Identifying and Coping with "Unrighteous Dominion"

[underdog]

I don't blame you for resisting what I'm saying. Again, the reason you resist is because of what you PRESUME to be true. Your sacred cow is "the Brethren can't lead us astray," or that "the Brethren are true messengers." The list of the acts of apostasy of the Brethren utterly destroy that sacred cow. You must choose to hold onto the cow, at your eternal peril, or send it out to pasture.

Dog, you seem very concerned about the Lectures on faith and the fact that you perceive them to be scriptural canon as they were voted on by the membership and accepted into the canon. There is a little known factoid that I wonder if you have done any research on. Would you provide evidence that the Book of Mormon was presented to the church and voted on to be included in the official cannon.

If you find the evidence concerning such, and I suspect you will not, then if you would find the vote on when the Bible was accepted into church canon.

Thank you,

Hello Br Lenox!

I do believe the LoF are scripture. What qualifies something as scripture? DC 68:4 says:

And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

I don't see a vote as being a required element to be scripture. The DC 68:4 definition of course opens up everything anybody has ever said to being scripture. Mormon abridged the records he had into one book, or the unsealed portion which was translated. There's much more "out there". The record of his abridgment, as far as I understand was never voted on. Neither were other books of Scriptures, like the Bible, that I'm aware of. I'm not 100% sure.

But we do know the Lectures of Faith, as the doctrine part of the Doctrines and Covenants, were voted on.

But the BoM was not voted on and def was not received by covenant. One of the ways to remove the Lord's condemnation is to receive the BoM as a covenant. DC 84:57 says:

And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—

Interestingly, receiving the BoM as a covenant will happen this very year - Sept 2017.

To your questions, I don't know for sure. Can you enlighten me? I'm guessing the BoM and Bible were never voted on. What is the factoid you reference? My "concern" is that Joseph's say on the matter -- that the LoF WERE the leading items of the doctrine of the Restoration -- was overruled or usurped by apostles in 1921. They did this in a most NON transparent way. They removed them. No discussion. No vote. At least Joseph was public about it. He knew that accepting these into our canon was a big deal, thus arranging an official meeting in which there was in fact a vote, which was unanimous.

Thank you,

Underdog

Joseph Smith wasn't at the vote, neither were the 12 apostles. You are just making things up.

It doesn't matter that he was absent. He was out doing missionary work. Oliver Cowdery fulfilled the assignment Joseph gave him. The point is that things were done in an orderly and public fashion. No deeds were done in the dark, like in 1921, or 1981.

Though the assembly was convened by the Presidency of the Church, several of them were absent at the time of the vote. So the responsibility of presenting the book to the conference fell to Oliver Cowdery, a member of both the presidency and the four man publication committee and Assistant President of the Church at the moment that this took place. Sidney Rigdon, the other presidency member and committee member, stood and explained the matter by which they intended to obtain the voice of the assembly for or against said book. Voting on the book proceeded by quorums and groups with the leader of each group bearing witness of the truth of the volume before his group voted. And then they proceeded to vote. And they voted by quorums from the least to the greatest. Then after all the quorums of the church had accepted the Doctrine and Covenants, the first 70 some pages of which were The Lectures on Faith, the General Assembly voted, including everyone who was present. Children, women, everyone voted. They all sustained this as the Doctrine of the Church.

Nothing has been made up. I'm dealing in facts of history.

[Arenera]

Dog, you seem very concerned about the Lectures on faith and the fact that you perceive them to be scriptural canon as they were voted on by the membership and accepted into the canon. There is a little known factoid that I wonder if you have done any research on. Would you provide evidence that the Book of Mormon was presented to the church and voted on to be included in the official cannon.

If you find the evidence concerning such, and I suspect you will not, then if you would find the vote on when the Bible was accepted into church canon.

Thank you,

Hello Br Lenox!

I do believe the LoF are scripture. What qualifies something as scripture? DC 68:4 says:

And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

I don't see a vote as being a required element to be scripture. The DC 68:4 definition of course opens up everything anybody has ever said to being scripture. Mormon abridged the records he had into one book, or the unsealed portion which was translated. There's much more "out there". The record of his abridgment, as far as I understand was never voted on. Neither were other books of Scriptures, like the Bible, that I'm aware of. I'm not 100% sure.

But we do know the Lectures of Faith, as the doctrine part of the Doctrines and Covenants, were voted on.

But the BoM was not voted on and def was not received by covenant. One of the ways to remove the Lord's condemnation is to receive the BoM as a covenant. DC 84:57 says:

And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—

Interestingly, receiving the BoM as a covenant will happen this very year - Sept 2017.

To your questions, I don't know for sure. Can you enlighten me? I'm guessing the BoM and Bible were never voted on. What is the factoid you reference? My "concern" is that Joseph's say on the matter -- that the LoF WERE the leading items of the doctrine of the Restoration -- was overruled or usurped by apostles in 1921. They did this in a most NON transparent way. They removed them. No discussion. No vote. At least Joseph was public about it. He knew that accepting these into our canon was a big deal, thus arranging an official meeting in which there was in fact a vote, which was unanimous.

Thank you,

Underdog

Joseph Smith wasn't at the vote, neither were the 12 apostles. You are just making things up.

It doesn't matter that he was absent. He was out doing missionary work. Oliver Cowdery fulfilled the assignment Joseph gave him. The point is that things were done in an orderly and public fashion. No deeds were done in the dark, like in 1921, or 1981.

Though the assembly was convened by the Presidency of the Church, several of them were absent at the time of the vote. So the responsibility of presenting the book to the conference fell to Oliver Cowdery, a member of both the presidency and the four man publication committee and Assistant President of the Church at the moment that this took place. Sidney Rigdon, the other presidency member and committee member, stood and explained the matter by which they intended to obtain the voice of the assembly for or against said book. Voting on the book proceeded by quorums and groups with the leader of each group bearing witness of the truth of the volume before his group voted. And then they proceeded to vote. And they voted by quorums from the least to the greatest. Then after all the quorums of the church had accepted the Doctrine and Covenants, the first 70 some pages of which were The Lectures on Faith, the General Assembly voted, including everyone who was present. Children, women, everyone voted. They all sustained this as the Doctrine of the Church.

Nothing has been made up. I'm dealing in facts of history.

Quoting Denver Snuffer now? Denver's version of history isn't real.

[underdog]

Hello Br Lenox!

I do believe the LoF are scripture. What qualifies something as scripture? DC 68:4 says:



I don't see a vote as being a required element to be scripture. The DC 68:4 definition of course opens up everything anybody has ever said to being scripture. Mormon abridged the records he had into one book, or the unsealed portion which was translated. There's much more "out there". The record of his abridgment, as far as I understand was never voted on. Neither were other books of Scriptures, like the Bible, that I'm aware of. I'm not 100% sure.

But we do know the Lectures of Faith, as the doctrine part of the Doctrines and Covenants, were voted on.

But the BoM was not voted on and def was not received by covenant. One of the ways to remove the Lord's condemnation is to receive the BoM as a covenant. DC 84:57 says:



Interestingly, receiving the BoM as a covenant will happen this very year - Sept 2017.

To your questions, I don't know for sure. Can you enlighten me? I'm guessing the BoM and Bible were never voted on. What is the factoid you reference? My "concern" is that Joseph's say on the matter -- that the LoF WERE the leading items of the doctrine of the Restoration -- was overruled or usurped by apostles in 1921. They did this in a most NON transparent way. They removed them. No discussion. No vote. At least Joseph was public about it. He knew that accepting these into our canon was a big deal, thus arranging an official meeting in which there was in fact a vote, which was unanimous.

Thank you,

Underdog

Joseph Smith wasn't at the vote, neither were the 12 apostles. You are just making things up.

It doesn't matter that he was absent. He was out doing missionary work. Oliver Cowdery fulfilled the assignment Joseph gave him. The point is that things were done in an orderly and public fashion. No deeds were done in the dark, like in 1921, or 1981.

Though the assembly was convened by the Presidency of the Church, several of them were absent at the time of the vote. So the responsibility of presenting the book to the conference fell to Oliver Cowdery, a member of both the presidency and the four man publication committee and Assistant President of the Church at the moment that this took place. Sidney Rigdon, the other presidency member and committee member, stood and explained the matter by which they intended to obtain the voice of the assembly for or against said book. Voting on the book proceeded by quorums and groups with the leader of each group bearing witness of the truth of the volume before his group voted. And then they proceeded to vote. And they voted by quorums from the least to the greatest. Then after all the quorums of the church had accepted the Doctrine and Covenants, the first 70 some pages of which were The Lectures on Faith, the General Assembly voted, including everyone who was present. Children, women, everyone voted. They all sustained this as the Doctrine of the Church.

Nothing has been made up. I'm dealing in facts of history.

Quoting Denver Snuffer now? Denver's version of history isn't real.

I've seen the original documents with mine own eyes. It's real. There was a vote. It was in broad daylight with no attempt to cover anything up. You're in delusional state of Stockholm Syndrome it appears. That's normal, but I wish you'd pull your head out of the sand. And look around. Take the red pill, my friend, Arenera.

[Arenera]

Joseph Smith wasn't at the vote, neither were the 12 apostles. You are just making things up.

It doesn't matter that he was absent. He was out doing missionary work. Oliver Cowdery fulfilled the assignment Joseph gave him. The point is that things were done in an orderly and public fashion. No deeds were done in the dark, like in 1921, or 1981.

Though the assembly was convened by the Presidency of the Church, several of them were absent at the time of the vote. So the responsibility of presenting the book to the conference fell to Oliver Cowdery, a member of both the presidency and the four man publication committee and Assistant President of the Church at the moment that this took place. Sidney Rigdon, the other presidency member and committee member, stood and explained the matter by which they intended to obtain the voice of the assembly for or against said book. Voting on the book proceeded by quorums and groups with the leader of each group bearing witness of the truth of the volume before his group voted. And then they proceeded to vote. And they voted by quorums from the least to the greatest. Then after all the quorums of the church had accepted the Doctrine and Covenants, the first 70 some pages of which were The Lectures on Faith, the General Assembly voted, including everyone who was present. Children, women, everyone voted. They all sustained this as the Doctrine of the Church.

Nothing has been made up. I'm dealing in facts of history.

Quoting Denver Snuffer now? Denver's version of history isn't real.

I've seen the original documents with mine own eyes. It's real. There was a vote. It was in broad daylight with no attempt to cover anything up. You're in delusional state of Stockholm Syndrome it appears. That's normal, but I wish you'd pull your head out of the sand. And look around. Take the red pill, my friend, Arenera.

You are not doing the remnants any help, you should try more charity and love. There was a vote, Joseph Smith and the 12 apostles were not there, so who is delusional?

You should read Noel Reynolds research that is included in Joseph Smith's Papers Volume 2. You might see how research should be done.

[underdog]

It doesn't matter that he was absent. He was out doing missionary work. Oliver Cowdery fulfilled the assignment Joseph gave him. The point is that things were done in an orderly and public fashion. No deeds were done in the dark, like in 1921, or 1981.



Nothing has been made up. I'm dealing in facts of history.

Quoting Denver Snuffer now? Denver's version of history isn't real.

I've seen the original documents with mine own eyes. It's real. There was a vote. It was in broad daylight with no attempt to cover anything up. You're in delusional state of Stockholm Syndrome it appears. That's normal, but I wish you'd pull your head out of the sand. And look around. Take the red pill, my friend, Arenera.

