The Gospel according to Denver Snuffer

[Jesef]

I believe many have achieved that state of being "perfect in Christ" and cloaked by His Love/Grace, btw, known and unknown people, LDS/Mormon & non, too.

[marc]

Good points, what I meant to say is I think there is a difference between becoming perfect, as in the flawless/sinless, which I think only comes after, in the next realm, & being “perfected in Christ” which is being cloaked by the Grace of Christ, where your intentions are pure, but your execution is still human, but you are instantly forgiven - something like that - it’s entering into the rest of the Lord while you’re still mortal. You KNOW you’re saved/redeemed & the Love of God shields your soul & heart. But you are still human/mortal/weak & subject to the body/flesh but in a state of Divine Grace/Love.

I believe you hit the nail squarely on the head. I couldn't have said it any better. Inquiringmind, I agree with Jesef and the Spirit seems to concur.

[inquirringmind]

Interesting.

I think I pretty much agreed with what Jesef said here before he said it here.

I also think that's what Mr. Snuffer was saying in that quote I provided, and I agree with him there (and I think he said it a bit better.)

Thank you both.

[inquirringmind]

marc,

You do realize that John and Charles Wesley would join you in agreeing with what Jesef said in his last post (and what Denver said in my quote), don't you?

It's pretty standard Christian teaching (emphasized by the early Methodists.)

And if you were using "perfect" in the absolute sense of the word, what you now say you agree with is a far cry from what you said here.

Anyone who teaches perfection is beyond our reach here and now is the blind leading the blind. (Fact, not criticism.)

You do realize that, don't you?

Here's what Denver said again.

I’ve said that there is almost nothing about us that can become perfect in this life. The only thing that can approach perfection, however, is our intent. We can mean to follow God at all times. Even if the dilemmas of life make it impossible to actually do so, we can still intend to follow Him. We may not even know if what we are doing pleases Him, or how to resolve conflicting interests or commandments. We may even be making a mistake, but if our intent is right, our hearts may be pure.
This is also one of the reasons we cannot judge another. They may be weak, foolish and error prone, but if they intend to be doing the right then God alone can measure their heart and decide whether they are approved. It would take a God to know if the person’s life, training, understanding and intent are pure before Him. I suspect there are those we look upon as deluded and even evil but the Lord views them with compassion and understanding. He may find their hearts to be perfect even before the heart of the proud who claim they have and follow the truth. Though a person may misunderstand a great deal, still if they have love for their fellow man, relieve suffering where they can, give patience to the foolish and water to the thirsty, they may be perfect before God. (Luke 18: 9-14.)

https://denversnuffer.com/2010/10/3-nephi-12-8/

You see the difference, don't you?

[marc]

marc,

You do realize that John and Charles Wesley would join you in agreeing with what Jesef said in his last post (and what Denver said in my quote), don't you?

I don't know who John and Charles Wesley are.

It's pretty standard Christian teaching (emphasized by the early Methodists.)

I wouldn't know, bud. I am not familiar with early Methodist teachings. But it is in harmony with Nephi's teaching that we are saved by grace after all we can do.

And if you were using "perfect" in the absolute sense of the word, what you now say you agree with is a far cry from what you said here.

Anyone who teaches perfection is beyond our reach here and now is the blind leading the blind. (Fact, not criticism.)

You do realize that, don't you?

Ok. I went back to the time and date stamp, which you supposedly quoted me on the previous page of this discussion. Nowhere in my post did I say that. I read and reread what I did post because I am positive I did not write that quote you supplied. I don't know where you got that quote from, but it was not from me. Here is the link to the quote you supplied with the same date and time stamp for everyone to observe. Or simply click the little "up arrow" in the time stamp in the quote you supplied to take you here:

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=48813&start=90#p870076

Here's what Denver said again.

I’ve said that there is almost nothing about us that can become perfect in this life. The only thing that can approach perfection, however, is our intent. We can mean to follow God at all times. Even if the dilemmas of life make it impossible to actually do so, we can still intend to follow Him. We may not even know if what we are doing pleases Him, or how to resolve conflicting interests or commandments. We may even be making a mistake, but if our intent is right, our hearts may be pure.
This is also one of the reasons we cannot judge another. They may be weak, foolish and error prone, but if they intend to be doing the right then God alone can measure their heart and decide whether they are approved. It would take a God to know if the person’s life, training, understanding and intent are pure before Him. I suspect there are those we look upon as deluded and even evil but the Lord views them with compassion and understanding. He may find their hearts to be perfect even before the heart of the proud who claim they have and follow the truth. Though a person may misunderstand a great deal, still if they have love for their fellow man, relieve suffering where they can, give patience to the foolish and water to the thirsty, they may be perfect before God. (Luke 18: 9-14.)

https://denversnuffer.com/2010/10/3-nephi-12-8/

You see the difference, don't you?

