
This more expanded view has many practical advantages:
It eliminates the argument that anyone is writing scripture, since the statement can be added as an insert just like seminary notes.
It eliminates the tension for those who feel the scripture committee is ignoring the voice of the people and exercising control.
It does not limit in any way those who seek 100% unanimity around any single document.
It provides an opportunity for every individual to demonstrate personal accountability for the adoption of a mutually agreed upon G&S when they add it on their own to their scriptures.
If, as a people, through prayer and humility, we ever arrive at the point where everyone wants to reprint the scriptures with a G&S as a permanent addendum, that could still be done.
With regards to the current discussions of how to resolve the G&S situation, there are several unique proposals currently advanced. The responsibility to execute these proposals can’t be transferred to the scriptures committee. Anyone making a proposal must either execute it, getting others involved, or it will fizzle. Nor do we have any reason to choose one over another. We have posted the proposals and let go at that moment of any involvement. If others are advanced, we will simply post them. That's pretty much all we can or will do.
So far, we have only seen one of the proposals to resolve the G&S situation take any steps beyond posting an explanation. It rests with all those proposing different resolutions to coordinate efforts among themselves. This committee has no desire to act as referee, arbiter or event planner.
On February 9th a vote was proposed which showed potential to bring resolution to the G&S dilemma, and on March 3rd the committee agreed to publish whichever statement garnered the most support in that vote. However, we have had second thoughts. We now believe that the best course of action is, as we have said, to divest ourselves entirely of any involvement in the selection or publishing of a G&S. We apologize to any who have been inconvenienced by our ambivalence. We understand that although the vote may not go forward as originally planned, the group making the proposal for that vote will make one more effort in Phoenix to see if the conference can agree upon a G&S.
The scripture committee
The scripture committee at 7:30 PM
AnonymousMarch 13, 2018 at 10:58 PM
This is absolutely ridiculous. I have several deep concerns and questions about this.
If the criteria to “add” something to the scriptures does not include printing and publication along with the entirety of the volume, why print and publish anything at all? We could all just print off what portions we like and discard what we don't like and hope that those who know nothing as of yet of the Lord’s work now underway are lucky enough to stumble upon some covenant holder’s set of scriptures that happened to have the G&S glued into it somewhere….because it won’t be found in connection with the online version either.
How can the scripture committee state that they are “off-loading the responsibility for the G&S to the people where it rightly belongs” while simultaneously deciding for the people what their new RE scriptures will contain? And that too without their consent?
Will the assembly be given the opportunity to accept as binding this new burst of intelligence that has been visited upon the scripture committee? Will they be given the alternative of keeping with the original plan of having the G&S included online and printed somewhere in the RE or is this now just a done deal?
Why does the scripture committee seem to value and accept the will of the people in some cases (such as voting which sections to keep or remove) but not others?
It seems the only thing this will do is absolve the scripture committee of the one responsibility they do have a right to claim and that is to honor the will of the people with respect to the scriptures when we were asked to labor with them as equals.
Am I the only one seeing what is going on here????????? I feel like I’m in the freaking Twilight Zone!!!!
Reply