You are not doing the remnants any help, you should try more charity and love. There was a vote, Joseph Smith and the 12 apostles were not there, so who is delusional?

You should read Noel Reynolds research that is included in Joseph Smith's Papers Volume 2. You might see how research should be done.

At least Oliver and Sidney were there. It doesn't matter that Joseph and others weren't there. Why does that even matter?? Are you saying some rogue meeting was held and Joseph disapproved?

Not to speak for you, but I'm willing to bet you're not saying that vote was some rogue, unofficial, unapproved, apostate splinter group meeting.

So, what are you saying?

[Arenera]

Quoting Denver Snuffer now? Denver's version of history isn't real.

I've seen the original documents with mine own eyes. It's real. There was a vote. It was in broad daylight with no attempt to cover anything up. You're in delusional state of Stockholm Syndrome it appears. That's normal, but I wish you'd pull your head out of the sand. And look around. Take the red pill, my friend, Arenera.

You are not doing the remnants any help, you should try more charity and love. There was a vote, Joseph Smith and the 12 apostles were not there, so who is delusional?

You should read Noel Reynolds research that is included in Joseph Smith's Papers Volume 2. You might see how research should be done.

At least Oliver and Sidney were there. It doesn't matter that Joseph and others weren't there. Why does that even matter?? Are you saying some rogue meeting was held and Joseph disapproved?

Not to speak for you, but I'm willing to bet you're not saying that vote was some rogue, unofficial, unapproved, apostate splinter group meeting.

So, what are you saying?

Joseph Smith called your game in 1844, 10 days before his death.

The old Catholic church traditions are worth more than all you have said. Here is a principle of logic that most men have no more sense than to adopt. I will illustrate it by an old apple tree. Here jumps off a branch and says, I am the true tree, and you are corrupt. If the whole tree is corrupt, are not its branches corrupt? If the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion come out of it? If the Catholic church is bad, how can any good thing come out of it? The character of the old churches have always been slandered by all apostates since the world began.

I testify again, as the Lord lives, God never will acknowledge any traitors or apostates. Any man who will betray the Catholics will betray you; and if he will betray me, he will betray you. All men are liars who say they are of the true Church without the revelations of Jesus Christ and the Priesthood of Melchisedek, which is after the order of the Son of God.

It is the order of heavenly things that God should always send a new dispensation into the world when men have apostatized from the truth and lost the priesthood; but when men come out and build upon other men's foundations, they do it on their own responsibility, without authority from God; and when the floods come and the winds blow, their foundations will be found to be sand, and their whole fabric will crumble to dust.

Did I build on any other man's foundation?"

You, Denver, the remnants try to build on Joseph's foundation by criticizing the church, leaders and members. You have been quite sick on some of the comments you have made.

Denver has tried to use the LoFs being removed as an example of apostasy. You and the remnants have bought into his story. If your new belief set was valid, you wouldn't have the need to criticize the church, leaders and members on a public forum.

Savvy remnants know that a critical message will never win, although many have tried it. If the message you have is true, you should feel love, charity and integrity.

[underdog]

I've seen the original documents with mine own eyes. It's real. There was a vote. It was in broad daylight with no attempt to cover anything up. You're in delusional state of Stockholm Syndrome it appears. That's normal, but I wish you'd pull your head out of the sand. And look around. Take the red pill, my friend, Arenera.

You are not doing the remnants any help, you should try more charity and love. There was a vote, Joseph Smith and the 12 apostles were not there, so who is delusional?

You should read Noel Reynolds research that is included in Joseph Smith's Papers Volume 2. You might see how research should be done.

At least Oliver and Sidney were there. It doesn't matter that Joseph and others weren't there. Why does that even matter?? Are you saying some rogue meeting was held and Joseph disapproved?

Not to speak for you, but I'm willing to bet you're not saying that vote was some rogue, unofficial, unapproved, apostate splinter group meeting.

So, what are you saying?

Joseph Smith called your game in 1844, 10 days before his death.

The old Catholic church traditions are worth more than all you have said. Here is a principle of logic that most men have no more sense than to adopt. I will illustrate it by an old apple tree. Here jumps off a branch and says, I am the true tree, and you are corrupt. If the whole tree is corrupt, are not its branches corrupt? If the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion come out of it? If the Catholic church is bad, how can any good thing come out of it? The character of the old churches have always been slandered by all apostates since the world began.

I testify again, as the Lord lives, God never will acknowledge any traitors or apostates. Any man who will betray the Catholics will betray you; and if he will betray me, he will betray you. All men are liars who say they are of the true Church without the revelations of Jesus Christ and the Priesthood of Melchisedek, which is after the order of the Son of God.

It is the order of heavenly things that God should always send a new dispensation into the world when men have apostatized from the truth and lost the priesthood; but when men come out and build upon other men's foundations, they do it on their own responsibility, without authority from God; and when the floods come and the winds blow, their foundations will be found to be sand, and their whole fabric will crumble to dust.

Did I build on any other man's foundation?"

You, Denver, the remnants try to build on Joseph's foundation by criticizing the church, leaders and members. You have been quite sick on some of the comments you have made.

Denver has tried to use the LoFs being removed as an example of apostasy. You and the remnants have bought into his story. If your new belief set was valid, you wouldn't have the need to criticize the church, leaders and members on a public forum.

Savvy remnants know that a critical message will never win, although many have tried it. If the message you have is true, you should feel love, charity and integrity.

So you're now agreeing that Joseph did approve of the LoF? Good. Which means your attempted rebuttal fell on its face. That is fine. It's okay to admit that. There is great strength in admitting error.

For the sake of clarity in our conversation, this then means the removal of the LoF stands as a clear act of apostasy of the Brethren.

[Arenera]

You are not doing the remnants any help, you should try more charity and love. There was a vote, Joseph Smith and the 12 apostles were not there, so who is delusional?

You should read Noel Reynolds research that is included in Joseph Smith's Papers Volume 2. You might see how research should be done.

At least Oliver and Sidney were there. It doesn't matter that Joseph and others weren't there. Why does that even matter?? Are you saying some rogue meeting was held and Joseph disapproved?

Not to speak for you, but I'm willing to bet you're not saying that vote was some rogue, unofficial, unapproved, apostate splinter group meeting.

So, what are you saying?

Joseph Smith called your game in 1844, 10 days before his death.

The old Catholic church traditions are worth more than all you have said. Here is a principle of logic that most men have no more sense than to adopt. I will illustrate it by an old apple tree. Here jumps off a branch and says, I am the true tree, and you are corrupt. If the whole tree is corrupt, are not its branches corrupt? If the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion come out of it? If the Catholic church is bad, how can any good thing come out of it? The character of the old churches have always been slandered by all apostates since the world began.

I testify again, as the Lord lives, God never will acknowledge any traitors or apostates. Any man who will betray the Catholics will betray you; and if he will betray me, he will betray you. All men are liars who say they are of the true Church without the revelations of Jesus Christ and the Priesthood of Melchisedek, which is after the order of the Son of God.

It is the order of heavenly things that God should always send a new dispensation into the world when men have apostatized from the truth and lost the priesthood; but when men come out and build upon other men's foundations, they do it on their own responsibility, without authority from God; and when the floods come and the winds blow, their foundations will be found to be sand, and their whole fabric will crumble to dust.

Did I build on any other man's foundation?"

You, Denver, the remnants try to build on Joseph's foundation by criticizing the church, leaders and members. You have been quite sick on some of the comments you have made.

Denver has tried to use the LoFs being removed as an example of apostasy. You and the remnants have bought into his story. If your new belief set was valid, you wouldn't have the need to criticize the church, leaders and members on a public forum.

Savvy remnants know that a critical message will never win, although many have tried it. If the message you have is true, you should feel love, charity and integrity.

So you're now agreeing that Joseph did approve of the LoF? Good. Which means your attempted rebuttal fell on its face. That is fine. It's okay to admit that. There is great strength in admitting error.

For the sake of clarity in our conversation, this then means the removal of the LoF stands as a clear act of apostasy of the Brethren.

You are twisting words. I know it is probably a major blow to your belief set that Joseph talked about dissenters, and destroys the Denver Snuffer craft.

Joseph Smith was not present at the vote. There is no evidence that he endorsed them.

However, apostles were present on the removal in 1921.

The remnant movement is clearly struggling since they have chosen to criticize instead of showing love and charity. To me, that is somewhat understandable because they are trying to use someone else's foundation.

[brlenox]

Hello Br Lenox!

I do believe the LoF are scripture. What qualifies something as scripture? DC 68:4 says:

And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

I don't see a vote as being a required element to be scripture. The DC 68:4 definition of course opens up everything anybody has ever said to being scripture. Mormon abridged the records he had into one book, or the unsealed portion which was translated. There's much more "out there". The record of his abridgment, as far as I understand was never voted on. Neither were other books of Scriptures, like the Bible, that I'm aware of. I'm not 100% sure.

But we do know the Lectures of Faith, as the doctrine part of the Doctrines and Covenants, were voted on.

But the BoM was not voted on and def was not received by covenant. One of the ways to remove the Lord's condemnation is to receive the BoM as a covenant. DC 84:57 says:

And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—

Interestingly, receiving the BoM as a covenant will happen this very year - Sept 2017.

To your questions, I don't know for sure. Can you enlighten me? I'm guessing the BoM and Bible were never voted on. What is the factoid you reference? My "concern" is that Joseph's say on the matter -- that the LoF WERE the leading items of the doctrine of the Restoration -- was overruled or usurped by apostles in 1921. They did this in a most NON transparent way. They removed them. No discussion. No vote. At least Joseph was public about it. He knew that accepting these into our canon was a big deal, thus arranging an official meeting in which there was in fact a vote, which was unanimous.

Thank you,

Underdog

1.) You are correct - contrary to common knowledge the Book of Mormon and the Bible where never officially presented and voted on by the membership of the church. For the longest time the official statement was that it was assumed that it was done in the first meeting incorporating the church April 6th, 1830. However with the Joseph Smith Papers Project those original minutes of the first annual conference June 9th have surfaced and no vote on either of these two texts was presented. There was a document drawn up which was called the Articles and Covenants of the church which was voted on in the April meeting which was a collection of basic doctrinal perspectives etc. but never any vote on canon.

2.) I have missed something ... what is happening in September where receiving the BOM is to take place?

3.) One can believe as they will concerning the LOF. Elder McConkie considered them second only to the Standard works and admonished the membership to study them. For that cause I did make great efforts to memorize them several years ago. Nonetheless, as we have samples of scripture, the structure of the LOF is nothing like scripture as received by Joseph Smith. They are written more like a Catholic catechism in structure and intention suitable as a manual for instruction.

This link will take you to the minutes of the meeting where the Lectures on Faith and the Doctrine and Covenants were presented:

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper- ... transcript

Most of the commentary is concerning the revelations - actual revealed information and the vote sustaining such. There are two references to the Lectures but clearly not the focus of the many testimonies provided. If you are an objective and intellectually honest person you will note that the Lectures on Faith were not revelations. They were a compilation of valuable information done more in committee than anything, though we can attribute the bulk of the compilation to Sydney Rigdon. However, their method of origin is the primary excising element. They are not revelations, and surely you acknowledge that, but if not we can resolve to let them speak for themselves. Note the preface to the 1835 edition:

To the members of the church of the Latter Day Saints

Preface

DEAR BRETHREN:

We deem it to be unnecessary to entertain you with a lengthy preface to the following volume, but merely to say, that it contains in short, the leading items of the religion which we have professed to believe.