Yes, I do. But more glaring is the false quote you supplied for whatever reason from my post yesterday, which as you can see is unedited. This discussion has taken a left turn and I am no longer inclined to continue it with you. Have a nice day, inquiringmind.

[inquirringmind]

Ok. I went back to the time and date stamp, which you supposedly quoted me on the previous page of this discussion. Nowhere in my post did I say that. I read and reread what I did post because I am positive I did not write that quote you supplied

Check again.

Anyone who teaches perfection is beyond our reach here and now is the blind leading the blind. (Fact, not criticism.)

If you re-read your entire post (and remember that your comments are in black ink) you should see it.

It's there.

Yes, I do. But more glaring is the false quote you supplied for whatever reason from my post yesterday, which as you can see is unedited.

It is unedited, and the quote is still there.

Please stop making false accusations.

And since you couldn't have received any personal revelation from God that I misquoted you when I didn't, aren't you in fact judging me, and therefore not obeying the words of Christ?

[marc]

Ok. I went back to the time and date stamp, which you supposedly quoted me on the previous page of this discussion. Nowhere in my post did I say that. I read and reread what I did post because I am positive I did not write that quote you supplied

Check again.

Anyone who teaches perfection is beyond our reach here and now is the blind leading the blind. (Fact, not criticism.)

If you re-read your entire post (and remember that your comments are in black ink) you should see it.

It's there.

Yes, I do. But more glaring is the false quote you supplied for whatever reason from my post yesterday, which as you can see is unedited.

It is unedited, and the quote is still there.

Please stop making false accusations.

And since you couldn't have received any personal revelation from God that I misquoted you when I didn't, aren't you in fact judging me, and therefore not obeying the words of Christ?

I did check again, bud. It's not there because I did not write it. This leads me to believe that someone is hacking into this discussion and manipulating it. If you do see that quote in my post, it was not me who wrote it.

[inquirringmind]

Check again.

I think you messed up the formatting on that post, because the part about the blind leading the blind is in a quotation box.

But you seem to be quoting yourself, and I can't find the comment anywhere else in the thtead but in this post, from you, with the date stamp you question.

And the fact remains that your making false accusations.

Here's the whole thing.

Read it carefully.

(I'll highlight it with bold print for you.)

Thank you marc.

But doesn't the passage from D&C 76 relate to a vision of the afterlife?



So wouldn't the just men made perfect be resurrected saints?

(Or the spirits of such saints waiting to receive glorified bodies at the resurrection of the just?)

If I recall, there's a New Testament passge that speaks of the spirits of just men made perfect being in the bleaches while we run our race here on Earth, isn't there?

But that doesn't relate to whether it's really possible to be perfect here in the flesh, does it?

And as far as Noah being perfect "in his generations," couldn't that mean he was relatively perfect in a sinful age?

And isn't it likely that any other passages that seem to speak of mortals being perfect are also speaking relatively, not absolutely?

How else would you explain these passages (from your own "restoration edition" of scripture)?

If they sin against you — for there is no man who does not sin...

2Chron. 2:18 (RE.)

Give ear to my supplications. In your faithfulness answer me and in your righteousness. And do not enter into judgment with your servant, for in your sight shall no man living be justified...

Psalm 143:1 (RE.)

[The remnant movement "restoration edition of scripture"]: http://scriptures.info

P.S. I'm sorry that you initially misunderstood my question, but you did accuse me of contending against the words of Christ because you misunderstood that question, didn't you?

And if you did that without any personal revelation, or supernatural insight into my heart, weren't you judging me?

Please reply.

(And thanks again.)

I did not at all accuse you of contending. Otherwise, I would have said something like, Inquringmind, you are contending against the word of Christ. But I did not say that or anything like it. What I did was ask a question:

I believe that any teaching, which came directly from Jesus Christ's own lips, including the sermon on the mount is true. Therefore, how could it be false? Therefore, why would anyone contend against it, unless they simply do not believe Jesus or anyone including Jared who promoted the sermon on the mount word for word?

