Questions for Denver followers or those that left the DS movement

[Grassland]

Denver recently made a post about being in Christ's family. See his latest post: https://denversnuffer.com/2023/04/christs-family/

In the first paragraph he touts how only his scriptures are the ones the Lord accepts. See Denver's words below:

Throughout the Book of Mormon the theme of being “numbered among” a specific covenant group is repeated. In 1 Ne. 3:25 Nephi’s great vision includes this promise (and prophecy): “And it shall come to pass that if the gentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God in that day that he shall manifest himself unto them in word and also in power, in very deed, unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks, and harden not their hearts against the Lamb of God, they shall be numbered among the seed of thy father. Yea, they shall be numbered among the house of Israel[.]” (Quoting from the Restoration Edition of the Scriptures. All other quotes cite to that version of the scriptures–the only one which has been approved by the Lord.)

Then he goes on to build a case that you had better have taken the covenant he (Denver) offered or else you have no promise. No matter how awesome you are - you had to raise your arm to the square and say that you accept what Denver is offering. You can read the post and see what you think.

I feel like Denver is literally LDS 2.0. Denver is basically saying: Take what I offer or you don't get salvation at all. Period.

Even though Joseph Smith declared the Book of Mormon as the most correct book - Denver got it right-er than JS. So now that Denver figured it out, now we must raise our arm to the square and accept that newer version brought to you buy...not Denver. But a committee. A scripture committee. Did anyone read passing the heavenly gift? I'm pretty sure most of that book is calling out the trouble with the church's committees. I knew other men on the Scripture committee who were committing serious sin but somehow that didn't matter to the Lord when He needed to bring about a perfect book. More perfect than JS could do.

Another odd thing - Denver was able to see the Lord via the old book of Mormon. Odd that now Jesus is like, "NOPE!"

So, my question is: why do we need to use the restoration scriptures or be damned and accept them by covenant or be damned? Why do you need to build a Temple when YE ARE the Temple??

And apparently Denver doesn't know there are a helluva lot of other Christians out there who will never hear of these new and improved scriptures or covenant and they're going to hell too.

How are you guys buying this koolaide????

I don't see Jesus with Denver anymore. Though I once did. Once the new scriptures took paramount importance and the covenant was tied to so many things, it got a bit creepy.

Thoughts?

[Silver Pie]

This is my take on all things Denver:

God sent him to give a series of 10 lectures over the course of a year to set in order the church (not the LDS Church, but the true followers of Christ who had been led astray by the loss of much of what Joseph Smith was teaching during his life). After that, he was to focus on nonLDS Christians. He was sent as a true messenger from God.

During the 10 lectures, he said - ad nauseum - not to trust him, not to put him between us and God, to put no man between us and God-including Denver, and similar messages using different words.

For my part, I believed him and worked really hard to change my heart and mind to rely on no human for knowledge and salvation. I could see that, initially, I had transferred my fealty to Monson to him, but because God had told me Denver was the man sent to warn us of destruction if we didn't repent, I believed what was said about discarding him.

[Silver Pie]

What I see happening after that is that a group of people wanted to make a set of scriptures as accurate at possible. At one point, one of them wanted to discard D&C 20, and was told that if they did that they needed a replacement (purported to have been Denver, but I don't know if that was true or just a rumor). No one wanted to do it, so it was put on him. He did the best he could. When the first set of scriptures were shared, there was an uproar. "Who the hell is Jeff Savage?" was the demand and cry. You see, too many of them needed "a name" for them to believe there was any right to write something. I won't go into that fiasco further.

When the scriptures were as complete as they could make them (sans what was now called the Guide and Standard), instead of asking God themselves if it was good enough, the scripture committee asked Denver to ask God - repeating the error ignoring the advice to not put a man between themselves and God. The result of that was "a prayer for covenant" and "an answer for covenant" (I may not have the words exactly right), which resulted in the Boise covenant to sacrifice - not by sacrifice because none had actually been made by the group at large (though the scripture committee could be considered to make sacrifices).

[Silver Pie]

Then, at the end of the Guide and Standard fiasco, a group of people pushed through their version (initially, they claimed that it was required for everyone in the movement to agree for a G&S to be accepted, but when they pushed theirs through [and many people had long been told by God to step back. I was. He told me to step back and let them duke it out. Unfortunately, I did comment on one blog post about it, but for the most part did what I'd been told. Others were just tired of the whole thing], they did an about face and essentially accused everyone of apostasy (or wickedness or some such criticism) who would not support their version). Their version consisted solely of words from Joseph Smith or Denver Snuffer, effectively doing what Denver had warned against during the 10 lectures.

I believe God gives people what they insist on and even though Denver may just view himself as a regular Joe, a lot of people view him as the ultimate Voice. I believe the covenant was put there because people wanted to be led slightly off the path, but God was willing to bless them if they accepted the covenant and did their part. And I suppose there are several in the movement that some view as authoritative, whose opinions carry more weight than the ordinary person.

I have been listening to the 2nd lecture - Faith - over and over again lately. In it, Denver stressed that covenants need to be made BY sacrifice, not TO sacrifice. In other words, you sacrifice and God tells you you have a covenant. This isn't what I see happening here.

As for the scriptures being the only ones God accepts, the answer to the prayer said they were acceptable to him even though there were still some things wrong with them. What the scripture committee did was look for everything they could find that Joseph wrote or said about the Bible, and put it into the Bible (and also modernized the language). I think they did a great service because even the former RLDS's Bible had been changed by them, and didn't contain all JS had changed or said in talks.

[Silver Pie]

I do listen most of the time when I hear Denver has given a talk, but sometimes it takes me a while - and it's laziness, really. What is he going to say about heaven that I don't know because God hasn't told me yet? That's the wrong attitude and I'm overcoming it. And the more I overcome, the less interested I am in what Denver has to say.

His preaching to us was supposed to end at the end of the 10th lecture, then we were supposed to take that and get our own relationship with God. I honestly believe that, so am listening to the lectures over and over to glean what God wants me to know from them.

