The Gospel according to Denver Snuffer

[inquirringmind]

According to Denver Snuffer, Brigham Young was an adulterous liar and corrupter of the Church, and Joseph never practiced polygamy--but is there any real, contemporary evidence that Joseph did practice polygamy?

Or does all the evidence go back to the Temple Lot case, decades after Joseph was killed, when the women who went west with Brigham would have had reason to lie?

Is there any real, contemporary evidence that Joseph practiced polygamy?

[gardener4life]

I wouldn't worry about Denver Snuffer.

He's cutting of his own legs. Much of his ideas come from the church he rejects. Even though he changes things, much of the knowledge he professes comes from LDS church sources that he twists.

So how can his foundation of 'priesthood' be secure if he's claiming the roots he grew it from never existed?

People will always bash on Joseph Smith and Brigham Young because they lived the Gospel in a form closest to Adam. That's the real deal if you think about it. The early church had some advantage over us in that they had less government to fight them (in some ways, ...I am aware of the persecution issues.) But this also means a huge take in the early presidents of the church had so much freedom to live the Gospel as close as they could to similarities of early dispensations like the time of Adam.

So, we should be really careful in bashing them. They have a lot on us that people don't realize. They also were very involved in their faith more than we are in some ways because we're more dependent on others to live, where they actually had to live by daily faith just to survive.

So, now I wouldn't believe a thing anyone says who is bashing Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.

[simpleton]

According to Denver Snuffer, Brigham Young was an adulterous liar and corrupter of the Church, and Joseph never practiced polygamy--but is there any real, contemporary evidence that Joseph did practice polygamy?

Or does all the evidence go back to the Temple Lot case, decades after Joseph was killed, when the women who went west with Brigham would have had reason to lie?

Is there any real, contemporary evidence that Joseph practiced polygamy?

Not just denver stuffer, but some on this site also and most PM haters ...Just read the polygamy threads ...

[simpleton]

I wouldn't worry about Denver Snuffer.

He's cutting of his own legs. Much of his ideas come from the church he rejects. Even though he changes things, much of the knowledge he professes comes from LDS church sources that he twists.

So how can his foundation of 'priesthood' be secure if he's claiming the roots he grew it from never existed?

People will always bash on Joseph Smith and Brigham Young because they lived the Gospel in a form closest to Adam. That's the real deal if you think about it. The early church had some advantage over us in that they had less government to fight them (in some ways, ...I am aware of the persecution issues.) But this also means a huge take in the early presidents of the church had so much freedom to live the Gospel as close as they could to similarities of early dispensations like the time of Adam.

So, we should be really careful in bashing them. They have a lot on us that people don't realize. They also were very involved in their faith more than we are in some ways because we're more dependent on others to live, where they actually had to live by daily faith just to survive.

So, now I wouldn't believe a thing anyone says who is bashing Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.

The way I look at it, is through Joseph was revealed the fulness of the gospel including the law of consecration, celestial marriage, Adam/God etc.
Brigham studied at his feet and never turned against him like most others did. Every single item of controversy today in regards to Brighams teachings, he, (Brigham) claims to have learned from Joseph.
It was through Joseph that the light of the Gospel shone, and Brigham learned directly from that source. But yet today we have the gall to say what we do and do not accept from them as if we have had greater light than the original source. I think it is ridiculous. But to each his own.

[The Airbender]

I wouldn't worry about Denver Snuffer.

He's cutting of his own legs. Much of his ideas come from the church he rejects. Even though he changes things, much of the knowledge he professes comes from LDS church sources that he twists.

So how can his foundation of 'priesthood' be secure if he's claiming the roots he grew it from never existed?

People will always bash on Joseph Smith and Brigham Young because they lived the Gospel in a form closest to Adam. That's the real deal if you think about it. The early church had some advantage over us in that they had less government to fight them (in some ways, ...I am aware of the persecution issues.) But this also means a huge take in the early presidents of the church had so much freedom to live the Gospel as close as they could to similarities of early dispensations like the time of Adam.

So, we should be really careful in bashing them. They have a lot on us that people don't realize. They also were very involved in their faith more than we are in some ways because we're more dependent on others to live, where they actually had to live by daily faith just to survive.

So, now I wouldn't believe a thing anyone says who is bashing Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.

Amen.

That church has changed so much since Brigham's time that I think he would hardly recognize it as the church he led to Utah. Our problem is not that we see things more clearly now, it is that we have moved so far from our roots.