I was asking a general question. I have not kept track of all your posts so I have no clue what you have or have not been contending about. Therefore I was not judging you. Now as for D&C 76, I do recall it being a vision of the different glories, so those people being made perfect are they who inherit the celestial kingdom. But I also did not suggest that they are they who are made perfect in this life. I only offered it for you to ponder. As for Noah, I only quoted what the scripture says and you can decide for yourself what it means. I have no opinion at this time about being made perfect in this life, but I I will quote something Amonhi mentioned before and you can decide for yourself because again, I have no opinion on the matter at this time:

I don't think we ever get to a place where we don't need the atonement, until we are perfect in Christ, and obviously we shouldn't equate a C&E with perfection. Even Amonhi has admitted that there is still progression after you've had a C&E event. Many of our latter-day prophets have confirmed that perfection in this life is impossible, and many have stated that our progression towards perfection will continue in the life to come. The atonement of Christ makes it possible just to even have the chance at reaching perfection AND it gives us the enabling power of Christ to transform into a perfect person, just like he is.

We can become perfect in this life, while still mortal....

Some scriptures specifically ONLY apply to the perfected. In this Heb. 6:1-6, Paul was talking to those who had not yet become perfect, but needed to work to that end. In another instance, he addressed another group who was already perfect saying,

Let us therefore, as many as BE perfect,... - Philip. 3:15

This group had progressed beyond the previous group whom he encouraged to "go on to perfection". And to another group he asked...

Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that ARE perfect: - 1Cor. 2:6

We have now shown two instances where Paul is speaking of a group which has not only met the criteria listed in Heb. 6:1-6, but has in fact gone on and become perfect. Perfection in mortality is achievable.

Aside from these people whom Paul says are perfect, there are many others some of which are listed in scriptures:

Gen. 6: 9
9 ¶ These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

2 Chr. 15: 17
17 But the high places were not taken away out of Israel: nevertheless the heart of Asa was perfect all his days.

Job 2: 3
3 And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

D&C 107: 43
43 Because he (Seth) was a perfect man, and his likeness was the express likeness of his father, insomuch that he seemed to be like unto his father in all things, and could be distinguished from him only by his age.

Moses 8: 27
27 And thus Noah found agrace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and he walked with God, as did also his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

And, regarding those who are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, ie made their calling and election sure, one of the blessings the Lord tells us about these people is that while they are not yet resurrected, they ARE just men who ARE made perfect.

69 These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood. - D&C 76:69

As compared with those of the Terrestrial kingdom who are honorable Men deceived by the craftiness of men.

75 These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.

If you notice in the endowment, we see that Adam progresses from Kingdom to kingdom while in this life. The lights change representing each kingdom of glory and a statement is made about entering into a new kingdom. In the live sessions like in the Salt Lake Temple, you actually get up out of your seat and walk to a different room. This symbolizes that we progress through the kingdoms, just like Adam and Eve did as we progress in life.

The question to ask is what is required to be perfect. Jesus told us exactly what makes God perfect and what we must do to be perfect like God. If you know what he said to do, then you will know how to fulfill his commandment to "be ye therefore perfect like your father in heaven is perfect." Anyone who teaches perfection is beyond our reach here and now is the blind leading the blind. (Fact, not criticism.)

I have not yet, that I can remember, shown how to become perfect, but will do so now.

43 ¶Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. - Matt. 5

Now just because I quoted Amonhi, it doesn't mean I agree with things he says or believe or do not believe things he has said. I'm simply saving myself the time of finding those passages. Again, the Bible says that Noah was perfect in his generations. I am not going to make any interpretations. I have no opinions or beliefs in this matter to offer. I'm simply supplying information for you to make your own decisions. But will reemphasize these scriptures for you to consider and make up your own mind:

Job 2:3And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

D&C 107:43 Because he (Seth) was a perfect man, and his likeness was the express likeness of his father, insomuch that he seemed to be like unto his father in all things, and could be distinguished from him only by his age.

Again referring to Noah:

Moses 8:27 And thus Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and he walked with God, as did also his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

Job was still in the flesh when the Lord declared him to be perfect. So there's that. Oh, by the way, I do not use the restoration edition of the scriptures, which you implied. I use the standard works published by the church. I hope I answered your questions thoroughly enough for you to make your own decisions.

Would you like to apologise now?

[inquirringmind]

Do you see it now?

Would you like me to underline it too?

And do you acknowledge saying it?

If so, will you please stop making false accusations?

Please reply.

[marc]

Inquiringmind, I see it now. If you look very closely, you will see that those are Amonhi's words not mine. I did make that very clear in my post when I quoted him. The formatting error is yours, bud.

[inquirringmind]

Sorry.

But you did accuse me of deliberately mosquoting you.

Do you apologise?

[marc]

Sorry.

But you did accuse me of deliberately mosquoting you.

Do you apologise?

I am sorry, too.