As far as your concerns about the covenant and the scriptures, go to God about it. You can get a covenant with God if you are humble, and all the other things the Book of Mormon says to be and do, until he reaches down and communicates with you stronger and stronger.

The Book of Mormon the LDS Church publishes has plenty in it to study and search out. The JST Bible has enough in it to tell you to look to Christ.

You do what God tells you to do, and don't worry about what Denver presently is or is not doing or saying. He should be ignored except for the 10 lectures - unless God tells you to pay attention to something he's doing or saying.

[Telavian]

I like the concept of Denver and what he represents. However far too many people are caught up in him and are essentially switching from one cult to another.
I find it terribly strange that Denver says the LDS church had authority until they excommunicated him. That event caused the LDS church to lose their authority.
Honestly, anyone who says this is elevating themselves to the level of God. Much better people were excommunicated before Denver and many more will be after Denver.

Like was mentioned earlier, I think God asks certain people to do certain works like Denver or Rob Smith have, however after their work they continue past the time and start to build their own little kingdoms. They are under the impression that God wants them to be doing this or that without realizing they are way off the mark.

The scriptures are the Iron rod and nothing else will get us to God.

[Wolfwoman]

Denver recently made a post about being in Christ's family. See his latest post: https://denversnuffer.com/2023/04/christs-family/

In the first paragraph he touts how only his scriptures are the ones the Lord accepts. See Denver's words below:

Throughout the Book of Mormon the theme of being “numbered among” a specific covenant group is repeated. In 1 Ne. 3:25 Nephi’s great vision includes this promise (and prophecy): “And it shall come to pass that if the gentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God in that day that he shall manifest himself unto them in word and also in power, in very deed, unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks, and harden not their hearts against the Lamb of God, they shall be numbered among the seed of thy father. Yea, they shall be numbered among the house of Israel[.]” (Quoting from the Restoration Edition of the Scriptures. All other quotes cite to that version of the scriptures–the only one which has been approved by the Lord.)

Then he goes on to build a case that you had better have taken the covenant he (Denver) offered or else you have no promise. No matter how awesome you are - you had to raise your arm to the square and say that you accept what Denver is offering. You can read the post and see what you think.

I feel like Denver is literally LDS 2.0. Denver is basically saying: Take what I offer or you don't get salvation at all. Period.

Even though Joseph Smith declared the Book of Mormon as the most correct book - Denver got it right-er than JS. So now that Denver figured it out, now we must raise our arm to the square and accept that newer version brought to you buy...not Denver. But a committee. A scripture committee. Did anyone read passing the heavenly gift? I'm pretty sure most of that book is calling out the trouble with the church's committees. I knew other men on the Scripture committee who were committing serious sin but somehow that didn't matter to the Lord when He needed to bring about a perfect book. More perfect than JS could do.

Another odd thing - Denver was able to see the Lord via the old book of Mormon. Odd that now Jesus is like, "NOPE!"

So, my question is: why do we need to use the restoration scriptures or be damned and accept them by covenant or be damned? Why do you need to build a Temple when YE ARE the Temple??

And apparently Denver doesn't know there are a helluva lot of other Christians out there who will never hear of these new and improved scriptures or covenant and they're going to hell too.

How are you guys buying this koolaide????

I don't see Jesus with Denver anymore. Though I once did. Once the new scriptures took paramount importance and the covenant was tied to so many things, it got a bit creepy.

Thoughts?

So I think you haven’t read or listened to much of Denver’s stuff?

He’s not saying that no other Christians or LDS people or “good people of the earth” will receive salvation. He even stated in one of those ten talks that if you’re LDS you can survive the Lord’s second coming and not be burned by his presence. But you WON’T survive it if you are “following the prophet”, idolizing men, etc.

I’m not sure if you were speaking metaphorically, but there is no raising your right arm to the square to accept the covenant.

If we are the temple, and there is to be no other earthly temple built, do you believe Joseph Smith was wrong to build a temple? And what do you make of the scriptures talking about temples?

I don’t believe Denver is saying that Jesus won’t appear to someone who isn’t part of Denver’s group. In fact I think he believes there are other groups of people out there whom the Lord is working with.

From what I can tell, Denver believes there are varying levels of salvation. It’s not just a Heaven or Hell thing. (Similar to LDS.)

If you’d like to tell me by private message more about your friend who was committing serious sins while on the scripture committee, I would appreciate it. I don’t have any close family or friends in the movement to discuss these things with. I heard rumors at the time. But that’s it. Just rumors and whispering. And then one week, the scripture committee announced so and so wouldn’t be working with them anymore and then - Sayonara! I can only surmise that was your friend. I was surprised at the time that they put his actual name out there for all to see, given the rumors. But I don’t remember who it was now since I had never known him or heard his name before that.

I have to say it’s been an interesting experience. And building Zion is hard. Really hard. We don’t know how to do it. At least I don’t. My family and friends are still stuck in idolatry in the LDS church (and I still attend). My experience with Denver and his group (never met him in person actually, though I did attend the tenth talk) has been… well weird. Or interesting. Depending on what connotation you want to put on it. There have been weird, weird, strange, bizarre, wrong ideas, teachings and ordinances put out there by some. But there are many small groups, all around the world, and as you know, there is no central governing body. With possibly the exception of Denver, though he says he is not creating an office or position for anyone to fill after he is gone. So anyway, someone else’s group out there could be totally different from what I have experienced. In fact, many have complained in the past that they don’t hear what’s “going on”. So I think he is allowing groups to do their own thing and govern themselves and pass or fail the tests put before them. So back to building Zion. It seems nearly impossible to me at this moment. But I know the Lord can do it. But we as his people need to “do it” too. And we seem to be failing. It does seem impossible to me without a leader. There are too many differences of opinion, too much infighting, too much ignorance, too much pride, too many power hungry people, too many sexual predators. I hope some group can do it some day.