[Jesef]

You guys must be the mythology lovers. Newsflash: Adam wasn’t a polygamist & didn’t have 55 wives, nor did he marry his daughters or granddaughters, etc. That’s messed up.

[EdGoble]

I wouldn't worry about Denver Snuffer.

He's cutting of his own legs. Much of his ideas come from the church he rejects. Even though he changes things, much of the knowledge he professes comes from LDS church sources that he twists.

So how can his foundation of 'priesthood' be secure if he's claiming the roots he grew it from never existed?

People will always bash on Joseph Smith and Brigham Young because they lived the Gospel in a form closest to Adam. That's the real deal if you think about it. The early church had some advantage over us in that they had less government to fight them (in some ways, ...I am aware of the persecution issues.) But this also means a huge take in the early presidents of the church had so much freedom to live the Gospel as close as they could to similarities of early dispensations like the time of Adam.

So, we should be really careful in bashing them. They have a lot on us that people don't realize. They also were very involved in their faith more than we are in some ways because we're more dependent on others to live, where they actually had to live by daily faith just to survive.

So, now I wouldn't believe a thing anyone says who is bashing Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.

Amen.

That church has changed so much since Brigham's time that I think he would hardly recognize it as the church he led to Utah. Our problem is not that we see things more clearly now, it is that we have moved so far from our roots.

The problem is not whether we see things more clearly now, nor whether we have moved so far from our roots. People need to stick with the program and believe what they want while submitting to the keys of the priesthood at the same time. If one believes that the church has moved too far from the roots, then one may pray to the Lord for the Brethren to be corrected to go back closer to the roots they believe in. But one ought to give loyalty and submission to the keys of the priesthood that are intact. One ought not to find fault just because they don't do it the way one may think it should. People should be actively engaged for the Lord to correct the brethren if they are in need of correction, but the correction cannot come from the bottom up. It must come from the top down. And so people need to be activist in fast and pray for change if they want it, not complain that it is not the way they want. Going off after Denver Snuffer is not going to fix things, and fault finding with the current set of brethren isn't going to fix it either.

[LukeAir2008]

Forget Denver Snuffer. Totally uninspired in every way.

Joseph Smith said that Brigham Young and Heber C Kimball were the only two men who were totally loyal to him and who passed every test. They accepted everything that Joseph taught them and embraced it.

Every other church leader had their difficulties and as Joseph said ‘lifted the heel against him’. Today we would say knifed him in the back. This included John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Parley P Pratt, Orson Pratt, Orson Hyde, etc etc.

All good men but not on the same level as Brigham and Heber.

Who did the Lord have in place to be the President of the Church and his first counsellor when Joseph was killed -
Brigham Young and Heber C Kimball.

[inquirringmind]

But is there evidence that Joseph himself practiced or approved of polygamy, or could it have been practiced without his approval in his lifetime, and made doctrine after his death (as Denver, and log, and some here are teaching)?

And where did Joseph say that only Brigham and Heber were loyal?

Is there any contemporary first hand evidence that he said that?

[drtanner]

But is there evidence that Joseph himself practiced or approved of polygamy, or could it have been practiced without his approval in his lifetime, and made doctrine after his death (as Denver, and log, and some here are teaching)?

And where did Joseph say that only Brigham and Heber were loyal?

Is there any contemporary first hand evidence that he said that?

Have you read “Rough Stone Rolling” or “Joseph Smith’s Polygamy” by Brian C Hales? If not I would start there and draw your own conclusion.

[jdt]

Per Brian Hales (pro-"Joseph was a polygamist" and faithful LDS) there are only 8 contemporary records:
http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-resp ... ment-16493

And all 8 have issues of varying significance. I recommend the following paper that describes the issues with the contemporary accounts and other topics like claimed paternity, clearly modified records, and a pretty lengthy review of the history of section 132:
http://downloads.miridiatech.com.s3.ama ... nogamy.pdf

[ajax]

According to Denver Snuffer, Brigham Young was an adulterous liar and corrupter of the Church, and Joseph never practiced polygamy--but is there any real, contemporary evidence that Joseph did practice polygamy?

Or does all the evidence go back to the Temple Lot case, decades after Joseph was killed, when the women who went west with Brigham would have had reason to lie?

Is there any real, contemporary evidence that Joseph practiced polygamy?

Not sure why you dub this the gospel of Denver. These opinions go back a looooong way.

