The Gospel according to Denver Snuffer

[jdt]

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.

You are changing the goalposts.
First you said that Denver had nothing more than a mere claim to be a prophet (that he would have nothing on you in a hypothetical situation if you merely claimed to be a prophet). I pointed out that Denver has been a prolific writer about the scriptures, Joseph Smith, and church history.
Then the tune changed to well, there is nothing compelling about what the has written/said. I provided a clear example of something I find highly compelling. I encouraged you to take the opportunity to help those fence sitters out and provide something plainly more compelling from an LDS source (it should be easy right, if there is literally nothing compelling from Denver?)
Now we are to the point where you say: "it is only because he is popular among his faction that he has clout." Which is a complete reversal of what you said earlier, at first he was unworthy of consideration because he was a nobody, now he is unworthy of consideration because he is a somebody to some people. I mean which is it?
Furthermore, apparently being a lawyer should be a red flag for people speaking about the Gospel. Do you also encourage LDS to be more weary of President Oaks, Elder Cook, and Elder Christofferson because they are "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". Let me guess, that standard only applies to Denver as well.

[topcat]

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 . . .

Ed,

What does "LDS side" mean? I believe you mean "the LDS Church". What do you mean by "LDS Church"? Think about this question please. The "LDS side" is such a broad and undefined and nebulous term that it can mean almost anything. There are so many schools of thought, so many different opinions, even among the leaders over the years. I assume you might loosely refer to "mainstream thought" promulgated by the Church? But what "mainstream" ideas do you refer to?

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

If you look at what you're saying, then you're essentially encouraging people to stay mainstream, or, in other words, to stay on the broad path. In other words, in your very own words, you are encouraging people to go down a path that leads to destruction!

Now, if you would like to clarify, I'm all ears.

If you start eliminating all the extraneous teachings and "commandments of men", then even smart, alert LDS (as I presume you are) will have to concede and acknowledge that the narrowness of the path might be defined as the very basics of the gospel: i.e., the doctrine of Christ (faith in Christ, repentance, baptism (water/fire), and becoming as a little child as a permanent adult attitude to possess all the time).

If THAT is the narrow path you can agree on, that is NOT "the LDS side".

So do you want to recant or modify what you are encouraging readers to do? Do you really want to beckon people to follow the mainstream, or do you want to exhort people to live the doctrine of Christ?

You say the Hyde quote applies to Snuffer. Please share evidence of Denver being "evil" and "ambitious of power". Just as the fraud Robert Mueller can't provide one piece of Russian collusion evidence (because there wasn't and isn't any), you have no evidence. I don't believe you're a fraud, per se. But you make fraudulent claims. Otherwise, provide the evidence. Facts please.

I can provide endless examples, on the other hand, that indicate the attributes of "evil" and "ambitious of power", of the very people you uphold as legit. You would have to concede these facts. They're not wild allegations. They are well-known facts. And I agree with Hyde, these evil people are permitted to "try my people" and to lead them astray.

[EdGoble]

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.

You are changing the goalposts.
First you said that Denver had nothing more than a mere claim to be a prophet (that he would have nothing on you in a hypothetical situation if you merely claimed to be a prophet). I pointed out that Denver has been a prolific writer about the scriptures, Joseph Smith, and church history.
Then the tune changed to well, there is nothing compelling about what the has written/said. I provided a clear example of something I find highly compelling. I encouraged you to take the opportunity to help those fence sitters out and provide something plainly more compelling from an LDS source (it should be easy right, if there is literally nothing compelling from Denver?)
Now we are to the point where you say: "it is only because he is popular among his faction that he has clout." Which is a complete reversal of what you said earlier, at first he was unworthy of consideration because he was a nobody, now he is unworthy of consideration because he is a somebody to some people. I mean which is it?
Furthermore, apparently being a lawyer should be a red flag for people speaking about the Gospel. Do you also encourage LDS to be more weary of President Oaks, Elder Cook, and Elder Christofferson because they are "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". Let me guess, that standard only applies to Denver as well.