[Wolfwoman]

I forgot to mention. I also think it’s incorrect for people to say that if you don’t see Jesus in your lifetime, then you won’t be saved (or receive one of those levels of salvation). Jesus made it clear that there would be some on his right hand who served him, visited him in prison, etc. and never knew that it was him (they were serving their fellow man).

[BuriedTartaria]

I think he is a servant with a message from heaven but I think you raise perfectly fair points and there should be a venue to discuss them for people willing to have these conversations without getting angry over all of it. I'm not married to the idea of an infallible Denver. He's said he can fail.

While I feel he has given a better explanation on existence, marriage, and eternal progression than I've ever found before and that he has elaborated on scripture in a powerful way (I personally have never felt scripture explained in such profound way as I have reading his material), I do have questions and concerns. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I know they come to mind.

I do find some of the original post to be reminiscent of conversation and accusation that was raised towards Joseph to question his claims. I see a parallel in the points being made to question Denver's alleged prophetic call that I think were probably raised against Joseph (inconsistency, making the way too narrow and too much about being part of Denver's group or Joseph's group).


The infidelity involved by people who worked on the scriptures project is disheartening and I'm glad that at least we know it occurred rather than it being buried. I really do see your points and where you are coming from but not as much on your issue with the Restoration Edition of the Book of Mormon. The current LDS Book of Mormon not being an entirely 1:1 version of what came from Joseph's mouth seems to be a fair acknowledgement. That very original manuscript, isn't it like something like only 25% of it is still readable, when we compare it to the printer's manuscript, isn't it clear that from the original to the printer's manuscript you can see there's about a handful of at least punctuation errors on every page? I don't think Denver or the committee added dozens of lines of words or paragraphs of new Book of Mormon material in their version.

Something I do find concerning in Denver's circle of Mormonism is the repeated comments he has to make about how the forming of an actual institutional church will not happen and such an organization would ruin things. Who is it that likes Denver's message and yet is pushing for some sort of formal institution? Denver has to keep shutting down the idea.


But at the end of the day, if Denver hasn't seen the Lord, if he hasn't been ministered to by a variety of angels, his message and movement will fizzle out, right?

[BuriedTartaria]

Here's a concern/question I had while recently reading some entries in the Restoration Edition scriptures found in Denver's movement.

This is under the entry of Adultery:

When forced away by the man she loves, a woman is then adulterated by the act of the man. He is accountable for the treachery involved in dissolving the marriage that the woman wanted and forcing her into the relation with either no one or with another man. In either case, it is adulterating the marriage which she had with him. He is accountable for that uncharitable, unkind, and unjustified treatment of the woman. On the other hand, when she has lost affection for him and the union has become hollow and without love, then the marriage is dead, and continuation of the relation is a farce. It is not a marriage. In fact, it is a pretense and an abomination unworthy of preservation. It will not endure.

So if a woman is done with her marriage, she no longer feels that love, that spark, the marriage is dead and to keep carrying it on is a farce. If a man "puts away" his wife and moves past her, or forces her away using language from the entry on this, he is sinning and causing her to commit adultery. Why is it appropriate for the woman to acknowledge when the love is gone and to move forward ending the farce of marriage, but if a man acknowledges the same thing and puts his wife away, or divorces, it's a sin?

I like Denver, I like HIS (what you can pull outside of this entry of the committee's scriptures) interpretation on marriage (it's about angels and the Lord recognizing their own, seeing beauty and real love in a couple and deciding to preserve it after this life, suffering through a dead marriage mocks what marriage is), but this entry is so overwhelmingly skewed in the favor of a woman's happiness and freedom to find love and a good marriage while being very unequal in allowing the man to have the same sort of freedom that it comes off as wrong. This just doesn't sound fair.

[BuriedTartaria]

Here's another Denver related thing that leaves me a bit puzzled and it could just be I have a lack of knowledge of language used in the Bible (I'm fairly certain what I'm about to quote isn't language used in the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith material, but perhaps it's from the Bible)

This is from Denver providing a limited interpretation (interpreting it as the Lord directed to him) on a vision he had back in 2003. To some this may come across as nit-picking, but I think it's worth addressing. So Denver says, "For this was the day of judgment which the Lord had in His heart, and he was now come to preach His own sermon, clothed in red, and to deliver those who waited on Him and to convict and condemn those who had not." (T&C 160: 4)

"preach his own sermon" is pretty identical to an old Brigham quote: "When the testimony of the Elders ceases to be given, and the Lord says to them, “Come home; I will now preach my own sermons to the nations of the earth,” [Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, p. 123, July 15, 1860.]

Maybe language relating to the Lord preaching his own sermons stems from somewhere in the Bible (which would void my uncertainty on this) or maybe Joseph said it somewhere, but from what I can tell, that general statement originates from Brigham. I know Denver sort of evolved (and I don't necessarily hold that against him) on his views of Brigham but it seems like for a while Denver has suggested Joseph was killed by an inner circle and at THE VERY LEAST least implied or suggested Brigham disliked Joseph publicly speaking against polygamy.

So my concern/question is, why is the Lord (while guiding Denver on providing an account of a vision) pulling from a (topically relevant) quote from Brigham Young who at the very least was a pretty misguided and most certainly non-prophetic leader of a largely condemned group? Even if Denver's understanding of Brigham in 2003 is pretty different from Denver's understanding and view of Brigham in 2015, if the general idea that Brigham is not who/what the LDS institution says he is, and if he is something akin to what Denver frames him as, is the Lord going to use quotes from Brigham in a vision of the Second Coming that will eventually be canonized in scripture for a loose-knit group of believers that believe he was definitely not a prophet and in their view definitely not a very good person?

Does that "the Lord will preach his own sermons" statement not originate from Brigham? I'm really not trying to nit-pick or be overly critical. I really do appreciate and am rooting for Denver's message to be true. I think he is spot on with corrupt, institutions and institutionalized history. But I believe being objective is important. I try to hold every nook and cranny of Mormonism I investigate to the same standard of questioning I'd hold against the LDS institution

[HereWeGo]

Here's a concern/question I had while recently reading some entries in the Restoration Edition scriptures found in Denver's movement.