[topcat]

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.

Is the Lord not high enough? You can't "top" the Lord, can you?

But if you're saying "the top" is referring to the Q of the 12, well, the Lord tried multiple times over the course of about 18 months at least to get their attention. In fact, he got their attention, and their reaction was anger and resentment as manifested through attempts to censor Denver.

Honestly, would you expect the very men being called out for apostasy to humble themselves and to admit they're apostate? That could have been an option. And that would have fulfilled your man-made requirement, which is for the correction to "come from the top." In retrospect, I'm sure the vast majority of Jews who were supporting the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, wish that the Sanhedrin had got their act together and proclaimed publicly Jesus' divinity. That would have been the top-down correction in
beautiful display!

President Nelson did not have to single Denver out back in 2012. Elder Clayton did not have to single Denver out. These two leaders did not have to order Denver's stake president to excommunicate Denver. But they did, and this after they supposedly read Denver's writings. So it's not like they were ignorant of his testimony. Denver asked if they wanted him to deny his witness of personal face to face meetings with Jesus Christ, or if they wanted him to cease speaking about it. He never got an answer.

[jdt]

I have to say that even though I am totally against the remnant, and have no sympathy for it, or for Denver Snuffer, every so often, seeing things about how far this thing has gone and what it has turned into, and the dynamics of it is a very interesting phenomenon, almost as entertaining as watching news reports about Donald Trump or scientology. It's kind of like how I watched how John Dehlin became what he is, and how the Mormon Stories phenomenon has become what it is. It's just incredibly fascinating to watch things evolve from humble beginnings into these unbelievably complex and large groups. Not that this necessarily gives any of them credibility or validity.

I respect people's rights to worship how and what they choose, but it is very fascinating.

A good post Ed. In some ways it is too bad that the LDS curriculum for church history largely ends with the handcart companies. It too has a fascinating evolution from humble beginnings into these unbelievably complex and large groups.
For my part, I have never believed that the establishment of Zion was/is going to be clean. Again not that any ugliness or need for a great change of heart is a sign of credibility or validity.

[EdGoble]

I have to say that even though I am totally against the remnant, and have no sympathy for it, or for Denver Snuffer, every so often, seeing things about how far this thing has gone and what it has turned into, and the dynamics of it is a very interesting phenomenon, almost as entertaining as watching news reports about Donald Trump or scientology. It's kind of like how I watched how John Dehlin became what he is, and how the Mormon Stories phenomenon has become what it is. It's just incredibly fascinating to watch things evolve from humble beginnings into these unbelievably complex and large groups. Not that this necessarily gives any of them credibility or validity.

I respect people's rights to worship how and what they choose, but it is very fascinating.

A good post Ed. In some ways it is too bad that the LDS curriculum for church history largely ends with the handcart companies. It too has a fascinating evolution from humble beginnings into these unbelievably complex and large groups.
For my part, I have never believed that the establishment of Zion was/is going to be clean. Again not that any ugliness or need for a great change of heart is a sign of credibility or validity.

Indeed. It sounds a little bit in your words like you might possibly be sort of implying a "pot and kettle" type thing here. I never said that the LDS history is squeaky-clean, and I am quite familiar with all the skeletons in the closet, but what I have said in various posts is that I know by the Holy Ghost that keys are intact. When all is said and done, it is all a bunch of competing spiritual claims, with humans at the head of each organization, and one must follow the spirit that one believes is the Holy Ghost, according to where that spirit leads. Unfortunately for those that believe in this or that, not all spirits are the Holy Ghost, and not all spirits lead to the same organization.

And various organizations have their take on what the "arm of flesh" means. Humans at the head of an organization doesn't make something technically led by the "arm of flesh" or we would have no humans in an organization at all. Snuffer's beliefs and his flavor of democratic "non-church" structure for the organizations that look to him for inspiration are a convenient and creative way to try to avoid the "arm of flesh," but he still offers himself as a sort of "prophet" anyway, and people still ultimately look to him for some sort of light and knowledge. He still makes a demand for his followers of sorts to enter into a "covenant" of his own design. So it is all the same when it boils down to it. The key is the spirit and spiritual claims, and where they lead. And as I said, not all can be the Holy Ghost.

[EdGoble]

Is the Lord not high enough? You can't "top" the Lord, can you?

But if you're saying "the top" is referring to the Q of the 12, well, the Lord tried multiple times over the course of about 18 months at least to get their attention. In fact, he got their attention, and their reaction was anger and resentment as manifested through attempts to censor Denver.