I encourage LDS to stick with the program, about those to whom the pattern has long been established, and by what process they recieve keys, to have faith that they have the keys.
Denver remains a nobody, because once again, he only has clout among his followers, a small segment of the population, who trumpet his name around the Internet, who have a louder voice than their numbers really represent, because anyone can sound loud on the Internet. As compared to apostate groups in general, yes, the remnant is large. As to religious in general, they are next to nobody in numbers. You say, "which is it." I say it is both, and only you are confused, because you didn't read closely enough. My goalposts remain firm. It is you that try to make one an offender for a word. It is you that ought to be more carefully and logically defending your prophet, not resorting to logical fallacies to do an ad hominem on your opposition.
You obviously are pretty invested in this conversation, emotionally and otherwise. I am not.

It is clear from my words who I consider legitimate and who I do not consider legitimate, and why.

[EdGoble]

Ed,

What does "LDS side" mean? I believe you mean "the LDS Church". What do you mean by "LDS Church"? Think about this question please. The "LDS side" is such a broad and undefined and nebulous term that it can mean almost anything. There are so many schools of thought, so many different opinions, even among the leaders over the years. I assume you might loosely refer to "mainstream thought" promulgated by the Church? But what "mainstream" ideas do you refer to?

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

If you look at what you're saying, then you're essentially encouraging people to stay mainstream, or, in other words, to stay on the broad path. In other words, in your very own words, you are encouraging people to go down a path that leads to destruction!

Now, if you would like to clarify, I'm all ears.

If you start eliminating all the extraneous teachings and "commandments of men", then even smart, alert LDS (as I presume you are) will have to concede and acknowledge that the narrowness of the path might be defined as the very basics of the gospel: i.e., the doctrine of Christ (faith in Christ, repentance, baptism (water/fire), and becoming as a little child as a permanent adult attitude to possess all the time).

If THAT is the narrow path you can agree on, that is NOT "the LDS side".

So do you want to recant or modify what you are encouraging readers to do? Do you really want to beckon people to follow the mainstream, or do you want to exhort people to live the doctrine of Christ?

You say the Hyde quote applies to Snuffer. Please share evidence of Denver being "evil" and "ambitious of power". Just as the fraud Robert Mueller can't provide one piece of Russian collusion evidence (because there wasn't and isn't any), you have no evidence. I don't believe you're a fraud, per se. But you make fraudulent claims. Otherwise, provide the evidence. Facts please.

I can provide endless examples, on the other hand, that indicate the attributes of "evil" and "ambitious of power", of the very people you uphold as legit. You would have to concede these facts. They're not wild allegations. They are well-known facts. And I agree with Hyde, these evil people are permitted to "try my people" and to lead them astray.

You want an LDS side definition, since actually no, it is not nebulous, but you want a definition. Try the phrase that you remnant folk have coined. Brethrenite. The Brethrenite side, those that remain loyal to the LDS brethren who have keys. Loyalty to the keys of the priesthood and covenant keeping is not a nebulous concept. It is crystal clear. You can go ahead and provide all the endless examples you want for those invested in hearing you. Go right ahead.

It is you that have twisted the path of staying loyal to the keys as if it is a path to destruction. You said that. That is your opinion. Don't put words in my mouth. That is your concept, my friend. That is your belief. Not mine. Not by my words, but by yours.

[topcat]

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.

You are changing the goalposts.
First you said that Denver had nothing more than a mere claim to be a prophet (that he would have nothing on you in a hypothetical situation if you merely claimed to be a prophet). I pointed out that Denver has been a prolific writer about the scriptures, Joseph Smith, and church history.
Then the tune changed to well, there is nothing compelling about what the has written/said. I provided a clear example of something I find highly compelling. I encouraged you to take the opportunity to help those fence sitters out and provide something plainly more compelling from an LDS source (it should be easy right, if there is literally nothing compelling from Denver?)
Now we are to the point where you say: "it is only because he is popular among his faction that he has clout." Which is a complete reversal of what you said earlier, at first he was unworthy of consideration because he was a nobody, now he is unworthy of consideration because he is a somebody to some people. I mean which is it?
Furthermore, apparently being a lawyer should be a red flag for people speaking about the Gospel. Do you also encourage LDS to be more weary of President Oaks, Elder Cook, and Elder Christofferson because they are "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". Let me guess, that standard only applies to Denver as well.

