Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

[one4freedomcaptain of 100]

That's not how I understand what he believes. I understand him to mean that the oft-foretold event of Elijah returning has not yet happened. He was the last one alive to ascend to heaven in a city of Enoch type of way. He believes Elijah will return to a people ready to learn how to live in Zion as those in the ancient times did.

The part about John the Baptist being Elias was referring to the Mt. of Transfiguration event where it said that Moses and Elias came - the JST clarification says it is Moses and John the Baptist, not Moses and Elijah.

In reference to Sec. 110 in the D&C, he is saying that Elijah didn't fulfill what has been foretold at that time as Joseph still referred to Elijah's return as a future event AFTER section 110.

Ok I must assert that I'm speculating, trying to understand his meaning; but he said in preface to his John the Baptist comments (not a perfect quote): "one thing which has bearing on our Enoch doctrines..." and then goes on to describe how John the Baptist, a mortal distinct from Elias, fulfilled the role of elias. I merely ask, why does this have bearing on Elijah... unless he's implying, that like elias/John the Baptist the mission of Elijah may not be fulfilled by the man himself.

Why do you think he brings up Elias?

Now, if he is implying that someone will fill the Elijah Calling, one may next speculate as to who he thinks may fill that role. After that though passes through my head, my mind casts back onto something he said earlier, sharing what he believes Enoch's feelings are: (and I paraphrase) "much rather reflect on these things than share them with people who don't give damn about his message and hate him for it. Then in the end of the talk he says, among other things: "so, I write a book and I make a bunch of people mad..." It just wrapped the parallel between himself and Enoch that I though he might be drawing.

I believe he brought it up because as the traditional story goes Elijah came to Peter, James and John and restored keys to them that they later imparted to Joseph Smith. He is pointing out that Elijah wasn't there. Elias is a calling being someone who is a forerunner. I have never caught from Denver's writings or from the meeting that the coming of Elijah in the latter days would be anybody other than the same Elijah the prophet from the Bible.

[one4freedomcaptain of 100]

I understand him to mean that the oft-foretold event of Elijah returning has not yet happened. In reference to Sec. 110 in the D&C, he is saying that Elijah didn't fulfill what has been foretold at that time as Joseph still referred to Elijah's return as a future event AFTER section 110.

Just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly - is Denver saying the visit of Elijah on April 3, 1836, to Joseph Smith, Jr. and Oliver Cowdery, in the Kirtland Temple as a resurrected being (D&C 110:13-16) didn't happen - OR - it did happen, but that visitation didn't fulfill what Elijah's prophecied return was meant to fulfill? Or something else entirely? Thanks, 14freedom!

When I first read the portion of his book dealing with 110, it seemed to me like he was questioning whether 110 ever happened, but I don't think that is the case anymore. He pointed out (and I haven't researched it myself) that 110 was found in a journal of someone who wasn't directly involved like 20 yrs after the Kirtland temple dedication. None of the 1st hand people made any mention of it happening. What I think he was saying now is not whether or not 110 occurred, but that what happened wasn't the fulfilling of the prophecy of the return of Elijah to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children etc. If that prophecy was fulfilled 1) Joseph probably would have made some mention of it in his journals, and 2) Joseph wouldn't have spoken of the return of Elijah as a still future event while in Nauvoo after 110.

[BrianM]

NGL's post that you deleted is absolutely nothing compared to what Snuffer wrote about the top leaders of Christ's church.

You don't even know what he's saying. You think you do, but you don't.

[Stella Solariscaptain of 1,000]

Most interesting - thank you very much for that additional information and for your insight, 14freedom; I appreciate it!

[braingruntcaptain of 100]

I believe he brought it up because as the traditional story goes Elijah came to Peter, James and John and restored keys to them that they later imparted to Joseph Smith. He is pointing out that Elijah wasn't there. Elias is a calling being someone who is a forerunner. I have never caught from Denver's writings or from the meeting that the coming of Elijah in the latter days would be anybody other than the same Elijah the prophet from the Bible.

So there is some tradition out there that moses and elijah appeared to Jesus on the Mount? If that is so then I have to rethink. On the other hand, I still have a hard time understanding what that has to do with the latter day appearance of elijah. Maybe I'm being a bit dense.

[braingruntcaptain of 100]

Ah, I just saw this on Denver's blog

There were also thoughts which, because of time, were not complete. I did not explain, for example, the reason it was John the Baptist and Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration was because these two were the opener and the closer of the preceding Dispensation. Moses, who opened, and John the Baptist, who closed, the preceding Dispensation were there to "hand off" (so to speak) to Christ. These two witnesses, along with the three living mortal disciples, answered all the requirements to end one and begin another Dispensation. The Mount was also where these disciples received their instructions on the heavenly ascent, or endowment. But those are details I didn't touch upon. I may do so in the edit when it is transcribed.