Honestly, would you expect the very men being called out for apostasy to humble themselves and to admit they're apostate? That could have been an option. And that would have fulfilled your man-made requirement, which is for the correction to "come from the top." In retrospect, I'm sure the vast majority of Jews who were supporting the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, wish that the Sanhedrin had got their act together and proclaimed publicly Jesus' divinity. That would have been the top-down correction in
beautiful display!

President Nelson did not have to single Denver out back in 2012. Elder Clayton did not have to single Denver out. These two leaders did not have to order Denver's stake president to excommunicate Denver. But they did, and this after they supposedly read Denver's writings. So it's not like they were ignorant of his testimony. Denver asked if they wanted him to deny his witness of personal face to face meetings with Jesus Christ, or if they wanted him to cease speaking about it. He never got an answer.

Again, actually, as I have said in other posts, Denver's "non-Church" structure is convenient, but it is a mere charade to be able to claim that he has avoided becoming yet a new "arm of flesh."

In saying "is the Lord not high enough," you talk as if those in the remnant with a non-Church structure have made it so that they have special individual access to the Lord. Those in the remnant have a Lord, and he is not my Lord. It's like when my former neighbor claimed to be the prophet, but instead may have had a mental illness or something. His name was Terrill Dalton. You can google him. He is currently in prison. He claimed to be led by "the Lord," but I had to confront him and tell him that was not my Lord. And then there is Art Bulla. Art has been around since the 70's. And then there is the Parowan Prophet. Denver is a johnny-come-lately to the prophet game. What does this Denver guy have over these guys and their claims? Heck. I can be a prophet right now and declare myself if I wanted, and Denver would have nothing on me. I can make up a thing about having received calling and election and seeing Christ, and I would probably get a few followers. But that would be a lie, but I choose not to do something like that, because I know it is wrong, and I know I am not a prophet. I don't have the same cloven tongue that Denver, who is an attorney, has and neither does some of these other "prophets." But Terrill was not lacking in charisma. Every one of these characters has access to some "Lord." Hmm. Each with a different message. Same old story. Same old tune. Same old guitar. Why aren't those of the remnant looking to Terrill Dalton? He is a prophet with a message, who has seen "Christ." Is not his Christ high enough for you that you had to go off and follow this Denver character? Why aren't you a follower of Terrill? Clearly Terrill's new scriptures were inspired, were they not? They were not. What does Denver have over Terrill? Nothing. Why doesn't the "remnant" use Terrill's book of Romanicus in their scriptures? Wasn't that a restoration of a lost work by a prophet? I could say that you are astray because you don't espouse the book of Romanicus and follow this character that is in prison. Why did the brethren excommunicate Terrill when he was clearly a prophet? Well, he wasn't, and he was dealt with, because he was leading people astray. Just like Denver was dealt with.

I try to follow the Holy Ghost. You of the remnant think you are following your Holy Ghost. They don't lead to the same prophet, and they certainly do not lead to the same Lord. Either certain "prophets" are deceived by having an "angel of light" appear to them and claim he is Christ, or someone is lying.

Sorry. You of the remnant don't have special access to a "Jesus Christ" who is at the "top." You are following whatever being it is that Denver has been deceived by, or Denver is lying. One or the other. You don't follow my prophet, and you don't follow the same Jesus Christ that leads that prophet. So someone here is astray, and someone is not, and you have competing spiritual claims. That is what this is, when boiled down to its bare bones.

Denver had to be dealt with one way or the other, leading people astray from the Lord's program. Denver deserved to be singled out, after what he pulled.

[inquirringmind]

Sorry.

But you did accuse me of deliberately mosquoting you.

Do you apologise?

I am sorry, too.

Thank you.

[inquirringmind]

This is an interesting blog.

In the incipient stages of the restoration, imposters beset the church, receiving false visions and revelations, exhibiting spiritual gifts from false spirits, and misleading many. Early among these was Hiram Page, one of the eight witnesses of the Book of Mormon plates. Within three months of his baptism, Hiram began receiving and writing false revelations to the church through a seer stone. Joseph Smith received a revelation to have Oliver Cowdery correct this error, and Hiram Page repented. Eight years later, though, Hiram turned against Joseph and was excommunicated. This is a man who joined the church less than a week after it was formed. He had seen and handled the gold plates, yet found himself susceptible to deception...After the Hiram Page incident, influence of false spirits continued, and many expressed concern about the phenomena manifested in Kirtland and elsewhere, leading Joseph Smith to inquire of the Lord and receive a revelation on the topic in 1831; see T&C 36. Then, eleven years later, leading a people who were still too-often deceived, Joseph published an editorial in the Times and Seasons on the same topic.

http://www.totheremnant.com/2018/07/how ... mment-form

To those of you in the remnant movement:

Wasn't that editorial in the times and seasons canonized in your new edition of scripture?

