The Davidic Servant and the Prospect of Future Polygamy

[tmac]

[
Perhaps a good gauge to use to predict this is to observe the DS and ask yourself, would the LDS hierarchy have chosen him to be an apostle? If the answer is a resounding NO! ...then there's a chance he's the real deal. Likely a simple man.

* * * * *

If the DS turns out to be a lawyer, that would be a stumbling block for me that I'd have to get through. But... the general idea of the DS is that he could be anyone with no idea of who he is until he is called of God to do the work.

Agreed! And I think all of this gravitates against the likelihood of yet another lawyer.

[Cruiserdude]

I don't have much to add other than essentially what I have said before, which is that I expect to see the DS (not to be confused with DSnuffer) demonstrate a much greater degree of Divine leadership than anything (or anyone) we have seen in recent memory, including Denver Snuffer. I do agree that he may have done some good at a preparatory level, but in my view any initial, early promise has essentially fizzled.

Moreover, as an attorney, I know Denver personally, having been involved in a couple cases with him. Not that I have necessarily had any bad experience in that regard, per se (other than I think he had a complete idiot for a client) but the bottom line is, I really hope the DS is not a lawyer. That would be really hard for me to reconcile. Needless to say, I might take Snuffer a lot more seriously, if he gave up his Babylonian profession, and quit practicing law. Until that happens, I'll probably remain pretty skeptical.

I never had considered a previous profession for the DS, that opens up new ideas for me.

John the Baptist was a wild man living in the wilderness - definitely the type I'm looking for. (seriously).

Christ was said to be carpenter although some interpretations give that he was a sawyer. I align more with the idea of sawyer. (for symbolic reasons).

Joseph Smith really didn't have a profession that I know of, but he did like to explore and look for treasure like his father did...(my kind of guy). lol

if the DS turns out to be a lawyer, that would be a stumbling block for me that I'd have to get through. But... the general idea of the DS is that he could be anyone with no idea of who he is until he is called of God to do the work.

Perhaps a good gauge to use to predict this is to observe the DS and ask yourself, would the LDS hierarchy have chosen him to be an apostle? If the answer is a resounding NO! ...then there's a chance he's the real deal. Likely a simple man.

that brought to mind this song. Every word has meaning in it. It's a great rendition. Simple Man, Shinedown. I've tried multiple ways of embedding... oh well. if this doesn't work link below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKiXmBbVN8Y

[youtube]https://youtu.be/cKiXmBbVN8Y[/youtube]

You copy just the final group of characters after the '=' in the link, and that you put in the middle of our youtube thingy

[FrankOne]

I don't have much to add other than essentially what I have said before, which is that I expect to see the DS (not to be confused with DSnuffer) demonstrate a much greater degree of Divine leadership than anything (or anyone) we have seen in recent memory, including Denver Snuffer. I do agree that he may have done some good at a preparatory level, but in my view any initial, early promise has essentially fizzled.

Moreover, as an attorney, I know Denver personally, having been involved in a couple cases with him. Not that I have necessarily had any bad experience in that regard, per se (other than I think he had a complete idiot for a client) but the bottom line is, I really hope the DS is not a lawyer. That would be really hard for me to reconcile. Needless to say, I might take Snuffer a lot more seriously, if he gave up his Babylonian profession, and quit practicing law. Until that happens, I'll probably remain pretty skeptical.

I never had considered a previous profession for the DS, that opens up new ideas for me.

John the Baptist was a wild man living in the wilderness - definitely the type I'm looking for. (seriously).

Christ was said to be carpenter although some interpretations give that he was a sawyer. I align more with the idea of sawyer. (for symbolic reasons).

Joseph Smith really didn't have a profession that I know of, but he did like to explore and look for treasure like his father did...(my kind of guy). lol

if the DS turns out to be a lawyer, that would be a stumbling block for me that I'd have to get through. But... the general idea of the DS is that he could be anyone with no idea of who he is until he is called of God to do the work.

Perhaps a good gauge to use to predict this is to observe the DS and ask yourself, would the LDS hierarchy have chosen him to be an apostle? If the answer is a resounding NO! ...then there's a chance he's the real deal. Likely a simple man.

that brought to mind this song. Every word has meaning in it. It's a great rendition. Simple Man, Shinedown. I've tried multiple ways of embedding... oh well. if this doesn't work link below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKiXmBbVN8Y

[youtube]https://youtu.be/cKiXmBbVN8Y[/youtube]

You copy just the final group of characters after the '=' in the link, and that you put in the middle of our youtube thingy

it's a trick!

hahah. thanks for that info. I hope I can remember it. I tried looking up the 'how' on this site to no avail and then took a few futile stabs at it.