More to chew on. It raises more questions: who is the mystery person who closes the dispensation of Christ/Peter/James/John? And did they have to appear to Joseph in order for Josephs dispensation to be properly open? And once again, the final golden question: what does this have to do with Elijah? Denver, HELP!

[NoGreaterLovecaptain of 1,000]

One backs up his claims and ideas with solid research and tries to explain the hours of research to others who have not and may never do the same. The other gives hollow, sand-based opinions. So shadow is probably right... the deleted post was "absolutely nothing" compared to what Snuffer writes.

So many assumptions concerning someone you do not even know. What I can say is the quotes that have been posted, probably IMO lead to an excommunication.

[NoGreaterLovecaptain of 1,000]

The underlined words within the quote are mine.

How does this jive Brian?

"The proud descendants of Nauvoo, who have always retained control of the church's top leadership positions, claim to hold all the keys ever given to Joseph Smith. (Who claims to hold those keys today? Our beloved prophet Thomas S. Monson, first presidency and the Twelve)They teach (The leaders I just pointed out) that they can bind on earth and in heaven. They (the same folks) are the 'new Popes having the authority the Catholic Pope claims to possess (let's see, he just compared them to the apostate church and it's leader), as J. Reuben Clark remarked. According to their (once again, the prophets ect.) account of the historical narrative, all is well in their Zion. They intend to build Zion some day, wen they get around to it (whoa, did he just day that). In the meantime, they continually curtail (did he just say CURTAIL) the scope of the restored faith, reducing the topics authorized to be taught in Sunday School, Priesthood, and Relief Society. Working to move farther and farther from what will be required for Zion (is he saying they are apostatizing) . Their plan seems at odds with the end they seek." -Snuffer

Do you want to talk about "making a false statement damaging to a persons reputation"?

Why can't people post their thoughts/opinions (negative or positive) about Snuffer when he gets the thumbs up for his libelous (there is no slander on this site as nobody is speaking, only writing) comments about the Lords prophets and apostles? Unless your bias is showing, I'm not understanding why you're sensitive to negative critiques of Snuffer.

NGL's post that you deleted is absolutely nothing compared to what Snuffer wrote about the top leaders of Christ's church.

Those who criticize are on the road to apostasy. I bear you my testimony that the experiences I have had have taught me that those who criticize the leaders of this church are showing signs of a spiritual sickness which, unless curbed, will bring about eventual spiritual death. I bear testimony as well that those who in public seek, by their criticism, to belittle our leaders or bring them into disrepute bring more hurt upon themselves than upon those whom they seek thus to malign. I have watched over the years, and I have read of the history of many of those who fell away from this church, and I bear testimony that no apostate who ever left this church ever prospered as an influence in his community thereafter. (47-05, p. 224) ([u]I will second this testimony)[/u]
(Harold B. Lee, The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, edited by Clyde J. Williams [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996], 395.)

"I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives. The principle is as correct as the one that Jesus put forth in saying that he who seeketh a sign is an adulterous person; and that principle is eternal, undeviating, and firm as the pillars of heaven; for whenever you see a man seeking after a sign, you may set it down that he is an adulterous man." (D.H.C. 3:385.)
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, 4 vols. [Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1946-1949], 4: 39.)

You are commanded by the Lord in all things, "to ask of God . . . doing all things with prayer and thanks-giving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils." (Doc. and Cov. 46:7.) The Prophet Joseph Smith gave us this as a rule by which to detect these who would deceive. This is what he said: "That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly that that man is on the high road to apostasy, and if he does not repent he will apostatize, as God lives." (History of the Church, Vol. 3, p. 385.) Look about you. Do you know of any one soul who has apostatized from the truth that has prospered spiritually in your day? Contrary to that, they are "left unto themselves to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints and to fight against God," The works of the apostates are but a solemn witness to the truthfulness of these words of the Lord: "No weapon that is formed against (the leaders) of the Church shall prosper and if any man lift his voice against (them), he shall be confounded in (the Lord's) due time." (Doc. and Cov. 71:9-10.)
(Harold B. Lee, Decisions for Successful Living [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1973], 110 - 111.)

For although a man may have many revelations, and have power to do many mighty works, yet if he boasts in his own strength, and sets at naught the counsels of God, and follows after the dictates of his own will and carnal desires, he must fall and incur the vengeance of a just God upon him.—D&C 3:4.
(John A. Widtsoe, Priesthood and Church Government [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1939], 63.)