I encourage LDS to stick with the program, about those to whom the pattern has long been established, and by what process they recieve keys, to have faith that they have the keys.
Denver remains a nobody, because once again, he only has clout among his followers, a small segment of the population, who trumpet his name around the Internet, who have a louder voice than their numbers really represent, because anyone can sound loud on the Internet. You say, "which is it." I say it is both, and only you are confused, because you didn't read closely enough. My goalposts remain firm. It is you that try to make one an offender for a word. It is you that ought to be more carefully and logically defending your prophet, not resorting to logical fallacies to do an ad hominem on your opposition.
You obviously are pretty invested in this conversation, emotionally and otherwise. I am not.

Ed,

You ignored each of the logical points made by jdt. And in a circular fashion, you repeated your already-rebutted points.

And I can't find ANY personal ad hominem attacks on you anywhere by jdt.

You are actually accusing jdt of what you are doing: being emotionally invested in the conversation as illustrated by your ad hominem attacks on him, your attack being that jdt is "emotional" and personally attacking you, when he's in fact not attacked you and is actually providing non-emotional, logical points.

[EdGoble]

Ed,

You ignored each of the logical points made by jdt. And in a circular fashion, you repeated your already-rebutted points.

And I can't find ANY personal ad hominem attacks on you anywhere by jdt.

You are actually accusing jdt of what you are doing: being emotionally invested in the conversation as illustrated by your ad hominem attacks on him, your attack being that jdt is "emotional" and personally attacking you, when he's in fact not attacked you and is actually providing non-emotional, logical points.

Oh. Ok. Here I am, uninvested, yawn, as if this thread is different from all the other Snuffer threads with the same exact content, after having argued with Snufferites for years over these same points, and you can do nothing but turn around stuff. That's a great tactic. Keep it up. Yawn.

[topcat]

Ed,

What does "LDS side" mean? I believe you mean "the LDS Church". What do you mean by "LDS Church"? Think about this question please. The "LDS side" is such a broad and undefined and nebulous term that it can mean almost anything. There are so many schools of thought, so many different opinions, even among the leaders over the years. I assume you might loosely refer to "mainstream thought" promulgated by the Church? But what "mainstream" ideas do you refer to?

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

If you look at what you're saying, then you're essentially encouraging people to stay mainstream, or, in other words, to stay on the broad path. In other words, in your very own words, you are encouraging people to go down a path that leads to destruction!

Now, if you would like to clarify, I'm all ears.

If you start eliminating all the extraneous teachings and "commandments of men", then even smart, alert LDS (as I presume you are) will have to concede and acknowledge that the narrowness of the path might be defined as the very basics of the gospel: i.e., the doctrine of Christ (faith in Christ, repentance, baptism (water/fire), and becoming as a little child as a permanent adult attitude to possess all the time).

If THAT is the narrow path you can agree on, that is NOT "the LDS side".

So do you want to recant or modify what you are encouraging readers to do? Do you really want to beckon people to follow the mainstream, or do you want to exhort people to live the doctrine of Christ?

You say the Hyde quote applies to Snuffer. Please share evidence of Denver being "evil" and "ambitious of power". Just as the fraud Robert Mueller can't provide one piece of Russian collusion evidence (because there wasn't and isn't any), you have no evidence. I don't believe you're a fraud, per se. But you make fraudulent claims. Otherwise, provide the evidence. Facts please.

I can provide endless examples, on the other hand, that indicate the attributes of "evil" and "ambitious of power", of the very people you uphold as legit. You would have to concede these facts. They're not wild allegations. They are well-known facts. And I agree with Hyde, these evil people are permitted to "try my people" and to lead them astray.

You want an LDS side definition, since actually no, it is not nebulous, but you want a definition. Try the phrase that you remnant folk have coined. Brethrenite. The Brethrenite side, those that remain loyal to the LDS brethren who have keys. Loyalty to the keys of the priesthood and covenant keeping is not a nebulous concept. It is crystal clear. You can go ahead and provide all the endless examples you want for those invested in hearing you. Go right ahead.

It is you that have twisted the path of staying loyal to the keys as if it is a path to destruction. You said that. That is your opinion. Don't put words in my mouth. That is your concept, my friend. That is your belief. Not mine. Not by my words, but by yours.

Well I'll compliment you and say you have boldly declared what side you're on.