The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work.

The second part contains items or principles for the regulation of the church, as taken from the revelations which have been given since its organization, as well as from former ones.

There may be an aversion in the minds of some against receiving any thing purporting to be articles of religious faith, in consequence of there being so many now extant; but if men believe a system, and profess that it was given by inspiration, certainly, the more intelligibly they can present it, the better. It does not make a principle untrue to print it, neither does it make it true not to print it.

The church viewing this subject to be of importance, appointed, through their servants and delegates the High Council, your servants to select and compile this work. Several reasons might be adduced in favor of this move of the Council, but we only add a few words. They knew that the church was evil spoken of in many places—its faith and belief misrepresented, and the way of truth thus subverted. By some it was represented as disbelieving the bible, by others as being an enemy to all good order and uprightness, and by others as being injurious to the peace of all governments civil and political.

We have, therefore, endeavored to present, though in few words, our belief, and when we say this, humbly trust, the faith and principles of this society as a body.

We do not present this little volume with any other expectation than that we are to be called to answer to every principle advanced, in that day when the secrets of all hearts will be revealed, and the reward of every man's labor be given him.

With sentiments of esteem and sincere respect, we subscribe ourselves your brethren in the bonds of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

JOSEPH SMITH jr.
OLIVER COWDERY.
SIDNEY RIGDON.
F.G. WILLIAMS.

Kirtland, Ohio, February 17, 1835.

This represents their frame of mind in February, 6 months prior to the vote in August. They were thus inspired compilations provided as an instructional tool. If I use your criteria as you stated from DC 68:4:

I do believe the LoF are scripture. What qualifies something as scripture? DC 68:4 says:

And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

Based on your statement, I am hard pressed to consider these Lectures as falling purely within the bounds of your own criteria. The preface provided above clearly draws distinctions between the revelations of the scriptures upon which the Lectures on Faith depend as "Articles of Religious Faith" for their source material and ultimate designation as an inspired document.

Finally Lecture 7 provides what I consider a bit of a bit of a conundrum for your many, multitudinous, claims concerning the apostles and prophets and such:

And this is the reason, that men, as soon as they lose their faith, run into strifes, contentions, darkness and difficulties; for the knowledge which tends to life disappears with faith, but returns when faith returns; for when faith comes, it brings its train of attendants with it—apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, gifts, wisdom, knowledge, miracles, healings, tongues, interpretation of tongues, etc. All these appear when faith appears on the earth, and disappear when it disappears from the earth. For these are the effects of faith and always have, and always will attend it. For where faith is, there will the knowledge of God be also, with all things which pertain thereto—revelations, visions, and dreams, as well as every other necessary thing in order that the possessors of faith may be perfected and obtain salvation; for God must change, otherwise faith will prevail with him. And he who possesses it will, through it, obtain all necessary knowledge and wisdom until he shall know God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has sent: whom to know is eternal life: Amen.


Essentially, this serves as an outline and a treatise on the process of coming into the presence of God or receiving the Second Comforter, arguably the primary focal point of the lectures on faith. This process requires those testimonies of the prophets, apostles, and others to assist in the process of bringing individuals along until, as they become less dependent on other testimonies for the progressive possession of the knowledge acquired by their exercise of faith in the words of said apostles and prophets until they gain the knowledge of their Savior. In the times of a fullness of the gospel the lectures on faith sustain the church wonderfully - you, not so much.

[Finrock]

"Beginning with the 1835 edition, a series of seven theological lessons was also included; these were titled the Lectures on Faith. These had been prepared for use in the School of the Prophets in Kirtland, Ohio, from 1834 to 1835. Although profitable for doctrine and instruction, these lectures have been omitted from the Doctrine and Covenants since the 1921 edition because they were not given or presented as revelations to the whole Church." -The church

Lots of things are omitted from the scriptures. The Book of Mormon Prophets talk about it often that they only record a portion or part of what's in their records. Sometimes the Lord corrects it, like in 3rd Nephi, but mostly He doesn't.
There are many reasons we don't have all the records of everything in the scriptures. The nice thing is that the Lectures weren't taken from us so I'm not sure why all the murmuring.

1 And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people.

16 And now I, Nephi, do not make a full account of the things which my father hath written, for he hath written many things which he saw in visions and in dreams; and he also hath written many things which he prophesied and spake unto his children, of which I shall not make a full account.

11 Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it, saying: I will try the faith of my people.
People still getting an "F" on that test^^

Shadow,

I Googled that quote above and found it quoted here: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... ng&query=s

I'd like to point out a few amazing things. The corruption is hidden in plain sight!

• 1) The quote is anonymous. Even you attributed it to "the Church." How does a "church" speak? It doesn't. This is how 17 intelligence agencies get away with lying and saying there's evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians. The Brethren hide behind the Church the same way. Anonymity allows deceivers the ability to escape accountability.

• 2) The statement, "Although profitable for doctrine and instruction, these lectures have been omitted from the Doctrine and Covenants since the 1921 edition because they were not given or presented as revelations to the whole Church" is a lie. That's why it's anonymous! And yet, we find this lie in our manual, from which we study each year. We are being propagandized! The LoF WERE in fact presented as official doctrine of the Church and voted on and sustained unanimously by the body of the Church in 1835. Watch the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO0tCz_RICo. You will hear a very succinct explanation and this is proven by the records of history. The LoF represent the DOCTRINES of the Church stemming from Joseph's revelations, the BoM, and the Bible. In other words, it's a sort of Cliffs Notes for our doctrine, nicely packaged for the Church members and approved by the Prophet of this Dispensation. The Lectures should be the MAIN course of instruction for our missionaries. The MTC should be a concentrated dose of the Lectures on Faith. What time is wasted on Preach My Gospel! Members should be studying the Lectures regularly in Sunday School. Our Youth should have them MEMORIZED! How nice it was for the Lord to give us Cliffs Notes of the doctrine found throughout the Scriptures!!! And some liars in 1921 throw it all out!

• 3) At the Church's official webpage (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... ng&query=s), we also see the following cover-up of the addition of the anti Christ "we can't lead you astray" precept which is in my view the #1 reason for the Brethren's apostasy and churh members' idolatry. It brings me no pleasure whatsoever to be able to submit the following evidence to you. I'll copy and paste it here in case it's removed, but I'm quite confident the Church won't remove it because they don't have to -- members blindly believe what they say -- so they feel no need to hide evidence of their cover-ups. This is the quote:

  In the 1981 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, three documents were included for the first time. These are sections 137 and 138, setting forth the fundamentals of salvation for the dead; and Official Declaration 2, announcing that all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.

  Notice anything missing from what was added "for the first time"? Let me help you. This is the year (1981) that the WW excerpts were added to OD1, along with the things mentioned in the foregoing quote. "They" don't want you to know the Satanic precept was added. They seek to cover it up. This is a "sin of omission"! I found this without even looking.

Shadow, I can tell you've not studied the Lectures on Faith. Else, you would never say something like this, "Lots of things are omitted from the scriptures" to justify impostors arrogantly removing them from our Holy Scriptures.

You speak truth, but what we don't omit is the doctrine! This is how the great and abominable whore removed "plain and precious" truths from the Bible. Committees full of vanity and corruption got together and went to war against the word of the Lord.

This is how you could benefit from studying the LoF:

• You could grow your faith in Christ.

• You could increase your knowledge of who God is.

• You could understand the nature of the Godhead. It's not what we're taught in Sunday School.

• You can learn specifically how to be exalted.

• You can learn what the Holy Spirit is. You can learn what the mind of Christ is.

• You can learn the importance of sacrifice.

• You can learn what kind of being the Father is.

• You can learn how to exercise faith.

The Lectures will change your life. Indeed, they teach us how to come unto Christ and receive life and salvation. Removing them was essentially a frontal attack on the Church's ability to teach saving truths to its members. It brought damnation upon the members.

To argue in defense of the 1921 apostles puts you in the position of arguing for the destruction of the doctrine of Christ.

I don't blame you for resisting what I'm saying. Again, the reason you resist is because of what you PRESUME to be true. Your sacred cow is "the Brethren can't lead us astray," or that "the Brethren are true messengers." The list of the acts of apostasy of the Brethren utterly destroy that sacred cow. You must choose to hold onto the cow, at your eternal peril, or send it out to pasture.

So I've read this thread now in its entirety and am left wondering why you are as active in the Church as you say you are. You've given examples of and explained what you see as irrefutable evidence of satanic activity and apostasy of the church's leaders for decades. You claim that the prophets, apostles, etc are not God's, neither do they speak His word. How could you be able to sit through three hours of false doctrine and idol worship, surrounded by who you call "Bretherenites"? I'm not attacking you- I ask out of pure curiosity.

To Irrelevant,

Great question. That was a question I entertained quite regularly a year ago (and still do much less frequently). Here are some thoughts and justifications for me to attending:

• In MY unit, I'm not aware of any Satan-worshipping or SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse) activity, like happens out in Utah. See Glen Pace memo. If I was aware of that in my stake or ward, I'd probably think twice about participating. http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no80.htm has the memo that Elder Pace wrote. The cover-up of this memo is yet ANOTHER piece of hardcore, irrefutable evidence of apostasy of the Brethren. I love Ezra Taft Benson. He's my favorite of all the presidents (excluding Joseph Smith). The cover-up of WIDESPREAD Satanic Ritual Abuse in the Church was under his watch, but he had already lost his faculties, if I recall, because he fell down stairs and had some operation on his brain (by Elder Nelson). Never the same since then. The responsibility would then fall to Monson and Hinckley, who WERE in the their right minds, and it's of course under THEIR leadership that the UD has spread like wildfire (those 2 may have been responsible for the WW's excerpts being added in 1981 and perhaps they covered it up from the eyes of their Brethren at the time). The fact of planned and carefully coordinated infiltration by Satan's forces should be an obvious "given". The Church, like any organized and influential institution, esp the Lord's Church, would be TARGET #1 by Satan. Joseph was a target of the Satanic, secret combinations, and ended up dead. Benson knew all too well about these organized, evil forces infiltrating governments as he spent decades warning people about this, so he knew the dangers of infiltration applied equally and ESPECIALLY to the Church. My guess is under Benson's leadership, this was coming to a head (evidenced by the Pace Memo and directed no doubt by Pres Benson), and the events surrounding Benson's incapacitation/ neutralization were very likely not accidental. That's a whole other topic and one I'm not an expert on and frankly there's no point in researching it, given what has happened in the last 2 years, with the Church chasing out of its ranks a righteous man sent by God.

• I go for my kids. We have good youth in our unit.

• I go to serve. My wife serves. My wife wants to go too (for our kids).

• I go for the missionary program. Despite church weaknesses, I think the mission experience has great benefits for maturing a young adult.

• I have an opportunity to preserve the Restoration. That is an inspiring goal to have and worthy. Joseph Smith appreciates the attempt, and I believe the Lord does too. The Lord may have abandoned the top leaders (because they abandoned Him through UD -- Amen to their priesthood), but not everyone else (except anybody who practices UD as defined by the Lord in DC 121:37, 41).

• The rank and file LDS people, like me, and my friends, are good people. I was an idolater. So I understand. I was blinded by the craftiness of men. I would have appreciated somebody trying to wake me up.

underdog,

When you were an idolater and living in apostasy, did God forsake you and abandon you?

-Finrock

[underdog]

Shadow,

I Googled that quote above and found it quoted here: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... ng&query=s

I'd like to point out a few amazing things. The corruption is hidden in plain sight!