This is under the entry of Adultery:

I believe you are quoting from the book called "A Glossary of Gospel Terms". I believe that the scripture group, which put together the Restoration Scriptures, decided to include this book somewhere in their scriptures. I bought the paperback from Amazon years ago and just now pulled it off from my bookshelf. I can't find anywhere where in the book that indicated that Denver was involved. Denver apparently looked through the book and was asked to write the Forward to the book. Denver also had minimal involvement with the Restoration Scriptures Project. The Project later asked him to present the scriptures to the Lord and see if the Lord would approve of their effort. The response was that it was good enough for His purposes.

I had thought that Denver had written this book. I was corrected that the majority was written and compiled by a man whose name I didn't recognize and didn't write down. A look through the footnotes at the end shows that the guy who compiled the book did extensive quoting from Denver's blog as well as scriptures and quotes from other sources. The Copyright holder of the book is "Restoration Scriptures Foundation".

I don't agree with everything in the Glossary and don't consider it to be the final word. I don't consider everything Denver says as the final word either. The final word is the direct revelation we are supposed to get from the Lord. Without that direct revelation from the Lord, we will flounder. I pay attention to what Denver says and take it to the Lord for His final word.

[Wolfwoman]

Here's another Denver related thing that leaves me a bit puzzled and it could just be I have a lack of knowledge of language used in the Bible (I'm fairly certain what I'm about to quote isn't language used in the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith material, but perhaps it's from the Bible)

This is from Denver providing a limited interpretation (interpreting it as the Lord directed to him) on a vision he had back in 2003. To some this may come across as nit-picking, but I think it's worth addressing. So Denver says, "For this was the day of judgment which the Lord had in His heart, and he was now come to preach His own sermon, clothed in red, and to deliver those who waited on Him and to convict and condemn those who had not." (T&C 160: 4)

"preach his own sermon" is pretty identical to an old Brigham quote: "When the testimony of the Elders ceases to be given, and the Lord says to them, “Come home; I will now preach my own sermons to the nations of the earth,” [Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, p. 123, July 15, 1860.]

Maybe language relating to the Lord preaching his own sermons stems from somewhere in the Bible (which would void my uncertainty on this) or maybe Joseph said it somewhere, but from what I can tell, that general statement originates from Brigham. I know Denver sort of evolved (and I don't necessarily hold that against him) on his views of Brigham but it seems like for a while Denver has suggested Joseph was killed by an inner circle and at THE VERY LEAST least implied or suggested Brigham disliked Joseph publicly speaking against polygamy.

So my concern/question is, why is the Lord (while guiding Denver on providing an account of a vision) pulling from a (topically relevant) quote from Brigham Young who at the very least was a pretty misguided and most certainly non-prophetic leader of a largely condemned group? Even if Denver's understanding of Brigham in 2003 is pretty different from Denver's understanding and view of Brigham in 2015, if the general idea that Brigham is not who/what the LDS institution says he is, and if he is something akin to what Denver frames him as, is the Lord going to use quotes from Brigham in a vision of the Second Coming that will eventually be canonized in scripture for a loose-knit group of believers that believe he was definitely not a prophet and in their view definitely not a very good person?

Does that "the Lord will preach his own sermons" statement not originate from Brigham? I'm really not trying to nit-pick or be overly critical. I really do appreciate and am rooting for Denver's message to be true. I think he is spot on with corrupt, institutions and institutionalized history. But I believe being objective is important. I try to hold every nook and cranny of Mormonism I investigate to the same standard of questioning I'd hold against the LDS institution

I don’t know, but it made me think of this from D&C 88:
“And after your testimony comes wrath and indignation upon the people, for after your testimony comes the testimony of earthquakes that shall cause groanings in the midst of her: and men shall fall upon the ground and shall not be able to stand, and also comes the testimony of the voice of thunderings, and the voice of lightnings, and the voice of tempests, and the voice of the waves of the sea heaving themselves beyond their bounds. And all things shall be in commotion, and surely men’s hearts shall fail them, for fear shall come upon all people.”

If he got it from Brigham Young, it doesn’t bother me. There are some things that Brigham Young said that I agree with. And I don’t see him or anyone as 100% bad. None of us is 100% good or 100% bad, but a mixture of both.

[jdt]

Denver recently made a post about being in Christ's family. See his latest post: https://denversnuffer.com/2023/04/christs-family/

In the first paragraph he touts how only his scriptures are the ones the Lord accepts. See Denver's words below:

Throughout the Book of Mormon the theme of being “numbered among” a specific covenant group is repeated. In 1 Ne. 3:25 Nephi’s great vision includes this promise (and prophecy): “And it shall come to pass that if the gentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God in that day that he shall manifest himself unto them in word and also in power, in very deed, unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks, and harden not their hearts against the Lamb of God, they shall be numbered among the seed of thy father. Yea, they shall be numbered among the house of Israel[.]” (Quoting from the Restoration Edition of the Scriptures. All other quotes cite to that version of the scriptures–the only one which has been approved by the Lord.)

Then he goes on to build a case that you had better have taken the covenant he (Denver) offered or else you have no promise. No matter how awesome you are - you had to raise your arm to the square and say that you accept what Denver is offering. You can read the post and see what you think.

I feel like Denver is literally LDS 2.0. Denver is basically saying: Take what I offer or you don't get salvation at all. Period.

Even though Joseph Smith declared the Book of Mormon as the most correct book - Denver got it right-er than JS. So now that Denver figured it out, now we must raise our arm to the square and accept that newer version brought to you buy...not Denver. But a committee. A scripture committee. Did anyone read passing the heavenly gift? I'm pretty sure most of that book is calling out the trouble with the church's committees. I knew other men on the Scripture committee who were committing serious sin but somehow that didn't matter to the Lord when He needed to bring about a perfect book. More perfect than JS could do.