[Jesef]

I am NOT a follower of Denver Snuffer - I think he is a well-intentioned, good person - who's gone off the rails and now has a prophet-complex - I think he's "spiritually extreme" - like many others on this forum, btw. He's relatively harmless, though - except if you're hardcore and think being led away from the LDS Church is tantamount to spiritual murder/suicide - which I also understand. Our LDS paradigm could be summarized, not by its content alone, but by one principle - Loyalty (to the Keys, to the Brethren, to the Church) - this is why many other Christians consider us a Cult. Denver is harmless in the sense that he's not a violent jihadist - that's what I mean.

I would say Denver's gospel is just simply the Doctrine of Christ & teachings of Christ (like Sermon on the Mount), particularly as revealed through Joseph Smith & the Book of Mormon, for now - this may evolve as he starts to receive more revelations of his own. His historical view is somewhat unique & has doctrinal bearing: in that he claims the Church was at least partially rejected after the deaths of Joseph & Hyrum and did not complete the Nauvoo Temple in the allotted time, per D&C 124. As a result, he claims, the actual Melchizedek Priesthood (& keys), were withdrawn and only the Aaronic Priesthood (& keys) really continued. The implications of this are that the LDS Church's baptisms were still valid & divinely approved, and people could still receive the Holy Ghost and higher blessings only on an individual basis (not through Church authority/keys) - hence, all of our endowments and sealings and ordinances for the dead were also invalid. He claims these Aaronic priesthood keys were wrested from the Church in April 2014 and that he and his followers now possess them (& the LDS Church no longer does). He also alludes to having Melchizedek Priesthood and Fulness of the Priesthood keys (this is not dissimilar from nearly every splinter group to date) but is not authorized to exercise them yet. They anticipate building their own Temple, gathering, and building the City of Zion at an undisclosed site in the Rocky Mountain West somewhere - this will be done with a select group who have proven themselves worthy of gathering (lots of in-fighting and posturing people in the movement right now - many, it seems, will get "left behind" unless they repent & are able to become "one"). It will be a secret location, so that only the worthy can gather. Not sure how they will accomplish that, but at some point we can anticipate these folks literally dropping off the map & probably off the (power) grid, too. That's where they will build their Temple & things will really get freaky - all those spiritual seekers/extremists in one location. Who knows, maybe they'll get along just fine? Anyway, they'll wait it out there until "the end of the world" & all the massive destructions they anticipate. They believe Angels and the Lord will visit them there and that angels will gather people from all over to come to their city - basically our D&C version of Zion at that point - and eventually Enoch & his City will meet them, etc. All that. So that's Denver's movement in a nutshell & he is the JS2.0/Enoch/Melchizedek figure, of course.

[Jesef]

I wouldn't worry about Denver Snuffer.

He's cutting of his own legs. Much of his ideas come from the church he rejects. Even though he changes things, much of the knowledge he professes comes from LDS church sources that he twists.

So how can his foundation of 'priesthood' be secure if he's claiming the roots he grew it from never existed?

People will always bash on Joseph Smith and Brigham Young because they lived the Gospel in a form closest to Adam. That's the real deal if you think about it. The early church had some advantage over us in that they had less government to fight them (in some ways, ...I am aware of the persecution issues.) But this also means a huge take in the early presidents of the church had so much freedom to live the Gospel as close as they could to similarities of early dispensations like the time of Adam.

So, we should be really careful in bashing them. They have a lot on us that people don't realize. They also were very involved in their faith more than we are in some ways because we're more dependent on others to live, where they actually had to live by daily faith just to survive.

So, now I wouldn't believe a thing anyone says who is bashing Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.

Amen.

That church has changed so much since Brigham's time that I think he would hardly recognize it as the church he led to Utah. Our problem is not that we see things more clearly now, it is that we have moved so far from our roots.

The problem is not whether we see things more clearly now, nor whether we have moved so far from our roots. People need to stick with the program and believe what they want while submitting to the keys of the priesthood at the same time. If one believes that the church has moved too far from the roots, then one may pray to the Lord for the Brethren to be corrected to go back closer to the roots they believe in. But one ought to give loyalty and submission to the keys of the priesthood that are intact. One ought not to find fault just because they don't do it the way one may think it should. People should be actively engaged for the Lord to correct the brethren if they are in need of correction, but the correction cannot come from the bottom up. It must come from the top down. And so people need to be activist in fast and pray for change if they want it, not complain that it is not the way they want. Going off after Denver Snuffer is not going to fix things, and fault finding with the current set of brethren isn't going to fix it either.

