Denver Snuffer - Patriarchy

[Robert Sinclair]

Ok I understand. I will labor to not post so much as it is not my wish to cause ill will. ♡ ♡

It is my hope that your posts shadow if done with goodwill meant to help and not to harm are left up as well. ♡ ♡

[A Random Phrase]

Thank you for explaining that, Shadow. You make sense and I think you brought up some valid points. It must be frustrating.

[freedomforall]

And just where do we get the words of Christ?

Our understanding of scriptures and whom we follow make all the difference.

In my opinion (which is not worth much), we get His words from scriptures, angels, and people who speak when inspired by the Holy Ghost.

And the second sentence of yours that I quoted above is so true. It does make all the difference. This stuff is not to be taken lightly and I am glad to see how serious you are (even though I don't comment about all of the posts you make in discussions like these, I read many of them and you often bring up very good points).

I thank you for your kind words, and sorry for the delay.

[AI2.0]

Shadow, is it possible that most people (even mods) don't read Robert's posts? I mean, when a person repeats over and over, they become skip-able.

True, and I skip most of his posts too, even the last PM he sent me I didn't read through it. But if the mods can skip his posts then they should skip posts from others too, like Marks. But Mark was banned for sharing his views and his interpretation of scripture (he probably should've ended his posts with a heart and a smiley face). Snuffer threads are deleted but other threads that say the same thing but aimed at the church live on and in high numbers.
At some point Robert becomes spam, which is against forum rules. Even if you agree with him, he's still spamming.

There's a glaring double standard.
Its therapy for me to point it out B-)
We all know I need all the therapy I can get.

And it's not just a double standard. It is proof that this board is controlled by Denver Snuffer sympathizers. I know that will make some angry that I said it, but it's a fact. Any run of the mill LDS message board that discusses the issues of the day and things that affect LDS would have no problem with allowing debate on Denver Snuffer, but not this board. This board deletes threads and shuts down discussion.

It is not because they don't want contention or controversy. Just look at all the posts trying to justify not following the word of wisdom, not paying a full tithe, criticizing church leaders and finding fault with their lifestyles, their tithe paying, etc. Those kinds of threads go untouched, but criticize Denver Snuffer and the thread is deleted. Proof that folks here don't want honest debate regarding his writings, his mission and his movement.

[Thomas]

Shawdow and AI2.0, you are both wrong. I have been warned not to defend Snuffer, on the main forum.

The reason the Snuffer threads have been deleted is to stop the contention. Also, Brian doesn't want this to be a Snuffer forum.

[AI2.0]

Shawdow and AI2.0, you are both wrong. I have been warned not to defend Snuffer, on the main forum.

I don't believe we are wrong. However, I do believe you that you are told not to defend Snuffer on the public board, because they want to shut down the discussions with the 'unbelievers'. I'm sure Denver Snuffer is the main focus of the private area, where no one challenges him or his teachings.

The reason the Snuffer threads have been deleted is to stop the contention. Also, Brian doesn't want this to be a Snuffer forum.

Yet Brian allows people to imply and at times even accuse church leaders of being greedy, selfish, controlling and frauds. These things cause 'contention', but he doesn't reign in those threads or those posters? This was what Shadow was saying, and he's right; wanting to stop the 'contention' is not the reason.

He may not want it to be a Snuffer forum, but the fact is, it has that reputation. And what he's chosen to do has only solidified that impression. We've been told that the private forum is for 'like minded' people. No one will state it, but it is clear that means Snuffer followers and those who won't speak out against him. I also suspect there are a handful who've been 'grandfathered' in and as long as they don't criticize him, they can stay.

I believe people have a right to follow Snuffer, and I don't care if they want to talk about him in their private area. What I care about is that if a board is going to call itself 'LDS', we ought to be able to discuss Denver Snuffer's challenges to the LDS church heirarchy and challenge him on his claims. You'd think this would be allowed on a board that calls itself a 'freedom forum'.

[Thomas]

Shawdow and AI2.0, you are both wrong. I have been warned not to defend Snuffer, on the main forum.

I don't believe we are wrong. However, I do believe you that you are told not to defend Snuffer on the public board, because they want to shut down the discussions with the 'unbelievers'. I'm sure Denver Snuffer is the main focus of the private area, where no one challenges him or his teachings.

The reason the Snuffer threads have been deleted is to stop the contention. Also, Brian doesn't want this to be a Snuffer forum.

Yet Brian allows people to imply and at times even accuse church leaders of being greedy, selfish, controlling and frauds. These things cause 'contention', but he doesn't reign in those threads or those posters? This was what Shadow was saying, and he's right; wanting to stop the 'contention' is not the reason.