• 1) The quote is anonymous. Even you attributed it to "the Church." How does a "church" speak? It doesn't. This is how 17 intelligence agencies get away with lying and saying there's evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians. The Brethren hide behind the Church the same way. Anonymity allows deceivers the ability to escape accountability.

• 2) The statement, "Although profitable for doctrine and instruction, these lectures have been omitted from the Doctrine and Covenants since the 1921 edition because they were not given or presented as revelations to the whole Church" is a lie. That's why it's anonymous! And yet, we find this lie in our manual, from which we study each year. We are being propagandized! The LoF WERE in fact presented as official doctrine of the Church and voted on and sustained unanimously by the body of the Church in 1835. Watch the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO0tCz_RICo. You will hear a very succinct explanation and this is proven by the records of history. The LoF represent the DOCTRINES of the Church stemming from Joseph's revelations, the BoM, and the Bible. In other words, it's a sort of Cliffs Notes for our doctrine, nicely packaged for the Church members and approved by the Prophet of this Dispensation. The Lectures should be the MAIN course of instruction for our missionaries. The MTC should be a concentrated dose of the Lectures on Faith. What time is wasted on Preach My Gospel! Members should be studying the Lectures regularly in Sunday School. Our Youth should have them MEMORIZED! How nice it was for the Lord to give us Cliffs Notes of the doctrine found throughout the Scriptures!!! And some liars in 1921 throw it all out!

• 3) At the Church's official webpage (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testa ... ng&query=s), we also see the following cover-up of the addition of the anti Christ "we can't lead you astray" precept which is in my view the #1 reason for the Brethren's apostasy and churh members' idolatry. It brings me no pleasure whatsoever to be able to submit the following evidence to you. I'll copy and paste it here in case it's removed, but I'm quite confident the Church won't remove it because they don't have to -- members blindly believe what they say -- so they feel no need to hide evidence of their cover-ups. This is the quote:
  
  Notice anything missing from what was added "for the first time"? Let me help you. This is the year (1981) that the WW excerpts were added to OD1, along with the things mentioned in the foregoing quote. "They" don't want you to know the Satanic precept was added. They seek to cover it up. This is a "sin of omission"! I found this without even looking.

Shadow, I can tell you've not studied the Lectures on Faith. Else, you would never say something like this, "Lots of things are omitted from the scriptures" to justify impostors arrogantly removing them from our Holy Scriptures.

You speak truth, but what we don't omit is the doctrine! This is how the great and abominable whore removed "plain and precious" truths from the Bible. Committees full of vanity and corruption got together and went to war against the word of the Lord.

This is how you could benefit from studying the LoF:

• You could grow your faith in Christ.

• You could increase your knowledge of who God is.

• You could understand the nature of the Godhead. It's not what we're taught in Sunday School.

• You can learn specifically how to be exalted.

• You can learn what the Holy Spirit is. You can learn what the mind of Christ is.

• You can learn the importance of sacrifice.

• You can learn what kind of being the Father is.

• You can learn how to exercise faith.

The Lectures will change your life. Indeed, they teach us how to come unto Christ and receive life and salvation. Removing them was essentially a frontal attack on the Church's ability to teach saving truths to its members. It brought damnation upon the members.

To argue in defense of the 1921 apostles puts you in the position of arguing for the destruction of the doctrine of Christ.

I don't blame you for resisting what I'm saying. Again, the reason you resist is because of what you PRESUME to be true. Your sacred cow is "the Brethren can't lead us astray," or that "the Brethren are true messengers." The list of the acts of apostasy of the Brethren utterly destroy that sacred cow. You must choose to hold onto the cow, at your eternal peril, or send it out to pasture.

So I've read this thread now in its entirety and am left wondering why you are as active in the Church as you say you are. You've given examples of and explained what you see as irrefutable evidence of satanic activity and apostasy of the church's leaders for decades. You claim that the prophets, apostles, etc are not God's, neither do they speak His word. How could you be able to sit through three hours of false doctrine and idol worship, surrounded by who you call "Bretherenites"? I'm not attacking you- I ask out of pure curiosity.

To Irrelevant,

Great question. That was a question I entertained quite regularly a year ago (and still do much less frequently). Here are some thoughts and justifications for me to attending:

• In MY unit, I'm not aware of any Satan-worshipping or SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse) activity, like happens out in Utah. See Glen Pace memo. If I was aware of that in my stake or ward, I'd probably think twice about participating. http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no80.htm has the memo that Elder Pace wrote. The cover-up of this memo is yet ANOTHER piece of hardcore, irrefutable evidence of apostasy of the Brethren. I love Ezra Taft Benson. He's my favorite of all the presidents (excluding Joseph Smith). The cover-up of WIDESPREAD Satanic Ritual Abuse in the Church was under his watch, but he had already lost his faculties, if I recall, because he fell down stairs and had some operation on his brain (by Elder Nelson). Never the same since then. The responsibility would then fall to Monson and Hinckley, who WERE in the their right minds, and it's of course under THEIR leadership that the UD has spread like wildfire (those 2 may have been responsible for the WW's excerpts being added in 1981 and perhaps they covered it up from the eyes of their Brethren at the time). The fact of planned and carefully coordinated infiltration by Satan's forces should be an obvious "given". The Church, like any organized and influential institution, esp the Lord's Church, would be TARGET #1 by Satan. Joseph was a target of the Satanic, secret combinations, and ended up dead. Benson knew all too well about these organized, evil forces infiltrating governments as he spent decades warning people about this, so he knew the dangers of infiltration applied equally and ESPECIALLY to the Church. My guess is under Benson's leadership, this was coming to a head (evidenced by the Pace Memo and directed no doubt by Pres Benson), and the events surrounding Benson's incapacitation/ neutralization were very likely not accidental. That's a whole other topic and one I'm not an expert on and frankly there's no point in researching it, given what has happened in the last 2 years, with the Church chasing out of its ranks a righteous man sent by God.

• I go for my kids. We have good youth in our unit.

• I go to serve. My wife serves. My wife wants to go too (for our kids).

• I go for the missionary program. Despite church weaknesses, I think the mission experience has great benefits for maturing a young adult.

• I have an opportunity to preserve the Restoration. That is an inspiring goal to have and worthy. Joseph Smith appreciates the attempt, and I believe the Lord does too. The Lord may have abandoned the top leaders (because they abandoned Him through UD -- Amen to their priesthood), but not everyone else (except anybody who practices UD as defined by the Lord in DC 121:37, 41).

• The rank and file LDS people, like me, and my friends, are good people. I was an idolater. So I understand. I was blinded by the craftiness of men. I would have appreciated somebody trying to wake me up.

underdog,

When you were an idolater and living in apostasy, did God forsake you and abandon you?

-Finrock

Finrock, I never felt forsaken or abandoned. I didn't even realize I was an idolater. Does a Christian who has rejected the BoM feel like he was abandoned or forsaken by God? I doubt it. They'd think such a notion was preposterous.

If there's any forsaking or abandoning, it's me doing that to God. But gratefully, whenever I turn to Him, He is always there to greet me.

[underdog]

2.) I have missed something ... what is happening in September where receiving the BOM is to take place?

Thank you for sharing that research. I appreciate the time, and the quotes.

In Sept there is an historic meeting taking place.

Details are here: http://www.covenantofchristconference.com

There currently is underway a major review of the Restoration scriptures. In other words, what should be included or excluded from our canon of scripture. I'm not attached to any remnant group or fellowship, but I'm following it from afar and trying to keep up with the scripture review.

My understanding is that the BoM will be received by covenant, among other things.

This will be one of the most historic weekends in the history of the Restoration, indeed in all of recorded sacred history going back to Moses' work where he gave us the initial books of the OT.

[AI2.0]

My responses in blue;

So I've read this thread now in its entirety and am left wondering why you are as active in the Church as you say you are. You've given examples of and explained what you see as irrefutable evidence of satanic activity and apostasy of the church's leaders for decades. You claim that the prophets, apostles, etc are not God's, neither do they speak His word. How could you be able to sit through three hours of false doctrine and idol worship, surrounded by who you call "Bretherenites"? I'm not attacking you- I ask out of pure curiosity.

To Irrelevant,

Great question. That was a question I entertained quite regularly a year ago (and still do much less frequently). Here are some thoughts and justifications for me to attending:

• In MY unit, I'm not aware of any Satan-worshipping or SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse) activity, like happens out in Utah.'Like it happens in Utah'? Seriously, do you know that this is a problem in Utah because I live here and I don't know anything but what some people have claimed, and I'm not too certain they are in their right mind, I think some are mentally unstable. See Glen Pace memo. If I was aware of that in my stake or ward, I'd probably think twice about participating.Uh, let's hope. I'd think if any normal person found out there was Satan Worship going on in their ward, they'd not participate. http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no80.htm has the memo that Elder Pace wrote. The cover-up of this memo is yet ANOTHER piece of hardcore, irrefutable evidence of apostasy of the Brethren.You have proof of this 'cover up'? How do you know enough about this to make such a claim? Are you in the habit of believing every crazy accusation and conspiracy crap that you come across? I love Ezra Taft Benson. He's my favorite of all the presidents (excluding Joseph Smith). The cover-up of WIDESPREAD Satanic Ritual Abuse in the ChurchI'm seriously wondering about your mental state to make such a claim--'coverup of WIDESPREAD Satanic ritual abuse in the church'???? Where's your evidence to make such an outrageous accusation and claim? Provide it or stop slandering the church with this garbage. This forum is supposed to be a comfortable place for believing members and I for one would NEVER be a party to a religion which practiced Satanic ritual abuse--I don't like what you are insinuating. I am offended that you would suggest that LDS members are engaged in these practices on a 'WIDESPREAD' scale.
  Better be careful, you are showing your true colors because only someone who spends a lot of time digesting garbage on vicious, lying Anti mormon websites would say this kind of stuff and believe it--that or you are mentally unwell yourself. was under his watch, but he had already lost his faculties, if I recall, because he fell down stairs and had some operation on his brain (by Elder Nelson).Wow, a jack of all trades,
  considering Pres. Nelson was a heart surgeon, it's incredible he could also operate as a Neurosurgeon. Do you really believe this crap, Underdog,
  I didn't think you were that gullible, but I guess I"m wrong because you sound sincere. Never the same since then. The responsibility would then fall to Monson and Hinckley, who WERE in the their right minds, and it's of course under THEIR leadership that the UD has spread like wildfire (those 2 may have been responsible for the WW's excerpts being added in 1981 and perhaps they covered it up from the eyes of their Brethren at the time).You've lost it. This is so outrageous, normal, thinking people don't believe this crap. Why would you believe it?? It's illogical, sensational and outlandish--time to look at yourself carefully and honestly and try to figure out how you could have fallen for such deluded conspiracy crap. The fact of planned and carefully coordinated infiltration by Satan's forces should be an obvious "given". The Church, like any organized and influential institution, esp the Lord's Church, would be TARGET #1 by Satan. It IS a target by Satan--and break off sects, like the one you are in, are one of the most obvious ways that Satan has been leading people out of the Lord's true church!Joseph was a target of the Satanic, secret combinations, and ended up dead. Benson knew all too well about these organized, evil forces infiltrating governments as he spent decades warning people about this, so he knew the dangers of infiltration applied equally and ESPECIALLY to the Church.So here you are, claiming to be a member of the LDS church, yet you think that TWO of our Prophets conspired to kill another Prophet???? You expect us to believe your claims? Not unless you are seriously not right in the head. Either you are lying and you actually are no longer active in the church (because you think it's full of lying, murderous leaders and members who practice widespread Satanic ritual abuse)
  or you have some kind of mental limitations which prevent you from thinking clearly and cause you to believe wild, unsubstantiated, nutty theories. My guess is under Benson's leadership, this was coming to a head (evidenced by the Pace Memo and directed no doubt by Pres Benson), and the events surrounding Benson's incapacitation/ neutralization were very likely not accidental.So, you're accusing Pres. Monson and Prs. Hinckley of murdering Pres. Benson. But, you 'love' the church....yea right. Who do you think you are fooling with this charade? If you tell me you have mental issues, I'll at least consider that as a valid explanation for your ridiculous, convoluted thinking, but no other excuse gets any sympathy in my opinion. That's a whole other topic and one I'm not an expert on and frankly there's no point in researching it, given what has happened in the last 2 years, with the Church chasing out of its ranks a righteous man sent by God.