Ed, you seem to subscribe to what I would summarize, in essence, as the "Loyalty" paradigm. Not unlike 1984 & "the Party", only substitute "the Brethren" & "the Keys" - never mind the Perfect Character of God. It's a very Cult-like mindset. Better not step out of line or think out of line, or God will punish you for disloyalty. Is that really what you believe/think? Please clarify.

[EdGoble]

Ed, you seem to subscribe to what I would summarize, in essence, as the "Loyalty" paradigm. Not unlike 1984 & "the Party", only substitute "the Brethren" & "the Keys" - never mind the Perfect Character of God. It's a very Cult-like mindset. Better not step out of line or think out of line, or God will punish you for disloyalty. Is that really what you believe/think? Please clarify.

No. Actually, what I am always fundamentally challenging here is the fundamentalist notion that you don't owe anything to the keys of the priesthood, which comes out of fundamentalist circles. This is what is cult-like. It is a notion that one can ignore authority and step outside of the institution and still be OK, and also speak evil as much as you please. That is wrong-headed and misses the mark.

You mis-characterize my thought process greatly. I believe in a "recipe" for calling and election in mortality as much as many, except, I say that the "recipe" for that has as its first law a certain meekness and humility that requires submission to keys. There is nothing cult-like about this. And there is nothing TBM about this, with the exception that it looks to the Brethren as the people who have the right to direct the institution as they see fit, regardless of how they do it, and that they keys of the priesthood are intact regardless of what they have ever done or said, or however they have ever messed up. This paradigm looks to Jesus Christ not only as Savior, and as God, but as Trickster and as master Manipulator of reality. In other words, Jesus Christ is not only the real-life embodiment of all mythological Savior figures, but also the real-life embodiment of all Trickster figures like Loki and Maui.

In other words, people's biggest test in life is whether they will stay true to their integrity and their covenants regardless of what is thrown at them by the Trickster. Regardless of whether it seems logical or popular to abandon the program, or jump ship from Old Ship Zion, the true test is of mortality is whether one will stay true and demonstrate the actual covenant definition of integrity. This is the true requirement for whether one ever qualifies for calling and election, is if one is true to the actual messengers and their mantle, regardless of whether the message they deliver makes sense. Because the "message" itself given by them might be a trick of the mind in order to weed out those that will not remain true because it "makes no sense".

This is the foundation of not blind obedience, but where the law of sacrifice and the law of obedience that are tightly woven together. It is a recipe for success in mortality, while maintaining one's freedom of thought. In other words, render unto the keys that which is their due, and you have passed the test of integrity, even though some of their mess-ups constitute a trick on your mind to see if you will do it anyway. In other words, the authorities sometimes do things deliberately to mess up, but not of their own making sometimes. They are allowed to mess up as part of a mind trick.

There is nothing here except "I know not except the Lord commanded me." It is the test of Abraham, to see if you will sacrifice your son, even though it makes no sense. It is the ultimate mind trick on you to see if you are faithful anyway.

So long as you stay within the bounds the Lord has set, without speaking evil and whatever else many people try to deceive you to do, you have a "sphere" within which you can do whatever you want with your Agency.

[Baurak Ale]

Yes, the notion that Brigham Young and Heber C Kimball were the only two who really got what Joseph had to say in its fullness is true. There is a gem in the Council of 50 meeting notes that shows that Brigham got the Adam-God doctrine from Joseph. Joseph knew all along, of course.

As for contemporary accounts of Joseph practicing polygamy, why does Fanny Algers always get skipped? Besides being anti-Mormon fodder, that episode of Joseph’s life proves at the very least that Joseph knew of God’s full law of marriage very early on. After the way that whole thing went down, however, I don’t blame Joseph for waiting for an angel with a drawn sword to compel him to obey before trying again.

I would suggest reading contemporary journals of those who knew Joseph and were taught plural marriage by him at http://boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/. The journals with references to polygamy are mentioned in their synopses.

[EdGoble]

Yes, the notion that Brigham Young and Heber C Kimball were the only two who really got what Joseph had to say in its fullness is true. There is a gem in the Council of 50 meeting notes that shows that Brigham got the Adam-God doctrine from Joseph. Joseph knew all along, of course.

As for contemporary accounts of Joseph practicing polygamy, why does Fanny Algers always get skipped? Besides being anti-Mormon fodder, that episode of Joseph’s life proves at the very least that Joseph knew of God’s full law of marriage very early on. After the way that whole thing went down, however, I don’t blame Joseph for waiting for an angel with a drawn sword to compel him to obey before trying again.