[Wolfwoman]

As to the OP, I’d say I will have to wait and see when/if it happens, how I feel about it then.

I can say right now that I don’t like polygamy. But if it was truly the Lord’s way of taking care of some women because of a shortage of righteous men, I might be persuaded. I think there are a lot of women who would like to be married and have children, but they lack the righteous man to make this happen. However, what if it turned out to be just like it was in Brigham Young’s time? Or in Warren Jeff’s time? Where they steal other men’s wives, and they marry younger and younger women, and send off the young men out of town because we can’t let the young men marry the young women. We have to save the young women for the alpha male in our midst. Odds are probably high that that would happen.

Some think Denver Snuffer could be the Davidic servant. He has said the Lord gave him the name David. Interestingly his earlier books, blog posts and talks were somewhat supportive of plural marriage. He said in a talk about marriage that D&C 132 seems to be a legitimate revelation from Joseph Smith, but some things were altered prior to its publication and it is internally inconsistent the way we have it now. He said something along the lines of Heaven allows plural marriage for some people. That talk was given in St. George, UT on 7/26/2014.
He also said in that talk that polygamists were welcome in Zion if they repented and were baptized. They should not break up their families, but they should teach their children to end the practice.

On March 22, 2015, he gave a talk about Plural Marriage in Sandy, UT. In it he says that the evidence is inconclusive on Joseph Smith. There is some evidence on both sides of the argument, whether he was a polygamist or not. But in a court of law Joseph Smith would be presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. It shows what is in our hearts how we judge Joseph Smith in the matter. I have to say this talk gave me great joy. I would much rather believe Joseph to have been an honest and faithful man than to believe that he was lying and sneaking around trying to have sex with other women without Emma finding out.

He posted on his blog what he would consider a corrected version of D&C 132. See “Revising D&C Section 132” from Dec. 12, 2015.

However the movement associated with him dropped D&C 132 from the scriptures, by vote, because of its problems. And a new revelation about marriage replaces it in the new set of scriptures- see T&C 157:33-43. It states that marriage was intended to be one man and one woman as in the example given to us of Adam and Eve. And the Lord commands a man to have one wife and no concubines.

So those are my thoughts.

I would not know the name Denver Snuffer if it wasn’t for this forum. When I inquired to the Lord about this man, I didn’t receive a yea or nay. I then tried to read this man’s words to judge the fruit, I would fall asleep. Excellent sleeping aid.

The only answer I continue to receive is stick to the words in the standard works and as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, that includes the BOM, D&C, Pearl of great Price.

D&C 132 is so much more then polygamy. If someone talks about 132 and only talks about polygamy, they are of the spirit of contention.

If you had listened to or read the man’s words, you would know that he also says there is so much more to D&C 132 than polygamy.

[mikewoodings]

As I was viewing another recent thread, I had a thought on polygamy which was novel.

Seeing that this subject is so volatile and polarizing on this forum, I think it's safe to say that it is divisive in all sectors.

That being said, I'll make a guess that this subject could be one which causes a stark division in the times to come. In other words, within the current church, polygamy has already been officially kicked to the curb with the attitude that "it will never again be practiced". Hinkley responded on this question on the Larry King Show in saying "It is not doctrinal". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntDqQwCCjDA

So, mainstream church has taken it's side already. Now, we have those that have become disaffected with the current church and are finding their own way, hoping for a future 'setting in order'. In this group, the polarization is very strong with very few that are on the fence line of "maybe it's true, maybe it's not".

Will the future restoration of the true church hold polygamy as a valid and doctrinal tenet? Will it be taught that in the BOM, the teaching against it was meant for those at that time and it was not an "eternal" teaching? Will it be taught that JS did in fact live in polygamy? Will it be taught that polygamy can be so easily abused that the Lord has said very little on the subject of condoning it? Will it be taught that section 132 was a revelation given to JS and that he had to keep his own polygamous marriages secret due to the wisdom of the Lord instructing him? (for many reasons).

So.,.. what if there arrives a man on the scene that claims to be the Davidic Servant which comes to restore the Church and he teaches the above. How open would you be or would this be the sign for you that he, in fact, is NOT the authentic Davidic Servant? What if on every subject and from every perspective, his words are the spot on truth but... he also teaches that polygamy is a doctrine of God for the end days and beyond? If you could only find fault with this one aspect of his teachings, would that be enough to decide that he is a charlatan?


I have hope that this thread will be generally contained within the above hypothetical scenario.

As a hypothetical scenario, what say ye?

In any argument, there exists personal bias.

Another way of approaching this subject is to ask yourself, why is my position so important to me personally. and how is it affecting my answer to these questions? It's a given that some men are horn dogs, so there is one form of bias.