So this is now scripture for you?

Some will say, “try the spirits” by the word. “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.” 1 John 1:18. One of the Irvingites once quoted this passage whilst under the influence of a spirit, and then said, “I confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.” And yet these prophecies failed, their messiah did not come, and the great things spoken of by them have fallen to the ground. What is the matter here? Did not the Apostle speak the truth? Certainly he did — but he spoke to a people who were under the penalty of death the moment they embraced Christianity; and no one without a knowledge of the fact would confess it and expose themselves to death, and this was consequently given as a criterion to the church or churches to which John wrote. But the Devil on a certain occasion cried out, “I know you, who you are, the Holy One of God!” Here was a frank acknowledgment under other circumstances that “Jesus had come in the flesh.” On another occasion the Devil said, “Paul we know, and Jesus we know” — of course, “come in the flesh.” No man nor sect of men without the regular constituted authorities, the Priesthood, and discerning of spirits can tell true from false spirits.

http://scriptures.info/scriptures/tc/section/147.12#12

What's meant by "regular constituted authorities"?

And did you all covenant to guide your lives by the scriptures contained in your new canon at the conference in Boise?

[jdt]

Thank you jdt.

I'm sorry I missed your post here, and would have replied to it sooner if I hadn't.

I found your comments here very interesting, but did you follow Jared's comments on the Guide and Standard Blogspot before they shut it down?

I can't say that I read every comment, but I did follow it pretty closely. Log also had a habit of deleting many posts (sometimes just minutes after posting), so it is nearly impossible to get to everything he wrote.

He seemed to imply that after he attended the conference in Boise he received some kind of revelation that the covenant offered was from God, but only as some kind of test that he and everyone else who entered it without knowing it was from God had failed.

I don't recall this exactly. I do remember he said that he, himself, "believed" the answer and covenant was from God but did not "know" it was. And that because of that he should not have taken it. But since he did take it he must try to fulfill it. I don't recall him saying that others were under the same test, but he very well could have.

And he pretty much accused (or warned) anyone who received any personal revelation supporting any guide and standard other that his "rock of Jesus" of being deceived by lying spirits because they weren't doing a good enough job of personally living the "rock of Jesus" (ie sermon on the mount/sermon at bountiful.)

I don't recall this exactly either, but it is pretty close. He would often throw out many accusations for people not living the sermon, often claiming that people don't try to live it. And he was quite adamant that supporting other documents was a waste of time, because he would only accept his own document.

And both Adrian Larsen and I took him to be implying that he had received some kind of personal visitation before entering into the covenant and losing whatever personal connection he had with God by failing the test (in a blog post he called "Arise and Awake," still readable on his "log's cabin," and Tim Malone's "latter-day commentary.")

Adrian directly asked him to tell us if that's what he was implying, but I don't believe he ever did.

Were you aware of that?

Yes, I saw those posts, and as far as I know he never did answer.

And would that alter your thoughts any?

At the end of the day, I agree with Brian and Jesef's take on Log. I will not belabor the point more.

Several years back when things were first starting to happen, many people were claiming to have visitations and grand revelations. I was excited. People were obtaining the Second Comforter and it seemed more in reach for me personally than ever. Well time has played out a little longer, and I basically just ignore those claims now. With the exception of Denver, I have not seen any spiritual fruit from these claimants. I take away the grandeur of the experience, and ask what intelligence was communicated? So often there is nothing. And each of these people that I have known personally, I have seen moments of extreme doubt, much more so than I have had with only lesser order experiences. On the flip side, I have seen many who have dedicated themselves to Gospel study, but claim no such revelations and visitations, but I do see new intelligence from them. All that to say, Log can claim his revelations and visitations, and I give them as little heed as I do anyone else. I look at his fruit. What is bizarre about the whole thing, is that he takes an incredibly legalistic view of things. Much of the Sermon was dedicated to moving beyond such a view point (the law said don't commit adultery, I say don't look upon a woman to lust after her, the law said don't commit murder, I say don't be angry with your brother, the law said give a bill of divorcement, I saw don't divorce at all save for fornication, etc, etc). Not only do I not see any of the good fruit I would expect from what he claims, I see a host of bad fruit.

[inquirringmind]

What bad fruit do you see?