The Lord said this of the reward of the Brethrenites in DC 76:

98 And the glory of the telestial is one, even as the glory of the stars is one; for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world;

99 For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas.

100 These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch;

101 But received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant.

102 Last of all, these all are they who will not be gathered with the saints, to be caught up unto the church of the Firstborn, and received into the cloud.

103 These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.

I assume you'd say your Brethren are folks like Paul, John, Moses, Elias, Enoch, and you'd include Pres Nelson and the current apostles, et al?

I tip my hat to your boldness. You've chosen a side. May you have peace in your choice.

But I have to say that EVEN WITHIN THE CHURCH, if anything is cloudy and muddy and NON crystal clear, it's the concept of keys. Oh. My. Gosh.

"Keys" is a concept that would rank as a "Top 5" LEAST UNDERSTOOD concept in the Church. I can't tell you how many brothers in my quorum (and I mean seasoned, well-read brothers, not to even mention the sisters) over the years have expressed confusion about this concept.

As proof it's not clear, why don't you edify us here on this forum by quoting scriptures which clear up the nebulous concept for curious minds out there?

[EdGoble]

Ed,

You ignored each of the logical points made by jdt. And in a circular fashion, you repeated your already-rebutted points.

And I can't find ANY personal ad hominem attacks on you anywhere by jdt.

You are actually accusing jdt of what you are doing: being emotionally invested in the conversation as illustrated by your ad hominem attacks on him, your attack being that jdt is "emotional" and personally attacking you, when he's in fact not attacked you and is actually providing non-emotional, logical points.

Oh, ok. Perhaps a neutral logician can settle this then. Any neutral, uninvested logicians in the room?
Sorry. Your words don't make it so.

[topcat]

Ed,

You ignored each of the logical points made by jdt. And in a circular fashion, you repeated your already-rebutted points.

And I can't find ANY personal ad hominem attacks on you anywhere by jdt.

You are actually accusing jdt of what you are doing: being emotionally invested in the conversation as illustrated by your ad hominem attacks on him, your attack being that jdt is "emotional" and personally attacking you, when he's in fact not attacked you and is actually providing non-emotional, logical points.

Oh, ok. Perhaps a neutral logician can settle this then. Any neutral, uninvested logicians in the room?
Sorry. Your words don't make it so.

That's why it's best to be quoting scriptures; it's not good to depend on one's own words or strength, but rather, the strength of the Scriptures.

Now, I am sincerely excited to hear the scriptural explanation you can give the forum on the concept of keys, that will illustrate how crystal clear of a concept keys are, as you allege they are. This would be a fine contribution if you can pull it off.

[EdGoble]

Well I'll compliment you and say you have boldly declared what side you're on.

The Lord said this of the reward of the Brethrenites in DC 76:

98 And the glory of the telestial is one, even as the glory of the stars is one; for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world;

99 For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas.

100 These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch;

101 But received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant.

102 Last of all, these all are they who will not be gathered with the saints, to be caught up unto the church of the Firstborn, and received into the cloud.

103 These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.

I assume you'd say your Brethren are folks like Paul, John, Moses, Elias, Enoch, and you'd include Pres Nelson and the current apostles, et al?

I tip my hat to your boldness. You've chosen a side. May you have peace in your choice.

But I have to say that EVEN WITHIN THE CHURCH, if anything is cloudy and muddy and NON crystal clear, it's the concept of keys. Oh. My. Gosh.

"Keys" is a concept that would rank as a "Top 5" LEAST UNDERSTOOD concept in the Church. I can't tell you how many brothers in my quorum (and I mean seasoned, well-read brothers, not to even mention the sisters) over the years have expressed confusion about this concept.

As proof it's not clear, why don't you edify us here on this forum by quoting scriptures which clear up the nebulous concept for curious minds out there?