Snuffer wasn't 'chased' out of the church. He was given the opportunity to remain in the church and he refused. He made his choice to embrace his heretical doctrines and teachings and refused to consider he could be out of harmony. It was the height of pride and arrogance that he displayed.

• I go for my kids. We have good youth in our unit.

Why would you want to expose your children to a church run by murderous liars who 'cover up' WIDESPREAD Ritual Satanic Abuse??? This makes no sense. If you actually believe it's practiced in the heart of the church, then why take the chance that your children could be victimized by this????

• I go to serve. My wife serves. My wife wants to go too (for our kids).

Yea, if you darken the door of the church, I expect it is for appearances. Like Mark, I hope you aren't a teacher at church, you should not be living such a double life and teaching doctrines you don't even believe. Especially with your belief that our leadership are murderous, lying creeps who cover up Satanic practices. You should not be pretending to be an active, devout member when that's not what you are.

• I go for the missionary program. Despite church weaknesses, I think the mission experience has great benefits for maturing a young adult.

This makes no sense. If you really believe all the garbage you've spewed here about the church, I can't see how you'd want anyone else to become of member of such a horrible, corrupt lying institution. Something is waaaaaaay off in your thinking. If you want your son to have maturing opportunities, there are other ways than serving a mission. But, he has a testimony, I bet. Something you apparently no longer have,
but you pretend, so those around you won't be as alarmed about your hidden double life spiritual state as we are on this forum.

• I have an opportunity to preserve the Restoration. That is an inspiring goal to have and worthy. Joseph Smith appreciates the attempt,No, he doesn't. He doesn't appreciate what Snuffer is doing anymore than he appreciated what David Whitmer, James Strang or Hedrick or any others did to oppose his church and his calling as Prophet seer and revelator while he was alive. Arenera proved that with the quote shared above. Snuffer is not 'preserving the restoration' and those of you who fight against the church aren't either. You are off in the weeds and sticks, leaving the truth to embrace and join a 'corrupt branch'. and I believe the Lord does too. The Lord may have abandoned the top leaders (because they abandoned Him through UD -- Amen to their priesthood), but not everyone else (except anybody who practices UD as defined by the Lord in DC 121:37, 41).

If the church were truly apostate, the Lord would NOT break off a branch from that apostate,
corrupt tree. He wouldn't do it. He'd have to start all over, not build on someone else's 'foundation'--just as Joseph Smith jr. said. You are NOT doing anything to preserve the restoration, you are simply lost in one of the many dissident sects spawned over the decades by unrighteous, prideful, arrogant former LDS men and women.

• The rank and file LDS people, like me, and my friends, are good people. I was an idolater. So I understand. I was blinded by the craftiness of men. I would have appreciated somebody trying to wake me up.

/Brother Underdog, we're doing our BEST to try to 'wake you up' but you are stubborn and close your mind and heart to plain and honest truth. The 'craftiness of men' are those who've fed you this poisonous garbage about the church and it's leaders and caused you to have no idea what's right or wrong, good or bad, truth or error. If you want to 'wake up', you are going to have to do some serious, humble soul searching and then, be honest with those around you. I'd suggest the first step is to go to your Bishop and tell him everything you've been hiding and ask him for guidance in figuring out what really is truth and how to help get you out of these mists of darkness you are mired in.

MY RESPONSES IN BLUE BELOW;

AI2,

I had typed up a response but lost it by accident. Quick summary:

No I don't think fellow apostles murdered Benson. No evidence whatsoever. Then why did you imply that they did? Read your post,
you imply they were involved in trying to kill him. You imply that they were covering up something and you even claimed that Elder Nelson, a cardiologist, performed brain surgery on him. So dumb, it's laughable.8-|

You ask for evidence of SRA in the Church? Read the Pace Memo. It's all there. He did the research and made the report, not me. He was very disturbed and rightly so. I guess you've not read it? Stake presidents and bishops are involved. Not a pretty picture. This is soooo old, it's from 1990. I am familiar with it, and it involved a very small number of people and the claims were found to be unsubstantiated. That doesn't mean there was not some Satan worship going on among a tiny group, but this was not 'WIDESPREAD' as you claimed--sixty people making the allegations out of several million is NOT 'widespread'. There are probably a number of terrible things involving small pockets of members, but it's not condoned or well known and when it does come to light, it's not covered up, it's dealt with. And it's very important that the SRA allegations came from 'recovered memory' which is not reliable and are often used in modern day 'witchhunts' against innocent people. If they'd produced recordings or actual dead bodies or physical evidence of torture, that would have been different. Elder Pace was alarmed by the accusations(in his defense they didn't know much about recovered memory at the time), and especially because he had 60 members who claimed this, but personally, I'm very skeptical of a lot of what these people claimed because recovered memory is not reliable evidence to believe these kinds of claims--you must have other evidence to corroborate it or it should be looked it with strong skepticism and in this case, there was never any more evidence found to corroborate it.

You recoil in shock that I would still attend church but you still attend. Don't you believe tares are in our midst? Do you think Jesus gave us the "enemy hath done this" parable with no clear and present threat to us in the latter days?Yes, I find it extremely odd that you would continue to attend a church that you believe is the 'enemy' which is fighting against the true church of God. Frankly, that's just bizarre. If I thought the church was apostate, I wouldn't waste my time attending.

I assume you concede to this point.

Which begs the question, why do you still attend?Because I happen to have a witness it's the true church, duh. It's normal for people who actually believe their church is true to attend, it's not normal for people who think their church is false and full of apostate leaders to attend. If you say you attend because you don't want to upset your wife, inlaws, parents and/or children by your own apostasy, I can understand that. But I'd still say you should at least be honest with your Bishop--maybe he could help you.

We are in a battle. Stop being so naive. Let me quote Paul who was in a "high place." He knew what he spoke of when he said:uh...let's just be clear; I'm not the naive one who believes every outlandish crank conspiracy theory out there....

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

I'm not going to go off in depth on the Satanic topic because I don't know much about it. Suffice it to say it is real. You deny it apparently. Head in sand. The poster called Irrelevant brought up "Satanic" and I was just responding that I don't see any signs of that here locally. Thankfully. However, Elder Pace's memo came to mind and I realized that is yet another example of cover-up so I mentioned it. It is a good example. The list of acts of apostasy is very very long.

You admit you don't know much about it. I actually do. I remember when this got a lot of attention. But, as I said, it involved recovered memories, which were used a lot in the 1990's and ended up destroying a lot of people lives (look up McMartin Preschool), until they figured out they weren't reliable. This is almost 30 years old, I'd expect a lot of people on the forum know about it. And sorry, it's not an example of a coverup. Not everyone chooses to share everything of a private nature with the world, especially when people come to the church in confidence to share things--the Memo was leaked. As far as I know, the 60 individuals never took it to the press. The state of Utah did investigate this and found no evidence to corroborate the claims, not a shred. A lot of good people could have had their lives destroyed by these uncorroborated accusations, but the church wasn't trying to destroy lives.

You need to be a little more discerning about what you believe.

[underdog]

My responses in blue;

To Irrelevant,

Great question. That was a question I entertained quite regularly a year ago (and still do much less frequently). Here are some thoughts and justifications for me to attending:

• In MY unit, I'm not aware of any Satan-worshipping or SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse) activity, like happens out in Utah.'Like it happens in Utah'? Seriously, do you know that this is a problem in Utah because I live here and I don't know anything but what some people have claimed, and I'm not too certain they are in their right mind, I think some are mentally unstable. See Glen Pace memo. If I was aware of that in my stake or ward, I'd probably think twice about participating.Uh, let's hope. I'd think if any normal person found out there was Satan Worship going on in their ward, they'd not participate. http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no80.htm has the memo that Elder Pace wrote. The cover-up of this memo is yet ANOTHER piece of hardcore, irrefutable evidence of apostasy of the Brethren.You have proof of this 'cover up'? How do you know enough about this to make such a claim? Are you in the habit of believing every crazy accusation and conspiracy crap that you come across? I love Ezra Taft Benson. He's my favorite of all the presidents (excluding Joseph Smith). The cover-up of WIDESPREAD Satanic Ritual Abuse in the ChurchI'm seriously wondering about your mental state to make such a claim--'coverup of WIDESPREAD Satanic ritual abuse in the church'???? Where's your evidence to make such an outrageous accusation and claim? Provide it or stop slandering the church with this garbage. This forum is supposed to be a comfortable place for believing members and I for one would NEVER be a party to a religion which practiced Satanic ritual abuse--I don't like what you are insinuating. I am offended that you would suggest that LDS members are engaged in these practices on a 'WIDESPREAD' scale.
  Better be careful, you are showing your true colors because only someone who spends a lot of time digesting garbage on vicious, lying Anti mormon websites would say this kind of stuff and believe it--that or you are mentally unwell yourself. was under his watch, but he had already lost his faculties, if I recall, because he fell down stairs and had some operation on his brain (by Elder Nelson).Wow, a jack of all trades,
  considering Pres. Nelson was a heart surgeon, it's incredible he could also operate as a Neurosurgeon. Do you really believe this crap, Underdog,
  I didn't think you were that gullible, but I guess I"m wrong because you sound sincere. Never the same since then. The responsibility would then fall to Monson and Hinckley, who WERE in the their right minds, and it's of course under THEIR leadership that the UD has spread like wildfire (those 2 may have been responsible for the WW's excerpts being added in 1981 and perhaps they covered it up from the eyes of their Brethren at the time).You've lost it. This is so outrageous, normal, thinking people don't believe this crap. Why would you believe it?? It's illogical, sensational and outlandish--time to look at yourself carefully and honestly and try to figure out how you could have fallen for such deluded conspiracy crap. The fact of planned and carefully coordinated infiltration by Satan's forces should be an obvious "given". The Church, like any organized and influential institution, esp the Lord's Church, would be TARGET #1 by Satan. It IS a target by Satan--and break off sects, like the one you are in, are one of the most obvious ways that Satan has been leading people out of the Lord's true church!Joseph was a target of the Satanic, secret combinations, and ended up dead. Benson knew all too well about these organized, evil forces infiltrating governments as he spent decades warning people about this, so he knew the dangers of infiltration applied equally and ESPECIALLY to the Church.So here you are, claiming to be a member of the LDS church, yet you think that TWO of our Prophets conspired to kill another Prophet???? You expect us to believe your claims? Not unless you are seriously not right in the head. Either you are lying and you actually are no longer active in the church (because you think it's full of lying, murderous leaders and members who practice widespread Satanic ritual abuse)
  or you have some kind of mental limitations which prevent you from thinking clearly and cause you to believe wild, unsubstantiated, nutty theories. My guess is under Benson's leadership, this was coming to a head (evidenced by the Pace Memo and directed no doubt by Pres Benson), and the events surrounding Benson's incapacitation/ neutralization were very likely not accidental.So, you're accusing Pres. Monson and Prs. Hinckley of murdering Pres. Benson. But, you 'love' the church....yea right. Who do you think you are fooling with this charade? If you tell me you have mental issues, I'll at least consider that as a valid explanation for your ridiculous, convoluted thinking, but no other excuse gets any sympathy in my opinion. That's a whole other topic and one I'm not an expert on and frankly there's no point in researching it, given what has happened in the last 2 years, with the Church chasing out of its ranks a righteous man sent by God.