[jdt]

Indeed. It sounds a little bit in your words like you might possibly be sort of implying a "pot and kettle" type thing here. I never said that the LDS history is squeaky-clean, and I am quite familiar with all the skeletons in the closet, but what I have said in various posts is that I know by the Holy Ghost that keys are intact. When all is said and done, it is all a bunch of competing spiritual claims, with humans at the head of each organization, and one must follow the spirit that one believes is the Holy Ghost, according to where that spirit leads. Unfortunately for those that believe in this or that, not all spirits are the Holy Ghost, and not all spirits lead to the same organization.

And various organizations have their take on what the "arm of flesh" means. Humans at the head of an organization doesn't make something technically led by the "arm of flesh" or we would have no humans in an organization at all. Snuffer's beliefs and his flavor of democratic "non-church" structure for the organizations that look to him for inspiration are a convenient and creative way to try to avoid the "arm of flesh," but he still offers himself as a sort of "prophet" anyway, and people still ultimately look to him for some sort of light and knowledge. He still makes a demand for his followers of sorts to enter into a "covenant" of his own design. So it is all the same when it boils down to it. The key is the spirit and spiritual claims, and where they lead. And as I said, not all can be the Holy Ghost.

I liked the word fascinating. I was implying that LDS history too is interesting and worth studying, not in an accusatory way.
I have become more sympathetic with the earlier saints during my time with the remnant movement. Being part of a small movement is hard! Eccentric folks are often attracted to them. I can't fault people for making mistakes. I just try to understand what they did, why they did it, and what were the results. Maybe I can learn something from history and avoid a few potholes that others already discovered. And vice versa, do do what worked in the past!

[jdt]

...
What does this Denver guy have over these guys and their claims? Heck. I can be a prophet right now and declare myself if I wanted, and Denver would have nothing on me.
...

Denver would have over the other guys and hypothetical prophet EdGoble:
- A million plus word blog
- 10 or so books
- a 10 part talk
That all expound the scriptures and the words of Joseph Smith Jr. And in my opinion, that expounding rings truer than anyone else has given since the day Hyrum and Joseph died. Now I am not familiar with the new light that the others you have listed have provided, so I cannot really comment on it.
The purpose of this post is not to argue Denver's fruits, but let you know that others have a different world view. You have made it clear that the pinnacle of your testimony is that the brethren have the keys. And that is fine. But there are other people out there, for whom keys (at least as the LDS church defines them) are not the pinnacle, but rather the message. In my world view, the way you would need to word your statement is thus: Heck. I can be a prophet over the next decade through regularly writing and recording talks that expand on the foundation of the scriptures and Joseph Smith, and do as convincing a job as Denver did.
Maybe you genuinely feel that you could so (but wouldn't because it is not true), but hopefully you see the point that for some of us there is a difference between what Denver has done and throwing your hat in the "I am a prophet" ring.

[EdGoble]

...
What does this Denver guy have over these guys and their claims? Heck. I can be a prophet right now and declare myself if I wanted, and Denver would have nothing on me.
...

Denver would have over the other guys and hypothetical prophet EdGoble:
- A million plus word blog
- 10 or so books
- a 10 part talk
That all expound the scriptures and the words of Joseph Smith Jr. And in my opinion, that expounding rings truer than anyone else has given since the day Hyrum and Joseph died. Now I am not familiar with the new light that the others you have listed have provided, so I cannot really comment on it.
The purpose of this post is not to argue Denver's fruits, but let you know that others have a different world view. You have made it clear that the pinnacle of your testimony is that the brethren have the keys. And that is fine. But there are other people out there, for whom keys (at least as the LDS church defines them) are not the pinnacle, but rather the message. In my world view, the way you would need to word your statement is thus: Heck. I can be a prophet over the next decade through regularly writing and recording talks that expand on the foundation of the scriptures and Joseph Smith, and do as convincing a job as Denver did.
Maybe you genuinely feel that you could so (but wouldn't because it is not true), but hopefully you see the point that for some of us there is a difference between what Denver has done and throwing your hat in the "I am a prophet" ring.

I get it. I certainly am not implying that I would even hypothetically throw my hat in the ring. That was mere rhetoric. I was making a statement of how absurd it is that Denver should be considered over the rest, because literally, this lawyer came out of nowhere and suddenly his popularity over the last decade has exploded. He was a nobody ten years ago like the rest. In 2009 when I first heard of him, I'm like, Denver who? And how for each person in a restorationist Church, it is all about "testimony" according to a certain spirit that whispers to them that they call the "Holy Ghost." And for each one, it is a different Holy Ghost. Terrill had his Holy Ghost too. In fact, for those in Terrill's Church, Terrill himself was the embodiment of the Holy Ghost incarnate.