Thanks for the compliment.
Sorry. I know you guys are fond of scripture bashes. I'm fond of logic and erudition and figuring out what the scriptures mean to me. If I were to agree to a bash quoting scriptures to you, and that back and forth type of thing that Snufferites are fond of, that would put us both on the same level as Evangelicals and Mormon missionaries doing a bash. No thanks. That may settle it for you if you think you are a scripture Jedi master. I don't have time for that. For me, things are simple. I am drawing a line in the sand and making short, concise declarations of what is truth to me. You don't have to accept those, but once in a while, I like to bring out what is the truth to me, doing comparisons and contrasts with facts that some people that might be less into this stuff are not acquainted with, to not let Snufferites get away with everything that they are able to get away with otherwise. This is never about being able to re-convert Snufferites back to "Brethrenism." This is always about trying to sway people that are still "Brethrenite" from considering having sympathy with or joining with the Snufferites. This is all about logically re-enforcing the notion that people ought to be true to their covenants and be loyal as they have covenanted to be, and to stick with the program. Therefore, while a scriptural Jedi clash might be fun for you, and while it may make you feel good that your scripture mastery is one of high caliber, it doesn't do anything for my purpose to engage you.

[EdGoble]

That's why it's best to be quoting scriptures; it's not good to depend on one's own words or strength, but rather, the strength of the Scriptures.

Now, I am sincerely excited to hear the scriptural explanation you can give the forum on the concept of keys, that will illustrate how crystal clear of a concept keys are, as you allege they are. This would be a fine contribution if you can pull it off.

You apparently have no clue what source of strength I am actually relying on here. But that is ok. It doesn't matter.

[topcat]

Well I'll compliment you and say you have boldly declared what side you're on.

The Lord said this of the reward of the Brethrenites in DC 76:

98 And the glory of the telestial is one, even as the glory of the stars is one; for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world;

99 For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas.

100 These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch;

101 But received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant.

102 Last of all, these all are they who will not be gathered with the saints, to be caught up unto the church of the Firstborn, and received into the cloud.

103 These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.

I assume you'd say your Brethren are folks like Paul, John, Moses, Elias, Enoch, and you'd include Pres Nelson and the current apostles, et al?

I tip my hat to your boldness. You've chosen a side. May you have peace in your choice.

But I have to say that EVEN WITHIN THE CHURCH, if anything is cloudy and muddy and NON crystal clear, it's the concept of keys. Oh. My. Gosh.

"Keys" is a concept that would rank as a "Top 5" LEAST UNDERSTOOD concept in the Church. I can't tell you how many brothers in my quorum (and I mean seasoned, well-read brothers, not to even mention the sisters) over the years have expressed confusion about this concept.

As proof it's not clear, why don't you edify us here on this forum by quoting scriptures which clear up the nebulous concept for curious minds out there?

Thanks for the compliment.
Sorry. I know you guys are fond of scripture bashes. I'm fond of logic and erudition and figuring out what the scriptures mean to me. If I were to agree to a bash quoting scriptures to you, and that back and forth type of thing that Snufferites are fond of, that would put us both on the same level as Evangelicals and Mormon missionaries doing a bash. No thanks. That may settle it for you if you think you are a scripture Jedi master. I don't have time for that. For me, things are simple. I am drawing a line in the sand and making short, concise declarations of what is truth to me. You don't have to accept those, but once in a while, I like to bring out what is the truth to me, doing comparisons and contrasts with facts that some people that might be more gullible are not acquainted with, to not let Snufferites get away with everything that they are able to get away with otherwise. This is never about being able to re-convert Snufferites back to "Brethrenism." This is always about trying to sway people that are still "Brethrenite" from considering having sympathy with or joining with the Snufferites. This is all about logically re-enforcing the notion that people ought to be true to their covenants and be loyal as they have covenanted to be, and to stick with the program. Therefore, while a scriptural Jedi clash might be fun for you, and while it may make you feel good that your scripture mastery is one of high caliber, it doesn't do anything for my purpose to engage you.

You're welcome, Ed. No worries. I see where you're coming from.

Thanks. Have a nice day.

[jdt]

I encourage LDS to stick with the program, about those to whom the pattern has long been established, and by what process they recieve keys, to have faith that they have the keys.
Denver remains a nobody, because once again, he only has clout among his followers, a small segment of the population, who trumpet his name around the Internet, who have a louder voice than their numbers really represent, because anyone can sound loud on the Internet. As compared to apostate groups in general, yes, the remnant is large. As to religious in general, they are next to nobody in numbers. You say, "which is it." I say it is both, and only you are confused, because you didn't read closely enough. My goalposts remain firm. It is you that try to make one an offender for a word. It is you that ought to be more carefully and logically defending your prophet, not resorting to logical fallacies to do an ad hominem on your opposition.
You obviously are pretty invested in this conversation, emotionally and otherwise. I am not.