To publish differences we may think we have with the leaders of the Church, to create strife and division, is a sure road to apostasy. Our task is to stick with the kingdom, to not let anything or anybody disaffect or sour us toward that great gift that Christ has given us-His Church. ("Jesus Christ-Gifts and Expectations," New Era 5 [May 1975]: 18.)

The Lord has stated that His Church will never again be taken from the earth because of apostasy (see D&C 138:44). But He has also stated that some members of His Church will fall away. There has been individual apostasy in the past; it is going on now, and there will be an ever-increasing amount in the future. While we cannot save all the flock from being deceived, we should, without compromising our doctrine, strive to save as many as we can. For, as President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., said, "We are in the midst of the greatest exhibition of propaganda that the world has ever seen." Do not believe all you hear. (An Enemy Hath Done This, p. 286.)
(Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988], 90.)

[whatevercaptain of 10]

removed

[NoGreaterLovecaptain of 1,000]

Whatever
for a newbie you are sure making a good first impression.

but there is nothing more idiotic than commenting (ad naseum) about something you only know snippets about.

[NoGreaterLovecaptain of 1,000]

President Harold B. Lee said this.
The Prophet Joseph Smith gave us this as a rule by which to detect these who would deceive. This is what he said: "That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly that that man is on the high road to apostasy, and if he does not repent he will apostatize, as God lives." (History of the Church, Vol. 3, p. 385.)


I am applying this counsel and advise that Harold B. Lee and Joseph Smith gave. They have instructed me to use this to determine who is deceiving and apostate. As seen in my post below, Denver Snuffer is condemning others, finding fault with the brethren and saying he is righteous enough to have seen Christ (shown in other DS quotes). These are not false accusations and are not taken from text that is too short to see the vision being presented. The text has enough context surrounding it to see it is not taken out of context. And I would add that I do not need to read why he justifies such statements. It is of no substance and has no bearing on overturning the counsel given.
So my accusations are founded upon the very words of the author himself being weighed in balance using Harold B. Lee and Joseph Smith.

I post this with hope that others will read it and think very hard about learning doctrine from him.

[Raindropcaptain of 100]

Whatever
for a newbie you are sure making a good first impression.

but there is nothing more idiotic than commenting (ad naseum) about something you only know snippets about.

Is the label "newbie" supposed to be an insult? Why do you use it as such? Are you saying those with the most posts know the most? What say ye????

We all need to separate what is Gospel from what is not Gospel.

[BrianM]

I am applying this counsel and advise that Harold B. Lee and Joseph Smith gave. They have instructed me to use this to determine who is deceiving and apostate. ... The text has enough context surrounding it to see it is not taken out of context...

Yes, you probably don't need to read any of Denver Snuffer's books. You won't like them. You have demonstrated already you won't 'understand' them. And I'm not trying to insult. The books just aren't for you, it seems obvious. I, and others, read them and see something different, much different, that actually makes your above statements inaccurate - obviously we're wearing different glasses. So be it. Maybe you should stop commenting on Denver Snuffer related threads and spend your time doing something more useful.

[reesecaptain of 1,000]

I am applying this counsel and advise that Harold B. Lee and Joseph Smith gave. They have instructed me to use this to determine who is deceiving and apostate. ... The text has enough context surrounding it to see it is not taken out of context...

Yes, you probably don't need to read any of Denver Snuffer's books. You won't like them. You have demonstrated already you won't 'understand' them. And I'm not trying to insult. The books just aren't for you, it seems obvious. I, and others, read them and see something different, much different, that actually makes your above statements inaccurate - obviously we're wearing different glasses. So be it. Maybe you should stop commenting on Denver Snuffer related threads and spend your time doing something more useful.

FANTASTIC idea!

[reesecaptain of 1,000]

He seems to imply that Enoch, Melchizedek, and Elijah all shared the "Elijah" calling. My worry is that Denver thinks [edit: may think] he's an elijah, like those guys, just like John the Baptist was an elias... and perhaps is yet to be the key whereby we are connected to the zion which exists above.

Indeed this seems to be Denver's mission. He's trying to tell you how to connect with heaven. That's well and good etc, it's just scary [edit: to me], (as he would ridicule). During the talk he spoke as though he were Enoch, reluctantly opening his mouth. [edit: During the talk he seemed based on the feeling in his voice, identify with Enoch as Enoch lamented his high calling] Anyway, it doesn't sit well with me. Tell me if I'm way off base, and he doesn't think of himself as Enoch at all.