I hope we can keep some levity alive in this thread.

Yes! I would definitely listen to this Davidic Servant. I believe that 132 was a revelation from God. I also believe that the practice should have never ended. There are also other doctrines that I think would need to accompany CPM such as tithing, Sabbath Day, sacrament, and various others things/ordinances.

[blitzinstripes]

[
Perhaps a good gauge to use to predict this is to observe the DS and ask yourself, would the LDS hierarchy have chosen him to be an apostle? If the answer is a resounding NO! ...then there's a chance he's the real deal. Likely a simple man.

* * * * *

If the DS turns out to be a lawyer, that would be a stumbling block for me that I'd have to get through. But... the general idea of the DS is that he could be anyone with no idea of who he is until he is called of God to do the work.

Agreed! And I think all of this gravitates against the likelihood of yet another lawyer.

I hope it's some rebellious patriot outcast type like Ammon Bundy.

Just to watch the establishment church lose their collective minds.

[Bronco73idi]

As to the OP, I’d say I will have to wait and see when/if it happens, how I feel about it then.

I can say right now that I don’t like polygamy. But if it was truly the Lord’s way of taking care of some women because of a shortage of righteous men, I might be persuaded. I think there are a lot of women who would like to be married and have children, but they lack the righteous man to make this happen. However, what if it turned out to be just like it was in Brigham Young’s time? Or in Warren Jeff’s time? Where they steal other men’s wives, and they marry younger and younger women, and send off the young men out of town because we can’t let the young men marry the young women. We have to save the young women for the alpha male in our midst. Odds are probably high that that would happen.

Some think Denver Snuffer could be the Davidic servant. He has said the Lord gave him the name David. Interestingly his earlier books, blog posts and talks were somewhat supportive of plural marriage. He said in a talk about marriage that D&C 132 seems to be a legitimate revelation from Joseph Smith, but some things were altered prior to its publication and it is internally inconsistent the way we have it now. He said something along the lines of Heaven allows plural marriage for some people. That talk was given in St. George, UT on 7/26/2014.
He also said in that talk that polygamists were welcome in Zion if they repented and were baptized. They should not break up their families, but they should teach their children to end the practice.

On March 22, 2015, he gave a talk about Plural Marriage in Sandy, UT. In it he says that the evidence is inconclusive on Joseph Smith. There is some evidence on both sides of the argument, whether he was a polygamist or not. But in a court of law Joseph Smith would be presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. It shows what is in our hearts how we judge Joseph Smith in the matter. I have to say this talk gave me great joy. I would much rather believe Joseph to have been an honest and faithful man than to believe that he was lying and sneaking around trying to have sex with other women without Emma finding out.

He posted on his blog what he would consider a corrected version of D&C 132. See “Revising D&C Section 132” from Dec. 12, 2015.

However the movement associated with him dropped D&C 132 from the scriptures, by vote, because of its problems. And a new revelation about marriage replaces it in the new set of scriptures- see T&C 157:33-43. It states that marriage was intended to be one man and one woman as in the example given to us of Adam and Eve. And the Lord commands a man to have one wife and no concubines.

So those are my thoughts.

I would not know the name Denver Snuffer if it wasn’t for this forum. When I inquired to the Lord about this man, I didn’t receive a yea or nay. I then tried to read this man’s words to judge the fruit, I would fall asleep. Excellent sleeping aid.

The only answer I continue to receive is stick to the words in the standard works and as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, that includes the BOM, D&C, Pearl of great Price.

D&C 132 is so much more then polygamy. If someone talks about 132 and only talks about polygamy, they are of the spirit of contention.

If you had listened to or read the man’s words, you would know that he also says there is so much more to D&C 132 than polygamy.

I read what you said about him, I was supporting his opinion……

[Wolfwoman]

I would not know the name Denver Snuffer if it wasn’t for this forum. When I inquired to the Lord about this man, I didn’t receive a yea or nay. I then tried to read this man’s words to judge the fruit, I would fall asleep. Excellent sleeping aid.

The only answer I continue to receive is stick to the words in the standard works and as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, that includes the BOM, D&C, Pearl of great Price.

D&C 132 is so much more then polygamy. If someone talks about 132 and only talks about polygamy, they are of the spirit of contention.

If you had listened to or read the man’s words, you would know that he also says there is so much more to D&C 132 than polygamy.

I read what you said about him, I was supporting his opinion……

Oh good!

[HereWeGo]

I might take Snuffer a lot more seriously, if he gave up his Babylonian profession, and quit practicing law. Until that happens, I'll probably remain pretty skeptical.

My understanding is that he stopped practicing law this month.