Another odd thing - Denver was able to see the Lord via the old book of Mormon. Odd that now Jesus is like, "NOPE!"

So, my question is: why do we need to use the restoration scriptures or be damned and accept them by covenant or be damned? Why do you need to build a Temple when YE ARE the Temple??

And apparently Denver doesn't know there are a helluva lot of other Christians out there who will never hear of these new and improved scriptures or covenant and they're going to hell too.

How are you guys buying this koolaide????

I don't see Jesus with Denver anymore. Though I once did. Once the new scriptures took paramount importance and the covenant was tied to so many things, it got a bit creepy.

Thoughts?

The primary purpose of the restoration edition of the scriptures was to return to the best source material from Joseph Smith. This includes all the translations of the Bible, the earliest extant text of the Book of Mormon, and removing any else's alterations of Joseph's revelations. I would hardly call it "more perfect than JS could do", it was trying to get back to what JS did. Even with all that, the Answer to the Prayer for Covenant says in p12:

The records you have gathered as scriptures yet lack many of my words, have errors throughout, and contain things that are not of me, because the records you used in your labors have not been maintained nor guarded against the cunning plans of false brethren who have been deceived by Satan.

That is hardly a claim of perfection. But at the same time, what is the alternative? Do you prefer scriptures that omit some of the JST's, or include alterations to revelations by scribes not authorized by Joseph? For me, I will take the best of what we have.
Joseph saw the Lord without the Book of Mormon, only the Bible. I don't think that takes anything away from the Book of Mormon or Joseph's revelations. Again, I will take all of what the Lord has said in my effort to seek and know Him. I am grateful for all His words. And if He commands us to build a house to His name, I am not going to tell to Him no thanks because I am the temple. Temple worship was a critical part of what Joseph was in the process of restoring.
I don't know. I am still seeing this as a continuation of what Joseph was doing, not supplanting it.

[NowWhat]

I haven't read all of these posts. But I have to say that I LOVE my fellowships. (We attend several for Sacrament and for scripture study.) They are different in some ways, but the one constant is a love for Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith and The Book of Mormon. They know there have been difficulties. Heck, my own dogs can't even get along, and I personally think dogs are holier than people! I love the free exchange of ideas. I love not having anyone higher than anyone else--no one in red seats. I love that geography doesn't determine where we attend. I love that there's no one between us and the Lord. I love the questing nature of those participating. I don't hear a lot about Denver at the meetings. We just find common ground where we can. And drink wine (if we want) for Sacrament. Barefoot, some of us. In parks, sometimes. The LDS Church was, I swear, in my very cells. Leaving has been painful beyond words. But not anymore. Not anymore.

[jdt]

Here's a concern/question I had while recently reading some entries in the Restoration Edition scriptures found in Denver's movement.

This is under the entry of Adultery:

When forced away by the man she loves, a woman is then adulterated by the act of the man. He is accountable for the treachery involved in dissolving the marriage that the woman wanted and forcing her into the relation with either no one or with another man. In either case, it is adulterating the marriage which she had with him. He is accountable for that uncharitable, unkind, and unjustified treatment of the woman. On the other hand, when she has lost affection for him and the union has become hollow and without love, then the marriage is dead, and continuation of the relation is a farce. It is not a marriage. In fact, it is a pretense and an abomination unworthy of preservation. It will not endure.

So if a woman is done with her marriage, she no longer feels that love, that spark, the marriage is dead and to keep carrying it on is a farce. If a man "puts away" his wife and moves past her, or forces her away using language from the entry on this, he is sinning and causing her to commit adultery. Why is it appropriate for the woman to acknowledge when the love is gone and to move forward ending the farce of marriage, but if a man acknowledges the same thing and puts his wife away, or divorces, it's a sin?

I like Denver, I like HIS (what you can pull outside of this entry of the committee's scriptures) interpretation on marriage (it's about angels and the Lord recognizing their own, seeing beauty and real love in a couple and deciding to preserve it after this life, suffering through a dead marriage mocks what marriage is), but this entry is so overwhelmingly skewed in the favor of a woman's happiness and freedom to find love and a good marriage while being very unequal in allowing the man to have the same sort of freedom that it comes off as wrong. This just doesn't sound fair.

The quote in question originated from an earlier blog post: https://denversnuffer.com/2010/10/3-nephi-12-31-32/
I think it is worth a read as it gives a little more context.

For my part, I think the statement recognizes some of the fundamental differences between men and women. Pregnancy, birth, and nursing all fall more or less exclusively on women. In general when it comes to child rearing, the burden disproportionately falls upon women. Is it fair? That is largely an irrelevant question. It simply is. Before the last 50 years or so (due to government intervention), divorce was very devastating for women. A man could be largely unaffected, maybe even coming out ahead financially, with fewer mouths to feed. Meanwhile women had to raise children and somehow find a job (which can be difficult if jobs are dependent upon physical strength, which is less of a thing now but a major factor in human history).
Men and women also deal with relationships differently as well. You can lookup the statistics around how pre-marital sexual partners impact divorce rates for men vs women. Again, the impact of a divorce falls heavier on women than on men. Again, is that fair? It just is. I think the point is that in a society where women suffer far more under a divorce, it is a cruel thing for a man to lightly initiate a divorce. On the flip side, in the same society, if a woman feels that she is probably better off alone or as a single mom, that marriage is in a really bad state.
It should be noted that government actions have changed this up quite a bit. I hear that women now initiate 80% of divorces in America. I imagine a big part of that is because courts now greatly favor women in divorce settlements, giving large amounts of child support and/or alimony. Does that impact things in the eyes of heaven? IMO, the answer is yes. Somewhat. I think it is rare for a woman to want out of a good marriage, but they are far more likely to want out of middling marriages.
Personally, I wish the government would get out of the marriage business. I feel that it was a neat trick to redefine marriage into something they controlled. They subtly moved it from something covenantal with serious vows made before God, into a governmental contract with a massive legal system that greatly enriches lawyers.