He may not want it to be a Snuffer forum, but the fact is, it has that reputation. And what he's chosen to do has only solidified that impression. We've been told that the private forum is for 'like minded' people. No one will state it, but it is clear that means Snuffer followers and those who won't speak out against him. I also suspect there are a handful who've been 'grandfathered' in and as long as they don't criticize him, they can stay.

I believe people have a right to follow Snuffer, and I don't care if they want to talk about him in their private area. What I care about is that if a board is going to call itself 'LDS', we ought to be able to discuss Denver Snuffer's challenges to the LDS church heirarchy and challenge him on his claims. You'd think this would be allowed on a board that calls itself a 'freedom forum'.

If your beleifs are so fragile that they cannot hold up to question, you may be holding on to some falsehoods. You don't need to mention Snuffer's name to defend your beliefs.

I would welcome the Snuffer debate but I have been shutdown in that regaurd.

[freedomforall]

How is it that one thread after another concerning Denver Snuffer crop up? Did anyone mention following the arm of flesh on this board? This DS guy must have a lot of people by the nap of the neck. And it matters not that he got his name blotted out off of LDS church records. It matters not that he no longer has the blessings of the priesthood, therefore, rendering his priesthood dormant. It matters not that he is left to kick against the pricks ensued because of his own undoing. Haven't people swarmed all over his books as if there is some kind of shortcut to salvation? Further, Calling and Election seems to be some kind of club, and D&C 76:50-70 appears to be ignored when the true qualifications are brought to light. Would true members of the Church of the Firstborn come on a board like this and declare how wonderful they are to be in such a club? Would they flaunt their membership by waving a bright colored flag? Aren't major obtained attributes members of the COFB must have are humility, being meek and lowly of heart and being stripped of pride and envy? Such a person would also know that baptism is essential for salvation and not deny this truth.

For anyone that questions the need for baptism:

Baptism, Essential

Suffer it to be so now … to fulfil all righteousness: Matt. 3:15 .
teach all nations, baptizing them: Matt. 28:19 .
Jesus came … and was baptized of John: Mark 1:9 .
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: Mark 16:16 . ( Ether 4:18 ; D&C 112:28–29 . )
Jesus also being baptized: Luke 3:21 .
rejected the counsel of God … being not baptized: Luke 7:30 .
Except a man be born of water … he cannot enter into the kingdom of God: John 3:5 .
Repent, and be baptized every one of you: Acts 2:38 .
commanded them to be baptized: Acts 10:48 .
be baptized, and wash away thy sins: Acts 22:16 .
One Lord, one faith, one baptism: Eph. 4:5 .
saved us, by the washing of regeneration: Titus 3:5 .
baptism doth also now save us: 1 Pet. 3:21
commandeth all men that they must … be baptized: 2 Ne. 9:23 . ( 3 Ne. 27:20 . )
need have we, being unholy, to be baptized: 2 Ne. 31:5 .
whoso believeth in me, and is baptized … shall be saved: 3 Ne. 11:33 .
the commandment: Repent … and be baptized: 3 Ne. 27:20 .
as many as repent and are baptized … and endure … shall be saved: D&C 18:22 .
after … baptized … a remission of your sins: D&C 55:1 .
They are they who … were baptized … according to the commandment: D&C 76:51 .
not baptized … shall be damned: D&C 84:74 .
turn unto me … repent … and be baptized: Moses 6:52 .
ye must be born again … of water: Moses 6:59 .

[Thomas]

Has anyone studied up on the reformation? Very simular times right now. Many of the same issues.

People died for their beliefs. Which side would you have supported?

The internet is the modern day printing press.

The scriptures are for all men, not just the pope.

God is available to all men, even a farmboy in New York, not just popes.

This is the modern reformation.

[freedomforall]

Has anyone studied up on the reformation? Very simular times right now. Many of the same issues.

People died for their beliefs. Which side would you have supported? Jesus's!

The internet is the modern day printing press. True...LDS.org where one can read all four standard works, including the two sticks that have come together in our hand to be one stick.

The scriptures are for all men, not just the pope. Depends on if they are modern English where many words have been changed thus losing some of the original meaning given in original context. The KJV is as close as we can get to original wording. And even then much of the wording has been removed by crooked men, many, many years ago, in order to deceive and confuse.

God is available to all men, even a farmboy in New York, not just popes.

This is the modern reformation.

According to whom exactly? The reformation took place in the early 1800's, the reformation of Christ's church that is. And just who is talking about Popes?

[Thomas]

The reformation began in the early 1400s, with John Huss and gained steam 100 years later with Martin Luther. The printing press helped get the message to the world.

There is no farm boy in New york without John Huss's martydom.

The reformation is not the restoration.

Pope-Prophet same thing.

[shadow]

The reason the Snuffer threads have been deleted is to stop the contention.

Yes, we know!! Many of us have been pointing this out.