It is clear from my words who I consider legitimate and who I do not consider legitimate, and why.

And they are moved yet again.
So are you claiming that numbers of followers now are the yardstick by which we ought to measure? But just not vocal ones?
If you are not invested that is fine. But at least be honest.
Your contributions to this thread insofar as you discuss Denver are precisely an ad hominem attack. Textbook definition.

[EdGoble]

And they are moved yet again.
So are you claiming that numbers of followers now are the yardstick by which we ought to measure? But just not vocal ones?
If you are not invested that is fine. But at least be honest.
Your contributions to this thread insofar as you discuss Denver are precisely an ad hominem attack. Textbook definition.

Ad hominem is to distract someone from the subject at hand by focusing on the person that is arguing about the subject. Denver Snuffer and his prophethood or lack thereof IS the subject. So no.

The only ad-hominem here is for someone to focus on me instead of Denver's credentials and beliefs and claims.

There is no yardstick, because it is all subjective. It depends on what side of the fence you are on, whether the Spirit that leads to the Brethrenite claim is what you heed, or whether you heed to some other spirit (lowercase s) that leads to some other group. These are all religious claims. There is no proof for any argumentation for anyone on any side to prove to any other disagreeing individual his point of view.

[jdt]

Thanks for the compliment.
Sorry. I know you guys are fond of scripture bashes. I'm fond of logic and erudition and figuring out what the scriptures mean to me. If I were to agree to a bash quoting scriptures to you, and that back and forth type of thing that Snufferites are fond of, that would put us both on the same level as Evangelicals and Mormon missionaries doing a bash. No thanks. That may settle it for you if you think you are a scripture Jedi master. I don't have time for that. For me, things are simple. I am drawing a line in the sand and making short, concise declarations of what is truth to me. You don't have to accept those, but once in a while, I like to bring out what is the truth to me, doing comparisons and contrasts with facts that some people that might be less into this stuff are not acquainted with, to not let Snufferites get away with everything that they are able to get away with otherwise. This is never about being able to re-convert Snufferites back to "Brethrenism." This is always about trying to sway people that are still "Brethrenite" from considering having sympathy with or joining with the Snufferites. This is all about logically re-enforcing the notion that people ought to be true to their covenants and be loyal as they have covenanted to be, and to stick with the program. Therefore, while a scriptural Jedi clash might be fun for you, and while it may make you feel good that your scripture mastery is one of high caliber, it doesn't do anything for my purpose to engage you.

Again, hold whatever beliefs you want, but at least be honest.
You want to say Denver is false because he suggested removing the heirarchy, preaches multiple mortal probations, or any number of other teachings that he actually has taught, fine. I would not have questioned you in this thread.
But to say Denver is false because the world has false prophets, because he has not done anything more than declare himself a prophet, because he has said nothing compelling, because there are few followers, or because he is a lawyer, well those are ad hominems and ought to be called out.

[EdGoble]

Again, hold whatever beliefs you want, but at least be honest.
You want to say Denver is false because he suggested removing the heirarchy, preaches multiple mortal probations, or any number of other teachings that he actually has taught, fine. I would not have questioned you in this thread.
But to say Denver is false because the world has false prophets, because he has not done anything more than declare himself a prophet, because he has said nothing compelling, because there are few followers, or because he is a lawyer, well those are ad hominems and ought to be called out.

Absolutely. Sure. I want to say Denver is false because the Spirit that I follow does not lead to him, and he does not have even the most minimal, logical claim to the keys, so he had to make up an excuse to explain them away. And as an aside, his doctrines are nonsensical. I am 100% loyal to the LDS Brethren. And I have covenanted to follow their direction.

The facts about Denver, who is a public figure, aren't ad-hominems, because they ARE the subject. They are not distractions from the subject. They are the microscope focused on the subject. Sorry. Some people would think of them as qualifications, while others would look at them as disqualifications. They are part of the subject, and are fair game.

You are also welcome to see my blog post on the subject from a number of years ago.

http://thoughtfulmormonism.blogspot.com ... s-and.html