[jdt]

Here's another Denver related thing that leaves me a bit puzzled and it could just be I have a lack of knowledge of language used in the Bible (I'm fairly certain what I'm about to quote isn't language used in the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith material, but perhaps it's from the Bible)

This is from Denver providing a limited interpretation (interpreting it as the Lord directed to him) on a vision he had back in 2003. To some this may come across as nit-picking, but I think it's worth addressing. So Denver says, "For this was the day of judgment which the Lord had in His heart, and he was now come to preach His own sermon, clothed in red, and to deliver those who waited on Him and to convict and condemn those who had not." (T&C 160: 4)

"preach his own sermon" is pretty identical to an old Brigham quote: "When the testimony of the Elders ceases to be given, and the Lord says to them, “Come home; I will now preach my own sermons to the nations of the earth,” [Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, p. 123, July 15, 1860.]

Maybe language relating to the Lord preaching his own sermons stems from somewhere in the Bible (which would void my uncertainty on this) or maybe Joseph said it somewhere, but from what I can tell, that general statement originates from Brigham. I know Denver sort of evolved (and I don't necessarily hold that against him) on his views of Brigham but it seems like for a while Denver has suggested Joseph was killed by an inner circle and at THE VERY LEAST least implied or suggested Brigham disliked Joseph publicly speaking against polygamy.

So my concern/question is, why is the Lord (while guiding Denver on providing an account of a vision) pulling from a (topically relevant) quote from Brigham Young who at the very least was a pretty misguided and most certainly non-prophetic leader of a largely condemned group? Even if Denver's understanding of Brigham in 2003 is pretty different from Denver's understanding and view of Brigham in 2015, if the general idea that Brigham is not who/what the LDS institution says he is, and if he is something akin to what Denver frames him as, is the Lord going to use quotes from Brigham in a vision of the Second Coming that will eventually be canonized in scripture for a loose-knit group of believers that believe he was definitely not a prophet and in their view definitely not a very good person?

Does that "the Lord will preach his own sermons" statement not originate from Brigham? I'm really not trying to nit-pick or be overly critical. I really do appreciate and am rooting for Denver's message to be true. I think he is spot on with corrupt, institutions and institutionalized history. But I believe being objective is important. I try to hold every nook and cranny of Mormonism I investigate to the same standard of questioning I'd hold against the LDS institution

This is speculation on my part, so feel free to dismiss it, but this seems to me to be a counterpoint to the visitations in 3 Nephi, where the Lord went to great extents to emphasize that He was giving the Father's words (or sermon). This seems consistent with the overall nature of this coming being very different from His first coming. Lamb vs Lion, He was killed vs the wicked being destroyed, etc. He is on His own errand now, having done all that the Father asked, and His own sermon will usher in a new era of Earth's history.

[Bronco73idi]

Here's another Denver related thing that leaves me a bit puzzled and it could just be I have a lack of knowledge of language used in the Bible (I'm fairly certain what I'm about to quote isn't language used in the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith material, but perhaps it's from the Bible)

This is from Denver providing a limited interpretation (interpreting it as the Lord directed to him) on a vision he had back in 2003. To some this may come across as nit-picking, but I think it's worth addressing. So Denver says, "For this was the day of judgment which the Lord had in His heart, and he was now come to preach His own sermon, clothed in red, and to deliver those who waited on Him and to convict and condemn those who had not." (T&C 160: 4)

"preach his own sermon" is pretty identical to an old Brigham quote: "When the testimony of the Elders ceases to be given, and the Lord says to them, “Come home; I will now preach my own sermons to the nations of the earth,” [Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, p. 123, July 15, 1860.]

Maybe language relating to the Lord preaching his own sermons stems from somewhere in the Bible (which would void my uncertainty on this) or maybe Joseph said it somewhere, but from what I can tell, that general statement originates from Brigham. I know Denver sort of evolved (and I don't necessarily hold that against him) on his views of Brigham but it seems like for a while Denver has suggested Joseph was killed by an inner circle and at THE VERY LEAST least implied or suggested Brigham disliked Joseph publicly speaking against polygamy.

So my concern/question is, why is the Lord (while guiding Denver on providing an account of a vision) pulling from a (topically relevant) quote from Brigham Young who at the very least was a pretty misguided and most certainly non-prophetic leader of a largely condemned group? Even if Denver's understanding of Brigham in 2003 is pretty different from Denver's understanding and view of Brigham in 2015, if the general idea that Brigham is not who/what the LDS institution says he is, and if he is something akin to what Denver frames him as, is the Lord going to use quotes from Brigham in a vision of the Second Coming that will eventually be canonized in scripture for a loose-knit group of believers that believe he was definitely not a prophet and in their view definitely not a very good person?

Does that "the Lord will preach his own sermons" statement not originate from Brigham? I'm really not trying to nit-pick or be overly critical. I really do appreciate and am rooting for Denver's message to be true. I think he is spot on with corrupt, institutions and institutionalized history. But I believe being objective is important. I try to hold every nook and cranny of Mormonism I investigate to the same standard of questioning I'd hold against the LDS institution

This is speculation on my part, so feel free to dismiss it, but this seems to me to be a counterpoint to the visitations in 3 Nephi, where the Lord went to great extents to emphasize that He was giving the Father's words (or sermon). This seems consistent with the overall nature of this coming being very different from His first coming. Lamb vs Lion, He was killed vs the wicked being destroyed, etc. He is on His own errand now, having done all that the Father asked, and His own sermon will usher in a new era of Earth's history.