Snuffer wasn't 'chased' out of the church. He was given the opportunity to remain in the church and he refused. He made his choice to embrace his heretical doctrines and teachings and refused to consider he could be out of harmony. It was the height of pride and arrogance that he displayed.

• I go for my kids. We have good youth in our unit.

Why would you want to expose your children to a church run by murderous liars who 'cover up' WIDESPREAD Ritual Satanic Abuse??? This makes no sense. If you actually believe it's practiced in the heart of the church, then why take the chance that your children could be victimized by this????

• I go to serve. My wife serves. My wife wants to go too (for our kids).

Yea, if you darken the door of the church, I expect it is for appearances. Like Mark, I hope you aren't a teacher at church, you should not be living such a double life and teaching doctrines you don't even believe. Especially with your belief that our leadership are murderous, lying creeps who cover up Satanic practices. You should not be pretending to be an active, devout member when that's not what you are.

• I go for the missionary program. Despite church weaknesses, I think the mission experience has great benefits for maturing a young adult.

This makes no sense. If you really believe all the garbage you've spewed here about the church, I can't see how you'd want anyone else to become of member of such a horrible, corrupt lying institution. Something is waaaaaaay off in your thinking. If you want your son to have maturing opportunities, there are other ways than serving a mission. But, he has a testimony, I bet. Something you apparently no longer have,
but you pretend, so those around you won't be as alarmed about your hidden double life spiritual state as we are on this forum.

• I have an opportunity to preserve the Restoration. That is an inspiring goal to have and worthy. Joseph Smith appreciates the attempt,No, he doesn't. He doesn't appreciate what Snuffer is doing anymore than he appreciated what David Whitmer, James Strang or Hedrick or any others did to oppose his church and his calling as Prophet seer and revelator while he was alive. Arenera proved that with the quote shared above. Snuffer is not 'preserving the restoration' and those of you who fight against the church aren't either. You are off in the weeds and sticks, leaving the truth to embrace and join a 'corrupt branch'. and I believe the Lord does too. The Lord may have abandoned the top leaders (because they abandoned Him through UD -- Amen to their priesthood), but not everyone else (except anybody who practices UD as defined by the Lord in DC 121:37, 41).

If the church were truly apostate, the Lord would NOT break off a branch from that apostate,
corrupt tree. He wouldn't do it. He'd have to start all over, not build on someone else's 'foundation'--just as Joseph Smith jr. said. You are NOT doing anything to preserve the restoration, you are simply lost in one of the many dissident sects spawned over the decades by unrighteous, prideful, arrogant former LDS men and women.

• The rank and file LDS people, like me, and my friends, are good people. I was an idolater. So I understand. I was blinded by the craftiness of men. I would have appreciated somebody trying to wake me up.

/Brother Underdog, we're doing our BEST to try to 'wake you up' but you are stubborn and close your mind and heart to plain and honest truth. The 'craftiness of men' are those who've fed you this poisonous garbage about the church and it's leaders and caused you to have no idea what's right or wrong, good or bad, truth or error. If you want to 'wake up', you are going to have to do some serious, humble soul searching and then, be honest with those around you. I'd suggest the first step is to go to your Bishop and tell him everything you've been hiding and ask him for guidance in figuring out what really is truth and how to help get you out of these mists of darkness you are mired in.

MY RESPONSES IN BLUE BELOW;

AI2,

I had typed up a response but lost it by accident. Quick summary:

No I don't think fellow apostles murdered Benson. No evidence whatsoever. Then why did you imply that they did? Read your post,
you imply they were involved in trying to kill him. You imply that they were covering up something and you even claimed that Elder Nelson, a cardiologist, performed brain surgery on him. So dumb, it's laughable.8-|

You ask for evidence of SRA in the Church? Read the Pace Memo. It's all there. He did the research and made the report, not me. He was very disturbed and rightly so. I guess you've not read it? Stake presidents and bishops are involved. Not a pretty picture. This is soooo old, it's from 1990. I am familiar with it, and it involved a very small number of people and the claims were found to be unsubstantiated. That doesn't mean there was not some Satan worship going on among a tiny group, but this was not 'WIDESPREAD' as you claimed--sixty people making the allegations out of several million is NOT 'widespread'. There are probably a number of terrible things involving small pockets of members, but it's not condoned or well known and when it does come to light, it's not covered up, it's dealt with. And it's very important that the SRA allegations came from 'recovered memory' which is not reliable and are often used in modern day 'witchhunts' against innocent people. If they'd produced recordings or actual dead bodies or physical evidence of torture, that would have been different. Elder Pace was alarmed by the accusations(in his defense they didn't know much about recovered memory at the time), and especially because he had 60 members who claimed this, but personally, I'm very skeptical of a lot of what these people claimed because recovered memory is not reliable evidence to believe these kinds of claims--you must have other evidence to corroborate it or it should be looked it with strong skepticism and in this case, there was never any more evidence found to corroborate it.

You recoil in shock that I would still attend church but you still attend. Don't you believe tares are in our midst? Do you think Jesus gave us the "enemy hath done this" parable with no clear and present threat to us in the latter days?Yes, I find it extremely odd that you would continue to attend a church that you believe is the 'enemy' which is fighting against the true church of God. Frankly, that's just bizarre. If I thought the church was apostate, I wouldn't waste my time attending.

I assume you concede to this point.

Which begs the question, why do you still attend?Because I happen to have a witness it's the true church, duh. It's normal for people who actually believe their church is true to attend, it's not normal for people who think their church is false and full of apostate leaders to attend. If you say you attend because you don't want to upset your wife, inlaws, parents and/or children by your own apostasy, I can understand that. But I'd still say you should at least be honest with your Bishop--maybe he could help you.

We are in a battle. Stop being so naive. Let me quote Paul who was in a "high place." He knew what he spoke of when he said:uh...let's just be clear; I'm not the naive one who believes every outlandish crank conspiracy theory out there....

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

I'm not going to go off in depth on the Satanic topic because I don't know much about it. Suffice it to say it is real. You deny it apparently. Head in sand. The poster called Irrelevant brought up "Satanic" and I was just responding that I don't see any signs of that here locally. Thankfully. However, Elder Pace's memo came to mind and I realized that is yet another example of cover-up so I mentioned it. It is a good example. The list of acts of apostasy is very very long.

You admit you don't know much about it. I actually do. I remember when this got a lot of attention. But, as I said, it involved recovered memories, which were used a lot in the 1990's and ended up destroying a lot of people lives (look up McMartin Preschool), until they figured out they weren't reliable. This is almost 30 years old, I'd expect a lot of people on the forum know about it. And sorry, it's not an example of a coverup. Not everyone chooses to share everything of a private nature with the world, especially when people come to the church in confidence to share things--the Memo was leaked. As far as I know, the 60 individuals never took it to the press. The state of Utah did investigate this and found no evidence to corroborate the claims, not a shred. A lot of good people could have had their lives destroyed by these uncorroborated accusations, but the church wasn't trying to destroy lives.

You need to be a little more discerning about what you believe.

AI2,

I'll concede you know more about the subject than I do. I could do well to listen to you then. I'm not sure listing that as a cover-up example is a very good idea. Maybe. I didn't know anything about when it came out and how the Church handled it then. I however would't put hardly any faith in the state of Utah or any government body charged with investigating Illuminati infiltration. The reason is, of course, they run things. Think what Satan said in the temple movie. Satan has long since bought off with silver and gold all governments that have any influence.

Investigators end up dead, but usually what happens is the investigation just dies itself. Because the people at the top so order it to die.

Let me address one thing...I gotta go to Wed night activities!

You said,

"Yes, I find it extremely odd that you would continue to attend a church that you believe is the 'enemy' which is fighting against the true church of God. Frankly, that's just bizarre. If I thought the church was apostate, I wouldn't waste my time attending."

The parable of the wheat and tares does not teach that EVERYONE is apostate, but that there are some who are deceivers, that there are ones with evil intent and that there are ones who are unthinking pawns of the agenda-movers. The tares are mixed in with the wheat to deceive the wheat. Discernment is the name of the game.

So when you say "the Church" is apostate, that's not real accurate. We should talk about WHO or WHAT TEACHINGS and not a nameless abstract thing like a "church". There are plenty of good people in the Church. Who knows the numbers, but no doubt many are blinded by the craftiness of their leaders. Who know how many, but no doubt there are many with evil intent, who want to deceive. The enemy after all came and sowed tares. They are placed there to deceive. Christ allows this. He respects are agency. Just as He would respect the agency of a president of the Church to lead us astray. He honors us by respecting our free will. False prophets who oppress and tyrants who reign with unrighteous dominion are tares. And I repeat, it doesn't matter if a teacher sincerely believes the falsehood he is teaching.

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?"

Many will be shocked at the last day. Joseph said he saw in vision Judgment Day and he couldn't express in words how sad and traumatic it was to see those who really, sincerely and honestly believed they had been following Jesus while going through life, when they came face to face with the harsh but truthful reality, that they had been deceived. There was weeping and wailing like you cannot imagine. He said it was horrific to witness their anguish of soul. This should cause everyone to humble themselves and to question their traditions. I've tried to help you all question our false traditions.

So you see, it's not odd or bizarre. We live in a world of deceit, an empire of lies. That doesn't take away my joy. Why let somebody else steal my joy? There are tares at church. There are tares in the remnant movement. It's a given. There is opposition in all things. You say you wouldn't attend, but who knows. Many do choose to not attend. I can understand it. But I hope you understand my reasoning. I have a place to go and serve and lift others to Christ, and partake of a good social network, and have a wholesome place for kids and grandkids to attend.

We can discuss as a family what "tare" teaching was taught at Church. We can analyze it. We can discard the falsehoods, and retain the truths. I have to tell you that I get a lot of comments like this, "Brother Underdog, you gave a great lesson today, really inspiring!" Or, "You answered a prayer of mine", or "I never thought of that scripture that way before, I see new meanings now" or maybe nothing is said, but you see people crying because the Spirit is touching them and teaching them profound truths. There's no contention when I teach or testify because I'm preaching Jesus Christ and the Restored Gospel. Obviously I'm not coming out swinging like here on this thread. That would be quite scandalous but I'm preparing for that time when the Lord will say to me, "It is time, bear witness." Maybe that time won't come. Who knows. Till then, I wish to enjoy my fellowship with the saints and wish nobody harm.

[Arenera]

Are you reading what Arenera quoted? It doesn't support your position AT ALL--in fact, it outright condemns your prophet's activities! Let me explain it to you clearly.