I would suggest reading contemporary journals of those who knew Joseph and were taught plural marriage by him at http://boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/. The journals with references to polygamy are mentioned in their synopses.

I wouldn't challenge the notion that Brigham and Heber got Adam God from Joseph. I would only challenge the notion of what Adam God truly IS.

[TrueIntent]

According to Denver Snuffer, Brigham Young was an adulterous liar and corrupter of the Church, and Joseph never practiced polygamy--but is there any real, contemporary evidence that Joseph did practice polygamy?

Or does all the evidence go back to the Temple Lot case, decades after Joseph was killed, when the women who went west with Brigham would have had reason to lie?

Is there any real, contemporary evidence that Joseph practiced polygamy?

You need to read Ron Meldrums book, “the exoneration of Emma, hyrum and Joseph”. I haven’t finished the book but the first half uses quite a bit of evidence to prove the position that Joseph was innocent. It’s clear that many saints who went west were lying, they were caught under lying under oath. Why? For people who tell the truth, that’s the hard part to understand. Money , power, blackmail.....I don’t know, that’s the part that we must speculate on.

Btw, I don’t like books by church historians...they are bias, so are anti Mormons. The truth is one that doesn’t contradict scripture. The truth is that a prophet can not receive revelation from God unless he abides in truth and the word. So. You can’t lie and receive revelation from god. You can’t have the spirit and be a liar. And you also can’t understand the scriptures if u are liar.

[TrueIntent]

According to Denver Snuffer, Brigham Young was an adulterous liar and corrupter of the Church, and Joseph never practiced polygamy--but is there any real, contemporary evidence that Joseph did practice polygamy?

Or does all the evidence go back to the Temple Lot case, decades after Joseph was killed, when the women who went west with Brigham would have had reason to lie?

Is there any real, contemporary evidence that Joseph practiced polygamy?

You need to read Ron Meldrums book, “the exoneration of Emma, hyrum and Joseph”. I haven’t finished the book but the first half uses quite a bit of evidence to prove the position that Joseph was innocent. It’s clear that many saints who went west were lying, they were caught under lying under oath. Why? For people who tell the truth, that’s the hard part to understand. Money , power, blackmail.....I don’t know, that’s the part that we must speculate on.

Btw, I don’t like books by church historians...they are bias, so are anti Mormons. The truth is one that doesn’t contradict scripture. The truth is that a prophet can not receive revelation from God unless he abides in truth and the word. So. You can’t lie and receive revelation from god. You can’t have the spirit and be a liar. And you also can’t understand the scriptures if u are liar.

[Finrock]

I wouldn't worry about Denver Snuffer.

He's cutting of his own legs. Much of his ideas come from the church he rejects. Even though he changes things, much of the knowledge he professes comes from LDS church sources that he twists.

So how can his foundation of 'priesthood' be secure if he's claiming the roots he grew it from never existed?

People will always bash on Joseph Smith and Brigham Young because they lived the Gospel in a form closest to Adam. That's the real deal if you think about it. The early church had some advantage over us in that they had less government to fight them (in some ways, ...I am aware of the persecution issues.) But this also means a huge take in the early presidents of the church had so much freedom to live the Gospel as close as they could to similarities of early dispensations like the time of Adam.

So, we should be really careful in bashing them. They have a lot on us that people don't realize. They also were very involved in their faith more than we are in some ways because we're more dependent on others to live, where they actually had to live by daily faith just to survive.

So, now I wouldn't believe a thing anyone says who is bashing Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.

The way I look at it, is through Joseph was revealed the fulness of the gospel including the law of consecration, celestial marriage, Adam/God etc.
Brigham studied at his feet and never turned against him like most others did. Every single item of controversy today in regards to Brighams teachings, he, (Brigham) claims to have learned from Joseph.
It was through Joseph that the light of the Gospel shone, and Brigham learned directly from that source. But yet today we have the gall to say what we do and do not accept from them as if we have had greater light than the original source. I think it is ridiculous. But to each his own.

The original source is the Holy Spirit.

-Finrock

[jadd]

According to Denver Snuffer, Brigham Young was an adulterous liar and corrupter of the Church, and Joseph never practiced polygamy--but is there any real, contemporary evidence that Joseph did practice polygamy?

Or does all the evidence go back to the Temple Lot case, decades after Joseph was killed, when the women who went west with Brigham would have had reason to lie?

Is there any real, contemporary evidence that Joseph practiced polygamy?