Actually, I understand that you believe in Denver, and therefore there is a difference to you. But from the outside, there are plenty of other restorationist prophets with their own set of scriptures, and their own sets of accomplishments. Art Bulla does his own radio show. Denver does not. Art has decades of prophecies, and radio content. Denver does not. I really don't know why you don't believe in Art Bulla over Denver if you are going to pick a non-LDS prophet. In all seriousness. It was quite a scene to have Art Bulla condemning Terrill Dalton with his revelations, and Terrill Dalton condemning Art with his revelations back and forth, revelations from their respective "Lord Jesus Christs". So, in all seriousness, Denver really is just another guy to most of us. There really is nothing compelling to Denver Snuffer except that he is the new flashy prophet in the neighborhood.

[jdt]

I get it. I certainly am not implying that I would even hypothetically throw my hat in the ring. That was mere rhetoric. I was making a statement of how absurd it is that Denver should be considered over the rest, because literally, this lawyer came out of nowhere and suddenly his popularity over the last decade has exploded. He was a nobody ten years ago like the rest. In 2009 when I first heard of him, I'm like, Denver who? And how for each person in a restorationist Church, it is all about "testimony" according to a certain spirit that whispers to them that they call the "Holy Ghost." And for each one, it is a different Holy Ghost. Terrill had his Holy Ghost too. In fact, for those in Terrill's Church, Terrill himself was the embodiment of the Holy Ghost incarnate.

Actually, I understand that you believe in Denver, and therefore there is a difference to you. But from the outside, there are plenty of other restorationist prophets with their own set of scriptures, and their own sets of accomplishments. Art Bulla does his own radio show. Denver does not. Art has decades of prophecies, and radio content. Denver does not. I really don't know why you don't believe in Art Bulla over Denver if you are going to pick a non-LDS prophet. In all seriousness. It was quite a scene to have Art Bulla condemning Terrill Dalton with his revelations, and Terrill Dalton condemning Art with his revelations back and forth, revelations from their respective "Lord Jesus Christs". So, in all seriousness, Denver really is just another guy to most of us. There really is nothing compelling to Denver Snuffer except that he is the new flashy prophet in the neighborhood.

It is hard to compare against these other guys that I don't know, and I am not exactly going to take the time to review them to tell you why they are different (since it is apparent you think they are wrong already).
But as far as compelling goes, I will gladly stack up Denver's Gethsemane vision and its doctrinal insights and implications against your choice of any current LDS apostle/president discourse.

[EdGoble]

It is hard to compare against these other guys that I don't know, and I am not exactly going to take the time to review them to tell you why they are different (since it is apparent you think they are wrong already).
But as far as compelling goes, I will gladly stack up Denver's Gethsemane vision and its doctrinal insights and implications against your choice of any current LDS apostle/president discourse.

It's ok. This isn't a contest of prophets. Personal claimed visions of some guy can be as elaborate as he wants to claim them to be. Terrill's visions and manifestations were pretty elaborate too. Its unnecessary. I have already made my point. It was not to convince you, since you already believe what you believe. I am making the point for those on the fence so to speak who end up reading this, to attempt to influence them to stay on the LDS side, that there is nothing special about this Denver guy, and it is only because he is popular among his faction that he has clout. He is just a regular guy that has speaking abilities and who is trained in being able to argue his points convincingly like any lawyer can to less-skeptical individuals who are willing/gullible to eat up his claims.

As an example of elaborate visions and claims, one of the earliest false prophets of this type that claimed to be a successor to Joseph Smith was James Strang who started the Strangite religion that is still around to this day. As Orson Hyde prophesied of James Strang, the same applies to all of the same type, including Denver Snuffer:

Evil men, ambitious of power, must needs arise among you, and they shall be led by their own self-will and not by me. Yet they are instruments in my hands, and are permitted to try my people, and to collect from among them those who are not the elect, and such as are unworthy of eternal life. Grieve not after them, neither mourn nor be alarmed. My people know my voice and also the voice of my spirit, and a stranger they will not follow, therefore such as follow strangers are not my people. Behold James J. Strang hath cursed my people by his own spirit and not by mine. Never at any time have I appointed that wicked man to lead my people, neither by my own voice, nor by the voice of my servant Joseph Smith, neither by the voice of mine angel: but he hath sought to deceive and Satan helpeth him; but before of old was he one that was ordained to gather the tares of the field, and mine angels have chosen him to do it because he was a wicked man, even as Judas was chosen to betray his Lord. But his spirit and ambition shall soon fail him, and then shall he be called to judgment and receive that portion which is his mete . . .