Slight tweak. Ancient of Days preaches the destructive sermons and then gives it to his only begotten son to reign. Daniel 7:9-11

[Wolfwoman]

Here's another Denver related thing that leaves me a bit puzzled and it could just be I have a lack of knowledge of language used in the Bible (I'm fairly certain what I'm about to quote isn't language used in the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith material, but perhaps it's from the Bible)

This is from Denver providing a limited interpretation (interpreting it as the Lord directed to him) on a vision he had back in 2003. To some this may come across as nit-picking, but I think it's worth addressing. So Denver says, "For this was the day of judgment which the Lord had in His heart, and he was now come to preach His own sermon, clothed in red, and to deliver those who waited on Him and to convict and condemn those who had not." (T&C 160: 4)

"preach his own sermon" is pretty identical to an old Brigham quote: "When the testimony of the Elders ceases to be given, and the Lord says to them, “Come home; I will now preach my own sermons to the nations of the earth,” [Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, p. 123, July 15, 1860.]

Maybe language relating to the Lord preaching his own sermons stems from somewhere in the Bible (which would void my uncertainty on this) or maybe Joseph said it somewhere, but from what I can tell, that general statement originates from Brigham. I know Denver sort of evolved (and I don't necessarily hold that against him) on his views of Brigham but it seems like for a while Denver has suggested Joseph was killed by an inner circle and at THE VERY LEAST least implied or suggested Brigham disliked Joseph publicly speaking against polygamy.

So my concern/question is, why is the Lord (while guiding Denver on providing an account of a vision) pulling from a (topically relevant) quote from Brigham Young who at the very least was a pretty misguided and most certainly non-prophetic leader of a largely condemned group? Even if Denver's understanding of Brigham in 2003 is pretty different from Denver's understanding and view of Brigham in 2015, if the general idea that Brigham is not who/what the LDS institution says he is, and if he is something akin to what Denver frames him as, is the Lord going to use quotes from Brigham in a vision of the Second Coming that will eventually be canonized in scripture for a loose-knit group of believers that believe he was definitely not a prophet and in their view definitely not a very good person?

Does that "the Lord will preach his own sermons" statement not originate from Brigham? I'm really not trying to nit-pick or be overly critical. I really do appreciate and am rooting for Denver's message to be true. I think he is spot on with corrupt, institutions and institutionalized history. But I believe being objective is important. I try to hold every nook and cranny of Mormonism I investigate to the same standard of questioning I'd hold against the LDS institution

This is speculation on my part, so feel free to dismiss it, but this seems to me to be a counterpoint to the visitations in 3 Nephi, where the Lord went to great extents to emphasize that He was giving the Father's words (or sermon). This seems consistent with the overall nature of this coming being very different from His first coming. Lamb vs Lion, He was killed vs the wicked being destroyed, etc. He is on His own errand now, having done all that the Father asked, and His own sermon will usher in a new era of Earth's history.

Oh that’s a very interesting speculation.

[Grassland]

I like the concept of Denver and what he represents. However far too many people are caught up in him and are essentially switching from one cult to another.
I find it terribly strange that Denver says the LDS church had authority until they excommunicated him. That event caused the LDS church to lose their authority.
Honestly, anyone who says this is elevating themselves to the level of God. Much better people were excommunicated before Denver and many more will be after Denver.

Like was mentioned earlier, I think God asks certain people to do certain works like Denver or Rob Smith have, however after their work they continue past the time and start to build their own little kingdoms. They are under the impression that God wants them to be doing this or that without realizing they are way off the mark.

The scriptures are the Iron rod and nothing else will get us to God.

I really appreciate your response. And that you included Rob Smith in to illustrate your point. When I read Denver and Rob Smith I have continually felt so confused why at one point it was good and then at another point it all felt wrong/off. When you pointed out that God did ask them to do a work at one point but that they continued past the time that opened my mind in a big way! That nailed it for me and made sense of the fog I was in concerning them.

What is hard for me is to see them tout that they are speaking for God (essentially) and to get on board or face some sort of destruction and it just is so aggravating, 1. because it doesn't sound like Jesus at all and, 2. because there are still people who are drinking down everything they have to say.

Why is that? Why do you think they still have tons of followers who hang on their every word?

[Grassland]

I do listen most of the time when I hear Denver has given a talk, but sometimes it takes me a while - and it's laziness, really. What is he going to say about heaven that I don't know because God hasn't told me yet? That's the wrong attitude and I'm overcoming it. And the more I overcome, the less interested I am in what Denver has to say.

His preaching to us was supposed to end at the end of the 10th lecture, then we were supposed to take that and get our own relationship with God. I honestly believe that, so am listening to the lectures over and over to glean what God wants me to know from them.

As far as your concerns about the covenant and the scriptures, go to God about it. You can get a covenant with God if you are humble, and all the other things the Book of Mormon says to be and do, until he reaches down and communicates with you stronger and stronger.

The Book of Mormon the LDS Church publishes has plenty in it to study and search out. The JST Bible has enough in it to tell you to look to Christ.

You do what God tells you to do, and don't worry about what Denver presently is or is not doing or saying. He should be ignored except for the 10 lectures - unless God tells you to pay attention to something he's doing or saying.

I really appreciate your thoughtful response. It answered so many questions for me. Thank you.

[tmac]

I like the concept of Denver and what he represents. However far too many people are caught up in him and are essentially switching from one cult to another.
I find it terribly strange that Denver says the LDS church had authority until they excommunicated him. That event caused the LDS church to lose their authority.
Honestly, anyone who says this is elevating themselves to the level of God. Much better people were excommunicated before Denver and many more will be after Denver.

Like was mentioned earlier, I think God asks certain people to do certain works like Denver or Rob Smith have, however after their work they continue past the time and start to build their own little kingdoms. They are under the impression that God wants them to be doing this or that without realizing they are way off the mark.

The scriptures are the Iron rod and nothing else will get us to God.

I really appreciate your response. And that you included Rob Smith in to illustrate your point. When I read Denver and Rob Smith I have continually felt so confused why at one point it was good and then at another point it all felt wrong/off. When you pointed out that God did ask them to do a work at one point but that they continued past the time that opened my mind in a big way! That nailed it for me and made sense of the fog I was in concerning them.

What is hard for me is to see them tout that they are speaking for God (essentially) and to get on board or face some sort of destruction and it just is so aggravating, 1. because it doesn't sound like Jesus at all and, 2. because there are still people who are drinking down everything they have to say.