Joseph Smith is accusing all those who would break from what he restored (because they accuse him of apostasy) of being corrupt and apostate themselves, because you can't break a'branch' off of a corrupt 'tree' and expect it to be anything but corrupt--of course it's corrupt too and every time you accuse the LDS apostles and LDS church of being corrupt, you are also condemning the branch of Snufferism of being corrupt as well. Denver Snuffer was a member of the LDS church for 40 years and he has built his church off the foundation of the LDS church. Joseph Smith is condemning all those who attempt to do this.

If Denver Snuffer wants to claim to be a true prophet, he shouldn't have spent 40 years in the LDS church claiming to be a faithful, believing member, up until the time that they exed him, and THEN claiming to bring the 'truth' to the world. He's not doing that, he's effectively stealing all the content from the LDS church and then manipulating it to suit his own opinions and ideas--just like every other false prophet who's built his church on the backs of his former church.

You are so confused, I guess that's how you could find yourself with supposedly one foot in the LDS church and one foot in the Snuffer/Remnant movement.

I now have a better understanding of tare.

[brlenox]

2.) I have missed something ... what is happening in September where receiving the BOM is to take place?

Thank you for sharing that research. I appreciate the time, and the quotes.

In Sept there is an historic meeting taking place.

Details are here: http://www.covenantofchristconference.com

There currently is underway a major review of the Restoration scriptures. In other words, what should be included or excluded from our canon of scripture. I'm not attached to any remnant group or fellowship, but I'm following it from afar and trying to keep up with the scripture review.

My understanding is that the BoM will be received by covenant, among other things.

This will be one of the most historic weekends in the history of the Restoration, indeed in all of recorded sacred history going back to Moses' work where he gave us the initial books of the OT.

Thank you for the Sept 23 information. As for the research, you are welcome but are you going to respond to it? You have said multiple times that you were an honest person who would admit your errors if they could be validated.

[underdog]

2.) I have missed something ... what is happening in September where receiving the BOM is to take place?

Thank you for sharing that research. I appreciate the time, and the quotes.

In Sept there is an historic meeting taking place.

Details are here: http://www.covenantofchristconference.com

There currently is underway a major review of the Restoration scriptures. In other words, what should be included or excluded from our canon of scripture. I'm not attached to any remnant group or fellowship, but I'm following it from afar and trying to keep up with the scripture review.

My understanding is that the BoM will be received by covenant, among other things.

This will be one of the most historic weekends in the history of the Restoration, indeed in all of recorded sacred history going back to Moses' work where he gave us the initial books of the OT.

Thank you for the Sept 23 information. As for the research, you are welcome but are you going to respond to it? You have said multiple times that you were an honest person who would admit your errors if they could be validated.

Br. Lenox,

I read your post and didn't find anything objectionable. What corrections were there? Nothing big popped out. I felt like I concurred.

Are we debating what we call the LoF? Inspired writings or scripture? The Prophet thought they were important enough that we should have them sustained as part of our canon. Some men reversed that in 1921. I think this is extremely important. The decision of the 1921 apostles was an act of apostasy because it removed such vital doctrine that teaches clearly the path back to God -- the Second Comforter.

I liked the way you described them:

"Essentially, this serves as an outline and a treatise on the process of coming into the presence of God or receiving the Second Comforter, arguably the primary focal point of the lectures on faith. This process requires those testimonies of the prophets, apostles, and others to assist in the process of bringing individuals along until, as they become less dependent on other testimonies for the progressive possession of the knowledge acquired by their exercise of faith in the words of said apostles and prophets until they gain the knowledge of their Savior."

Couldn't agree more.

I didn't understand what you were getting at here:

In the times of a fullness of the gospel the lectures on faith sustain the church wonderfully - you, not so much.

Could you clarify?

Yes, I am happy to be corrected and expect to be.

[brlenox]

2.) I have missed something ... what is happening in September where receiving the BOM is to take place?

Thank you for sharing that research. I appreciate the time, and the quotes.

In Sept there is an historic meeting taking place.

Details are here: http://www.covenantofchristconference.com

There currently is underway a major review of the Restoration scriptures. In other words, what should be included or excluded from our canon of scripture. I'm not attached to any remnant group or fellowship, but I'm following it from afar and trying to keep up with the scripture review.

My understanding is that the BoM will be received by covenant, among other things.

This will be one of the most historic weekends in the history of the Restoration, indeed in all of recorded sacred history going back to Moses' work where he gave us the initial books of the OT.

One other thing...where is the information on the scripture review? Who is conducting this effort?

[underdog]

2.) I have missed something ... what is happening in September where receiving the BOM is to take place?

Thank you for sharing that research. I appreciate the time, and the quotes.

In Sept there is an historic meeting taking place.

Details are here: http://www.covenantofchristconference.com

There currently is underway a major review of the Restoration scriptures. In other words, what should be included or excluded from our canon of scripture. I'm not attached to any remnant group or fellowship, but I'm following it from afar and trying to keep up with the scripture review.

My understanding is that the BoM will be received by covenant, among other things.

This will be one of the most historic weekends in the history of the Restoration, indeed in all of recorded sacred history going back to Moses' work where he gave us the initial books of the OT.

One other thing...where is the information on the scripture review? Who is conducting this effort?

Br. Lenox,

All info is here: http://scriptures.info/Home/Conferences

There are a bunch of tireless volunteers. Everybody and anybody is encouraged to submit proposals for inclusion in what will be voted on and sustained as scripture. The Lord's blessing and approval will be sought and confirmed.

[Finrock]

So I've read this thread now in its entirety and am left wondering why you are as active in the Church as you say you are. You've given examples of and explained what you see as irrefutable evidence of satanic activity and apostasy of the church's leaders for decades. You claim that the prophets, apostles, etc are not God's, neither do they speak His word. How could you be able to sit through three hours of false doctrine and idol worship, surrounded by who you call "Bretherenites"? I'm not attacking you- I ask out of pure curiosity.

To Irrelevant,

Great question. That was a question I entertained quite regularly a year ago (and still do much less frequently). Here are some thoughts and justifications for me to attending:

• In MY unit, I'm not aware of any Satan-worshipping or SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse) activity, like happens out in Utah. See Glen Pace memo. If I was aware of that in my stake or ward, I'd probably think twice about participating. http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no80.htm has the memo that Elder Pace wrote. The cover-up of this memo is yet ANOTHER piece of hardcore, irrefutable evidence of apostasy of the Brethren. I love Ezra Taft Benson. He's my favorite of all the presidents (excluding Joseph Smith). The cover-up of WIDESPREAD Satanic Ritual Abuse in the Church was under his watch, but he had already lost his faculties, if I recall, because he fell down stairs and had some operation on his brain (by Elder Nelson). Never the same since then. The responsibility would then fall to Monson and Hinckley, who WERE in the their right minds, and it's of course under THEIR leadership that the UD has spread like wildfire (those 2 may have been responsible for the WW's excerpts being added in 1981 and perhaps they covered it up from the eyes of their Brethren at the time). The fact of planned and carefully coordinated infiltration by Satan's forces should be an obvious "given". The Church, like any organized and influential institution, esp the Lord's Church, would be TARGET #1 by Satan. Joseph was a target of the Satanic, secret combinations, and ended up dead. Benson knew all too well about these organized, evil forces infiltrating governments as he spent decades warning people about this, so he knew the dangers of infiltration applied equally and ESPECIALLY to the Church. My guess is under Benson's leadership, this was coming to a head (evidenced by the Pace Memo and directed no doubt by Pres Benson), and the events surrounding Benson's incapacitation/ neutralization were very likely not accidental. That's a whole other topic and one I'm not an expert on and frankly there's no point in researching it, given what has happened in the last 2 years, with the Church chasing out of its ranks a righteous man sent by God.

• I go for my kids. We have good youth in our unit.

• I go to serve. My wife serves. My wife wants to go too (for our kids).

• I go for the missionary program. Despite church weaknesses, I think the mission experience has great benefits for maturing a young adult.

• I have an opportunity to preserve the Restoration. That is an inspiring goal to have and worthy. Joseph Smith appreciates the attempt, and I believe the Lord does too. The Lord may have abandoned the top leaders (because they abandoned Him through UD -- Amen to their priesthood), but not everyone else (except anybody who practices UD as defined by the Lord in DC 121:37, 41).

• The rank and file LDS people, like me, and my friends, are good people. I was an idolater. So I understand. I was blinded by the craftiness of men. I would have appreciated somebody trying to wake me up.

underdog,

When you were an idolater and living in apostasy, did God forsake you and abandon you?

-Finrock

Finrock, I never felt forsaken or abandoned. I didn't even realize I was an idolater. Does a Christian who has rejected the BoM feel like he was abandoned or forsaken by God? I doubt it. They'd think such a notion was preposterous.

If there's any forsaking or abandoning, it's me doing that to God. But gratefully, whenever I turn to Him, He is always there to greet me.

Thanks for the response. Let me change focus a bit for a moment...

I'm a little unclear as to what your position is. Do you believe that Denver Snuffer speaks for Jesus Christ, like a modern day "Moses"? Do you esteem him to be greater or more enlightened than those who are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators in the LDS Church? Is it your position that the LDS Church no longer serves the purpose of bringing souls to Christ? Did Denver Snuffer "wrest" the keys from the Brethren or anything like that?

-Finrock

[brlenox]

2.) I have missed something ... what is happening in September where receiving the BOM is to take place?

Thank you for sharing that research. I appreciate the time, and the quotes.

In Sept there is an historic meeting taking place.

Details are here: http://www.covenantofchristconference.com

There currently is underway a major review of the Restoration scriptures. In other words, what should be included or excluded from our canon of scripture. I'm not attached to any remnant group or fellowship, but I'm following it from afar and trying to keep up with the scripture review.

My understanding is that the BoM will be received by covenant, among other things.

This will be one of the most historic weekends in the history of the Restoration, indeed in all of recorded sacred history going back to Moses' work where he gave us the initial books of the OT.

Thank you for the Sept 23 information. As for the research, you are welcome but are you going to respond to it? You have said multiple times that you were an honest person who would admit your errors if they could be validated.

Br. Lenox,

I read your post and didn't find anything objectionable. What corrections were there? Nothing big popped out. I felt like I concurred.

Are we debating what we call the LoF? Inspired writings or scripture? The Prophet thought they were important enough that we should have them sustained as part of our canon. Some men reversed that in 1921. I think this is extremely important. The decision of the 1921 apostles was an act of apostasy because it removed such vital doctrine that teaches clearly the path back to God -- the Second Comforter.

I liked the way you described them:

"Essentially, this serves as an outline and a treatise on the process of coming into the presence of God or receiving the Second Comforter, arguably the primary focal point of the lectures on faith. This process requires those testimonies of the prophets, apostles, and others to assist in the process of bringing individuals along until, as they become less dependent on other testimonies for the progressive possession of the knowledge acquired by their exercise of faith in the words of said apostles and prophets until they gain the knowledge of their Savior."

Couldn't agree more.

I didn't understand what you were getting at here:

In the times of a fullness of the gospel the lectures on faith sustain the church wonderfully - you, not so much.

Could you clarify?

Yes, I am happy to be corrected and expect to be.