But keep up the contentious threads about the church though, right? 8-|

This is the hypocrisy I've been pointing out for a loooong time. Glad someone admitted to it. The secret is out mods. Your denials were hollow all along, but to have Thomas of all people spill the beans is huge.

Thomas, fear for your life :))

I suspect this will all be deleted soon enough :-B

[Thomas]

I disagree. Snuffer's message is helped when talked about, not hurt.

Squelching it is a win for the status quo.

[freedomforall]

I disagree. Snuffer's message is helped when talked about, not hurt.

Squelching it is a win for the status quo.

Message, what message? That GOD TOLD HIM TO WRITE CERTAIN BOOKS, one of which, WOULD EVENTUALLY GET HIM EXED? That God has now bypassed Presidents Monson, Eyring and Uchtdorf in an attempt to declare a different doctrine or doctrinal concepts?
Has DS ever declared any new and unheard doctrine or any amendment to current doctrine meant for the whole membership? Or has he simply taken things he has issues with and put a new slant on them? There is a big difference. And his idea that church leadership somehow lost their priesthood and keys because they unjustly excommunicated him doesn't count because we already know the scripture concerning this contained in D&C 121. We're talking about any NEW and UNHEARD of doctrine, or amendment to current doctrine.

[Thomas]

I disagree. Snuffer's message is helped when talked about, not hurt.

Squelching it is a win for the status quo.

Message, what message? That GOD TOLD HIM TO WRITE CERTAIN BOOKS, one of which, WOULD EVENTUALLY GET HIM EXED? That God has now bypassed Presidents Monson, Eyring and Uchtdorf in an attempt to declare a different doctrine or doctrinal concepts?
Has DS ever declared any new and unheard doctrine or any amendment to current doctrine meant for the whole membership? Or has he simply taken things he has issues with and put a new slant on them? There is a big difference. And his idea that church leadership somehow lost their priesthood and keys because they unjustly excommunicated him doesn't count because we already know the scripture concerning this contained in D&C 121. We're talking about any NEW and UNHEARD of doctrine, or amendment to current doctrine.

Well, you are outvoted by about a billion Catholics that believe the Pope still holds the keys of Saint Peter and is the only man on earth who can speak for God and bind in heaven what he binds on earth.

[freedomforall]

I disagree. Snuffer's message is helped when talked about, not hurt.

Squelching it is a win for the status quo.

Message, what message? That GOD TOLD HIM TO WRITE CERTAIN BOOKS, one of which, WOULD EVENTUALLY GET HIM EXED? That God has now bypassed Presidents Monson, Eyring and Uchtdorf in an attempt to declare a different doctrine or doctrinal concepts?
Has DS ever declared any new and unheard doctrine or any amendment to current doctrine meant for the whole membership? Or has he simply taken things he has issues with and put a new slant on them? There is a big difference. And his idea that church leadership somehow lost their priesthood and keys because they unjustly excommunicated him doesn't count because we already know the scripture concerning this contained in D&C 121. We're talking about any NEW and UNHEARD of doctrine, or amendment to current doctrine.

Well, you are outvoted by about a billion Catholics that believe the Pope still holds the keys of Saint Peter and is the only man on earth who can speak for God and bind in heaven what he binds on earth.

And just where does the Pope get his authority? Authority is only given to someone by the laying on of hands being called of God.
However, a lot of saints can't claim that Mother Teresa wasn't a true-blue Christian. She led an exemplary life and is a choice daughter of God.
God has already told us that many plain and precious parts were taken out of the bible by evil men. And there is absolutely nothing saying that all people in the bible are or were Catholics. In fact Christ's true teachings were lost many, many decades ago and a huge apostasy took place. The priesthood was no longer on the earth, thus, no one had the proper authority to perform any ordinances in God's name.
The LDS church, formally called the Church of Christ, was restored to earth along with all authority and covenants to facilitate people getting into the Celestial kingdom. Mere salvation is not Celestial, it is at most the Terrestrial kingdom.

2 Corinthians 12:2
2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

One must ask what the third heaven is.

[Thomas]

The Pope claims his authority in a direct line fom Christ. Christ put hands on St. Peter, who was his disciple when Christ walked the earth as a man. The Pope claims to be St. Peter's successor just as pres. Monson claims to be Joseph Smith's successor.

[freedomforall]

The Pope claims his authority in a direct line fom Christ. Christ put hands on St. Peter, who was his disciple when Christ walked the earth as a man. The Pope claims to be St. Peter's successor just as pres. Monson claims to be Joseph Smith's successor.

And this is the same Peter that came to Joseph Smith along with James and John and conferred the priesthood on Joseph. Christ wasn't referring to Peter as a rock, rather, Christ was referring to the gospel that Christ taught him as a rock. It was when Peter said "thou art the Christ" that Christ pronounced the statement about the rock.