You need to read Ron Meldrums book, “the exoneration of Emma, hyrum and Joseph”. I haven’t finished the book but the first half uses quite a bit of evidence to prove the position that Joseph was innocent. It’s clear that many saints who went west were lying, they were caught under lying under oath. Why? For people who tell the truth, that’s the hard part to understand. Money , power, blackmail.....I don’t know, that’s the part that we must speculate on.

Btw, I don’t like books by church historians...they are bias, so are anti Mormons. The truth is one that doesn’t contradict scripture. The truth is that a prophet can not receive revelation from God unless he abides in truth and the word. So. You can’t lie and receive revelation from god. You can’t have the spirit and be a liar. And you also can’t understand the scriptures if u are liar.

Interesting, the old testament JST would disagree with you. Check out 1 Kings Chapter 13. or Isaac in Genesis 26 or even the story of Jacob and Rebekah in Genesis 27, 1st Samuel 16 (deception), 2 Kings 6, Jeremiah 38, Isaac and his wife. I mean there are many examples of lying in the scriptures - often sactioned by God and receiving revelation.

[Jesef]

Sanctioned by God? Are you kidding? How about man projecting (misrepresenting) that it was sanctioned by God? That sounds more like it!

[TrueIntent]

According to Denver Snuffer, Brigham Young was an adulterous liar and corrupter of the Church, and Joseph never practiced polygamy--but is there any real, contemporary evidence that Joseph did practice polygamy?

Or does all the evidence go back to the Temple Lot case, decades after Joseph was killed, when the women who went west with Brigham would have had reason to lie?

Is there any real, contemporary evidence that Joseph practiced polygamy?

You need to read Ron Meldrums book, “the exoneration of Emma, hyrum and Joseph”. I haven’t finished the book but the first half uses quite a bit of evidence to prove the position that Joseph was innocent. It’s clear that many saints who went west were lying, they were caught under lying under oath. Why? For people who tell the truth, that’s the hard part to understand. Money , power, blackmail.....I don’t know, that’s the part that we must speculate on.

Btw, I don’t like books by church historians...they are bias, so are anti Mormons. The truth is one that doesn’t contradict scripture. The truth is that a prophet can not receive revelation from God unless he abides in truth and the word. So. You can’t lie and receive revelation from god. You can’t have the spirit and be a liar. And you also can’t understand the scriptures if u are liar.

Interesting, the old testament JST would disagree with you. Check out 1 Kings Chapter 13. or Isaac in Genesis 26 or even the story of Jacob and Rebekah in Genesis 27, 1st Samuel 16 (deception), 2 Kings 6, Jeremiah 38, Isaac and his wife. I mean there are many examples of lying in the scriptures - often sactioned by God and receiving revelation.

You don’t understand the purpose of scriptures. Is the purpose of these stories (all those listed above) to condone lying when we are also given a commandment that says “thou shalt not lie?” Do we have permission to chop off peoples heads because Nephi did it?

You do not understand the purpose of those stories. You have justified sin in your mind because of your own desires.

The scriptures are a story of how people received his spirit. It’s a path...not a specific action. Once again you’ve misunderstood. The spirit is truth.... you can’t receive it until you abide in it. This is why Christ taught in parables. It’s about the path not what you did to sin to get there. People who don’t know the path or understand it do what you do ....they list examples of sin in scripture like lying and claim that God condones it while destroying his commandments. You’ve missed the point and also missed God.

[TrueIntent]

In addition, most of what is written in the Old Testament is written with dual meaning. It’s a “path” of obtaining records “true” records and true meaning. The meaning is in the story paired with an ordinance. If you follow patterns. The number 40 is the symbol of being in a symbolic “wilderness”. You will find this exact pattern in the Book of Mormon. What’s a symbol and what’s reality...that understanding comes when you receive revelation by the spirit and when you know the pattern.

[DesertWonderer2]

In addition, most of what is written in the Old Testament is written with dual meaning. It’s a “path” of obtaining records “true” records and true meaning. The meaning is in the story paired with an ordinance. If you follow patterns. The number 40 is the symbol of being in a symbolic “wilderness”. You will find this exact pattern in the Book of Mormon. What’s a symbol and what’s reality...that understanding comes when you receive revelation by the spirit and when you know the pattern.

FYI the # 40 is symbolic of cleansing and not wilderness. Your were on the right track though: i.e. they were in the wilderness for 40 years to be cleansed. A related example is that Moses’ life was composed of 3, 40 year periods.

One thing that has escaped most people’s attention is that the SLC temple took 40 years to build. I don’t think that number of years was a coincidence.