The lectures speak to a process and sustain prophets and apostles as a part of that process. That is not to say that is the only venue as we have clear examples in times when there is no fullness of the gospel and the C&E is achieved. However, these are singular events and not readily duplicated seemingly reserved for those who are the priesthood spokesman for the Lord. The adding to the mix of living prophets and apostles provides for a better distribution of the authority and directional potential that the message can more readily be taught, observed, embraced and acted upon to increase the availability and receipt of the blessings of calling and election. Part of the criteria for C & E is the ability to discern false prophets from true servants of the Lord. When I speak to true servants, as it applies to this dispensation, I am referencing those who occupy the positions of apostles and prophets in these latter-days as a body of priesthood leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While there may be an occasional lone individual who fails while serving in these positions, the body of brethren will always remain intact. In this way the lectures on faith sustain the structure of spiritual advisors and the church that are in part a key element of advancing in true knowledge. Where you have abandoned these spiritual advisors, except for when they say something you agree with, the Lectures on Faith do not sustain you.

The reason I asked for your response is my post made a very clear point. However, and you have done this a couple of times in these discussions, you step over the point acknowledging various tangents. I could do like you do and just claim, "golly gee it looks like you have just said you agree with me that the LOF are not the caliber of scripture and do not pass the test of revelation and thus are not to be considered such." That was my clearly made point to which you assented when you stated, "I read your post and didn't find anything objectionable."

However, I know that is not true and you are not in visible agreement with the points. However, as you have done this a couple of times, where you step over the specific point which was validated with scripture and apostolic commentary, and then drift off to support of the tangential elements, this does not require you to acknowledge your mistaken notions. Thus my request is to have you respond directly to the point to which I provided some compelling evidence to sustain. This is the point of correction that you claim willingness to consider. My request is to have you acknowledge to elephant of the post - its point of focus - that you step over and address it head on instead of dancing around it.

[Irrelevant]

2.) I have missed something ... what is happening in September where receiving the BOM is to take place?

Thank you for sharing that research. I appreciate the time, and the quotes.

In Sept there is an historic meeting taking place.

Details are here: http://www.covenantofchristconference.com

There currently is underway a major review of the Restoration scriptures. In other words, what should be included or excluded from our canon of scripture. I'm not attached to any remnant group or fellowship, but I'm following it from afar and trying to keep up with the scripture review.

My understanding is that the BoM will be received by covenant, among other things.

This will be one of the most historic weekends in the history of the Restoration, indeed in all of recorded sacred history going back to Moses' work where he gave us the initial books of the OT.

One other thing...where is the information on the scripture review? Who is conducting this effort?

Br. Lenox,

All info is here: http://scriptures.info/Home/Conferences

There are a bunch of tireless volunteers. Everybody and anybody is encouraged to submit proposals for inclusion in what will be voted on and sustained as scripture. The Lord's blessing and approval will be sought and confirmed.

"what should be included or excluded from our canon of scripture" and "Everybody and anybody is encouraged to submit proposals for inclusion in what will be voted on and sustained as scripture."

Who will be bound by this? Will you consider yourself bound? Will you continue to maintain membership in the Church while adopting a new set (or at least revised) of scripture? The revisions, coming from a group based on opposition to the leadership of the LDS church, will undoubtedly widen the chasm between the two groups. Do you foresee a point where it becomes impossible for you to straddle it?

If Snuffer told you to leave the Church and join his group, would you?

Have you taken your issues with the leadership of the Church to your stake president, as we are encouraged to do in General Conference? "Those who may have opposed any of the proposals should contact their stake presidents." President Uchtdorf, in April

[AI2.0]

Thank you for sharing that research. I appreciate the time, and the quotes.

In Sept there is an historic meeting taking place.

Details are here: http://www.covenantofchristconference.com

There currently is underway a major review of the Restoration scriptures. In other words, what should be included or excluded from our canon of scripture. I'm not attached to any remnant group or fellowship, but I'm following it from afar and trying to keep up with the scripture review.

My understanding is that the BoM will be received by covenant, among other things.

This will be one of the most historic weekends in the history of the Restoration, indeed in all of recorded sacred history going back to Moses' work where he gave us the initial books of the OT.

One other thing...where is the information on the scripture review? Who is conducting this effort?

Br. Lenox,

All info is here: http://scriptures.info/Home/Conferences

There are a bunch of tireless volunteers. Everybody and anybody is encouraged to submit proposals for inclusion in what will be voted on and sustained as scripture. The Lord's blessing and approval will be sought and confirmed.

"what should be included or excluded from our canon of scripture" and "Everybody and anybody is encouraged to submit proposals for inclusion in what will be voted on and sustained as scripture."

Who will be bound by this? Will you consider yourself bound? Will you continue to maintain membership in the Church while adopting a new set (or at least revised) of scripture? The revisions, coming from a group based on opposition to the leadership of the LDS church, will undoubtedly widen the chasm between the two groups. Do you foresee a point where it becomes impossible for you to straddle it?

If Snuffer told you to leave the Church and join his group, would you?

Have you taken your issues with the leadership of the Church to your stake president, as we are encouraged to do in General Conference? "Those who may have opposed any of the proposals should contact their stake presidents." President Uchtdorf, in April

Very good questions, they all go to the heart of the matter--who is making the decisions and why? They may be good, well-meaning people, but what authority do they have to make those decisions and what could be the far reaching consequences of getting involved with this group?

Br. Underdog; Discussing Irrelevant's suggestion that you discuss your concerns with your Stake Pres. is a great idea, but if you don't feel comfortable talking with your leaders at this time, then maybe someone else.

Jonesy mentioned that when he was considering the things he was reading from Denver Snuffer, he discussed them with someone whom he obviously felt had wisdom and would give him sound advice. Do you have anyone like that in your life that you could talk to about this?

[Arenera]

One other thing...where is the information on the scripture review? Who is conducting this effort?

Br. Lenox,

All info is here: http://scriptures.info/Home/Conferences

There are a bunch of tireless volunteers. Everybody and anybody is encouraged to submit proposals for inclusion in what will be voted on and sustained as scripture. The Lord's blessing and approval will be sought and confirmed.

"what should be included or excluded from our canon of scripture" and "Everybody and anybody is encouraged to submit proposals for inclusion in what will be voted on and sustained as scripture."

Who will be bound by this? Will you consider yourself bound? Will you continue to maintain membership in the Church while adopting a new set (or at least revised) of scripture? The revisions, coming from a group based on opposition to the leadership of the LDS church, will undoubtedly widen the chasm between the two groups. Do you foresee a point where it becomes impossible for you to straddle it?

If Snuffer told you to leave the Church and join his group, would you?

Have you taken your issues with the leadership of the Church to your stake president, as we are encouraged to do in General Conference? "Those who may have opposed any of the proposals should contact their stake presidents." President Uchtdorf, in April

Very good questions, they all go to the heart of the matter--who is making the decisions and why? They may be good, well-meaning people, but what authority do they have to make those decisions and what could be the far reaching consequences of getting involved with this group?

Br. Underdog; Discussing Irrelevant's suggestion that you discuss your concerns with your Stake Pres. is a great idea, but if you don't feel comfortable talking with your leaders at this time, then maybe someone else.

Jonesy mentioned that when he was considering the things he was reading from Denver Snuffer, he discussed them with someone whom he obviously felt had wisdom and would give him sound advice. Do you have anyone like that in your life that you could talk to about this?

Could I help?

[underdog]

Thank you for sharing that research. I appreciate the time, and the quotes.

In Sept there is an historic meeting taking place.

Details are here: http://www.covenantofchristconference.com

There currently is underway a major review of the Restoration scriptures. In other words, what should be included or excluded from our canon of scripture. I'm not attached to any remnant group or fellowship, but I'm following it from afar and trying to keep up with the scripture review.

My understanding is that the BoM will be received by covenant, among other things.

This will be one of the most historic weekends in the history of the Restoration, indeed in all of recorded sacred history going back to Moses' work where he gave us the initial books of the OT.

Thank you for the Sept 23 information. As for the research, you are welcome but are you going to respond to it? You have said multiple times that you were an honest person who would admit your errors if they could be validated.

Br. Lenox,

I read your post and didn't find anything objectionable. What corrections were there? Nothing big popped out. I felt like I concurred.

Are we debating what we call the LoF? Inspired writings or scripture? The Prophet thought they were important enough that we should have them sustained as part of our canon. Some men reversed that in 1921. I think this is extremely important. The decision of the 1921 apostles was an act of apostasy because it removed such vital doctrine that teaches clearly the path back to God -- the Second Comforter.

I liked the way you described them:

"Essentially, this serves as an outline and a treatise on the process of coming into the presence of God or receiving the Second Comforter, arguably the primary focal point of the lectures on faith. This process requires those testimonies of the prophets, apostles, and others to assist in the process of bringing individuals along until, as they become less dependent on other testimonies for the progressive possession of the knowledge acquired by their exercise of faith in the words of said apostles and prophets until they gain the knowledge of their Savior."

Couldn't agree more.

I didn't understand what you were getting at here:

In the times of a fullness of the gospel the lectures on faith sustain the church wonderfully - you, not so much.

Could you clarify?

Yes, I am happy to be corrected and expect to be.

The lectures speak to a process and sustain prophets and apostles as a part of that process. That is not to say that is the only venue as we have clear examples in times when there is no fullness of the gospel and the C&E is achieved. However, these are singular events and not readily duplicated seemingly reserved for those who are the priesthood spokesman for the Lord. The adding to the mix of living prophets and apostles provides for a better distribution of the authority and directional potential that the message can more readily be taught, observed, embraced and acted upon to increase the availability and receipt of the blessings of calling and election. Part of the criteria for C & E is the ability to discern false prophets from true servants of the Lord. When I speak to true servants, as it applies to this dispensation, I am referencing those who occupy the positions of apostles and prophets (My point from the beginning of our conversation has been that simply "occupying positions" means very little. Many are called but few are chosen.in these latter-days as a body of priesthood leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While there may be an occasional lone individual who fails while serving in these positions, the body of brethren will always remain intact. This is just your opinion. "Always" is a strong word, and perhaps arrogant. Never say never and never say always. It is the nature and disposition of almost all men as soon as they get a little authority...finish it off in your mind and know that "almost all men" mathematically doesn't work out well for the "body of the brethren" remaining true. Broad is the path that leadeth to destruction. In this way the lectures on faith sustain the structure of spiritual advisors and the church that are in part a key element of advancing in true knowledge. Where you have abandoned these spiritual advisors, except for when they say something you agree with, the Lectures on Faith do not sustain you. Where?

The reason I asked for your response is my post made a very clear point. However, and you have done this a couple of times in these discussions, you step over the point acknowledging various tangents. I could do like you do and just claim, "golly gee it looks like you have just said you agree with me that the LOF are not the caliber of scripture and do not pass the test of revelation and thus are not to be considered such." That was my clearly made point to which you assented when you stated, "I read your post and didn't find anything objectionable."

However, I know that is not true and you are not in visible agreement with the points. I was in agreement because we are defining things differently. We are using the same vocabulary but attaching different meanings. However, as you have done this a couple of times, where you step over the specific point which was validated with scripture and apostolic commentary, and then drift off to support of the tangential elements, this does not require you to acknowledge your mistaken notions. Thus my request is to have you respond directly to the point to which I provided some compelling evidence to sustain. I have no intention of stepping over specific points. It would be helpful for you to clearly state a specific point. You will notice that I painstakingly do this for your benefit so there can be no mistake. Your "point", assuming I can correctly find it, is buried in your prose. This is the point of correction that you claim willingness to consider. My request is to have you acknowledge to elephant of the post - its point of focus - that you step over and address it head on instead of dancing around it. I'll re-read your initial comment above and attempt to address what I believe is the point you're referring to.

I've been busy and not able to respond. My apologies for the delay. My response in blue. Also, I will respond to your earlier post in blue in my next post.