Matthew 16:18, 19
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Jesus himself is the rock, the stone of Israel.

D&C 50:44
44 Wherefore, I am in your midst, and I am the good shepherd, and the stone of Israel. He that buildeth upon this rock shall never fall.

[AI2.0]

If your beleifs are so fragile that they cannot hold up to question, you may be holding on to some falsehoods. You don't need to mention Snuffer's name to defend your beliefs.

You tell yourself this because you feel threatened by my NON belief in Snuffer, my beliefs are rock solid and I know the difference between doctrine and tradition.

There is nothing wrong with mentioning snuffer's name when he is the point of conversation.

You use these tactics to try to derail me from the point we are discussing and to get us lost in the 'weeds' of tangents. The title is "Denver Snuffer - Patriarchy", so one cannot mention his name too many times. Also, I'm not defending my beliefs, we are attempting to discuss HIS beliefs.

I would welcome the Snuffer debate but I have been shutdown in that regaurd.

Thomas, I appreciate that you are willing to defend Snuffer, but I believe you get 'shut down' because you become too emotional when you discuss him and the mods are trying to avoid that. I know this from past experience.

[Thomas]

Why do you lobby for my opinion to be banned then.? I have never tried to have anyone's opinion shutdown.

[freedomforall]

Why do you lobby for my opinion to be banned then.? I have never tried to have anyone's opinion shutdown.

I cannot speak for A12, however, my thought is that offering an opinion is one thing. Attempting to get others to accept any ambiguous opinion as truth is problematic. I'm not saying that Snuffer hasn't offered any good and noteworthy ideas whatsoever. It is the path he chose and his excommunication because of that path that sends up a red flag. His opinions may mean less to those well grounded in the gospel of Jesus Christ. One extremely good and effective way to discern bad advice and doctrine is by feasting on the word as directed. The Holy Spirit confirms and teaches us the correct interpretation when we honestly and sincerely ask for that awareness. Then to have someone come along and offer us something off the wall, there is no reason to delve into it because the Spirit has already taught the truth. Why change our knowledge on the word of an excommunicated person? Makes no sense at all. Additionally, to have someone claim that the leaders of the church have lost their priesthood and keys is total conjecture, not fact. To believe one man sounding off against the church compared to many men seeking to help others as themselves to reach the highest degree of heaven without offering shortcuts is only common sense to differentiate the difference of whom to follow.
God doesn't work that way. He won't use a person that turns rebellious to send out his messages. God calls his servants, those who are in tune with his will and not their own as is Snuffer. DS's own will got him exed. Anyone following that path more than likely will be exed as well sooner or later. And it sounds like many people are withholding their new beliefs so as to not get detected. But God knows, and he will handle them at the last day. No one can hide from or deceive God. Their folly will be shouted from the housetops at some point.
As far as I understand it, Snuffer is not to be glorified on this site, rather, it is our Lord and Savior that should be glorified. The title is ---Latter-day Saints---freedom forum. Further it is not the place to turn people to Catholicism.
I quote many scriptures in my responses because the teachings of the Savior are not his opinions, they are his gospel given to us by himself and his servants in its purest form possible other than a personal visitation of him.

[Thomas]

I am talking about the attempt, by a few people, to have cricitical thinking banned from the forum.

[freedomforall]

I am talking about the attempt, by a few people, to have cricitical thinking banned from the forum.

Define critical thinking. Name calling, innuendos, insinuations and arrogance is beyond critical thinking. It borders meanness. Contention, discord and gospel bashing is another problem.
Critical thinking to me is being able to provide facts and written word to make valid points to become believable and acceptable. Opinions are only opinions and are based on guesses and speculation. This is a great way to cause contention. Facts are solid evidence not opinion. As far as DS is concerned I believe he believes what he has learned, but it is no more that opinion without solid evidence and truth to back it up. His version of truth got him exed. Why would anyone follow that path resulting in the same adverse actions? His actions caused a bad reaction that fell right on his shoulders. We have the freedom to act and we can be acted upon, sometimes to our own detriment.

[Thomas]

Why does it have to involve Snuffer? shadow whines and complains about the unfairness of being able to discuss such issues as the 14 fundamentles talk, which there is ample evidence to say, pres Kimbal considered to be false doctrine, or to discuss whether if when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done.

Cricitical thinking involves looking at those concepts with a cricitical eye, not just swallowing down everything that comes over the pulpit and o yeah don't even try to bring up the fact how it changes all the time.

The point is shadow is free to start a thread describing how wonderful the 14 fundamentles are or how much he loves to turn his brain off once the prophet has spoken but that is not enough for him. He has the opportunity to start threads that counter those he is opposed to but instead he lobbies to have those issues removed from being open for discussion.

That is why I consider him to be against cricitical thinking.

[Thomas]

Please show just one example of name calling.