Why is that? Why do you think they still have tons of followers who hang on their every word?

On that same score, is it possible that JS and any other possible PSRs have done the same thing — didn’t stop at the end of their assignment — and ran amok going beyond the mark?

[Ymarsakar]

I like the concept of Denver and what he represents. However far too many people are caught up in him and are essentially switching from one cult to another.
I find it terribly strange that Denver says the LDS church had authority until they excommunicated him. That event caused the LDS church to lose their authority.
Honestly, anyone who says this is elevating themselves to the level of God. Much better people were excommunicated before Denver and many more will be after Denver.

Like was mentioned earlier, I think God asks certain people to do certain works like Denver or Rob Smith have, however after their work they continue past the time and start to build their own little kingdoms. They are under the impression that God wants them to be doing this or that without realizing they are way off the mark.

The scriptures are the Iron rod and nothing else will get us to God.

I really appreciate your response. And that you included Rob Smith in to illustrate your point. When I read Denver and Rob Smith I have continually felt so confused why at one point it was good and then at another point it all felt wrong/off. When you pointed out that God did ask them to do a work at one point but that they continued past the time that opened my mind in a big way! That nailed it for me and made sense of the fog I was in concerning them.

What is hard for me is to see them tout that they are speaking for God (essentially) and to get on board or face some sort of destruction and it just is so aggravating, 1. because it doesn't sound like Jesus at all and, 2. because there are still people who are drinking down everything they have to say.

Why is that? Why do you think they still have tons of followers who hang on their every word?

On that same score, is it possible that JS and any other possible PSRs have done the same thing — didn’t stop at the end of their assignment — and ran amok going beyond the mark?

J Smith died before the end of his assignment. So definitely not possible since his assignment wasn't even near its end.

Did Joseph Smith have an ego like everybody else raised in civil society? Sure. He didn't have the internet like we do either.

[Ymarsakar]

I like the concept of Denver and what he represents. However far too many people are caught up in him and are essentially switching from one cult to another.
I find it terribly strange that Denver says the LDS church had authority until they excommunicated him. That event caused the LDS church to lose their authority.
Honestly, anyone who says this is elevating themselves to the level of God. Much better people were excommunicated before Denver and many more will be after Denver.

Like was mentioned earlier, I think God asks certain people to do certain works like Denver or Rob Smith have, however after their work they continue past the time and start to build their own little kingdoms. They are under the impression that God wants them to be doing this or that without realizing they are way off the mark.

The scriptures are the Iron rod and nothing else will get us to God.

I really appreciate your response. And that you included Rob Smith in to illustrate your point. When I read Denver and Rob Smith I have continually felt so confused why at one point it was good and then at another point it all felt wrong/off. When you pointed out that God did ask them to do a work at one point but that they continued past the time that opened my mind in a big way! That nailed it for me and made sense of the fog I was in concerning them.

What is hard for me is to see them tout that they are speaking for God (essentially) and to get on board or face some sort of destruction and it just is so aggravating, 1. because it doesn't sound like Jesus at all and, 2. because there are still people who are drinking down everything they have to say.

Why is that? Why do you think they still have tons of followers who hang on their every word?

Some people desire spiritual truths and work to be handed to them, like a child needs their parents.

If it does not sound like Jeshua, then ask the holy spirit to confirm. If it is healthy for you, you keep doing it. If it is not, then don't. This isn't all that complicated. People asked this about mrna shots right?

Do people think there is somehow a limit to the number of times in their life they can ask the godhead for a personal confirmation? There is not. Ask and the answer will be given to you. Now it may not be immediate and you may miss the message.

[Grassland]

I like the concept of Denver and what he represents. However far too many people are caught up in him and are essentially switching from one cult to another.
I find it terribly strange that Denver says the LDS church had authority until they excommunicated him. That event caused the LDS church to lose their authority.
Honestly, anyone who says this is elevating themselves to the level of God. Much better people were excommunicated before Denver and many more will be after Denver.

Like was mentioned earlier, I think God asks certain people to do certain works like Denver or Rob Smith have, however after their work they continue past the time and start to build their own little kingdoms. They are under the impression that God wants them to be doing this or that without realizing they are way off the mark.

The scriptures are the Iron rod and nothing else will get us to God.

I really appreciate your response. And that you included Rob Smith in to illustrate your point. When I read Denver and Rob Smith I have continually felt so confused why at one point it was good and then at another point it all felt wrong/off. When you pointed out that God did ask them to do a work at one point but that they continued past the time that opened my mind in a big way! That nailed it for me and made sense of the fog I was in concerning them.

What is hard for me is to see them tout that they are speaking for God (essentially) and to get on board or face some sort of destruction and it just is so aggravating, 1. because it doesn't sound like Jesus at all and, 2. because there are still people who are drinking down everything they have to say.

Why is that? Why do you think they still have tons of followers who hang on their every word?

Some people desire spiritual truths and work to be handed to them, like a child needs their parents.

If it does not sound like Jeshua, then ask the holy spirit to confirm. If it is healthy for you, you keep doing it. If it is not, then don't. This isn't all that complicated. People asked this about mrna shots right?

Do people think there is somehow a limit to the number of times in their life they can ask the godhead for a personal confirmation? There is not. Ask and the answer will be given to you. Now it may not be immediate and you may miss the message.

I hear you and you offer truthful advice. I have received my answer but where I come into fog is when I see other people saying Denver (or Rob) are speaking with the Lord. I try not to judge others and look at them as "all being out of the way and that I am the one that is right" (like Denver and Rob do). Because I do that, it means I consider that perhaps there is something I'm missing and I try to understand why, in Denver's case, he has a significant following. Are they all out of they way and deceived or does the Lord have something in mind for them? I have no doubt they are praying to be guided by the Lord. How can I say I am right and they are wrong? Just some questions that go through my mind. I want to understand why some people get the answer to stay with Denver (or Rob) and others are nauseated by what they are saying and doing. I hope I'm making sense.