Here is your answer to this concern braingrunt.....

I don't think I am Elijah, and that's so stupid a proposition that I have a hard time even dignifying it with an answer. I want to say: "Are you serious???!!" But I'll leave it with, "no."-DS

NGL wrote:

"The proud descendants of Nauvoo, who have always retained control of the church's top leadership positions, claim to hold all the keys ever given to Joseph Smith. (Who claims to hold those keys today? Our beloved prophet Thomas S. Monson, first presidency and the Twelve)They teach (The leaders I just pointed out) that they can bind on earth and in heaven. They (the same folks) are the 'new Popes having the authority the Catholic Pope claims to possess (let's see, he just compared them to the apostate church and it's leader), as J. Reuben Clark remarked. According to their (once again, the prophets ect.) account of the historical narrative, all is well in their Zion. They intend to build Zion some day, wen they get around to it (whoa, did he just day that). In the meantime, they continually curtail (did he just say CURTAIL) the scope of the restored faith, reducing the topics authorized to be taught in Sunday School, Priesthood, and Relief Society. Working to move farther and farther from what will be required for Zion (is he saying they are apostatizing) . Their plan seems at odds with the end they seek." -Snuffer

Denver responded:

As to the analogy of church presidents to "Popes" that is J. Reuben Clark's terminology, as you can see in the book, and is not mine. I defer to him for that characterization. It is relevant to see how a member of the First Presidency viewed the role of the President and for that reason was included. I do not say whether I agree or disagree with his characterization, I only provide it. In fact, I do very little evaluating or concluding in Passing the Heavenly Gift. I merely set out what was said, done or written with the exception of one chapter which presumes, for purposes of that chapter, that the things promised in Section 124 were not delivered. Then, in light of that presumption, I explain what would then be the case. The book is an alternative view of history, which people are free to consider and reject.

[NoGreaterLovecaptain of 1,000]

I am applying this counsel and advise that Harold B. Lee and Joseph Smith gave. They have instructed me to use this to determine who is deceiving and apostate. ... The text has enough context surrounding it to see it is not taken out of context...

Yes, you probably don't need to read any of Denver Snuffer's books. You won't like them. You have demonstrated already you won't 'understand' them. And I'm not trying to insult. The books just aren't for you, it seems obvious. I, and others, read them and see something different, much different, that actually makes your above statements inaccurate - obviously we're wearing different glasses. So be it. Maybe you should stop commenting on Denver Snuffer related threads and spend your time doing something more useful.

So it is ok for you to promote DS and his book, promote his appearances, comment on how great he is? It is OK for all his other followers to do the same, but it is not ok for me to quote him and the prophets to show he is misleading you?
Brian
I really thought you were more fair minded than that. Even your own rules say that you will not tolerate people speaking against the prophets. I have shown you that he has openly taught against every prophet since Joseph Smith and you are calling me on it. You will probably ban me for going against someone you seem to revere. If you do then shame on you for not following your own rules.
Many others on your forum feel as I do, but are afraid you will come down with an iron rod and banish them.

[NoGreaterLovecaptain of 1,000]

Ok
Now you guys can go back to your one sided conversation. All others need to steer clear of this thread. Opinions and doctrine not allowed if it contradicts the thread viewpoint.

I know those who like DS works will not agree with what I am about to say, but it is folks like DS that are causing the very elect (you guys) to be deceived. Follow the prophet. Anyone who says they have the inside scoop on things is not worthy of you listening to them.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

NGL,

Speaking of fairminded, calling someone a newbie in order to somehow call into question their right to post an opinion is fairminded how?

A fairminded question for you:

Even though you THINK you have all the context you need to pass judgement, the author himself states that you will not understand isolated statements taken from the book unless you have read the entire book.

- and -

As far as I can see, those who HAVE read the entire book are UNANIMOUS in stating you do not understand the context in which the statements were made,

- here is the question -

Given the above two, does it not stand to reason that you indeed do not have the context needed to have an accurate opinion on the matter?

[BrianM]

So it is ok for you to promote DS and his book, promote his appearances, comment on how great he is? It is OK for all his other followers to do the same, but it is not ok for me to quote him and the prophets to show he is misleading you?

Yes, it's okay for myself and others to promote the words and message of his book and 'appearances'. I never said it wasn't okay for others to share their opposing thoughts, I simply said that perhaps you could find a better use of your time.

I really thought you were more fair minded than that. Even your own rules say that you will not tolerate people speaking against the prophets. I have shown you that he has openly taught against every prophet since Joseph Smith and you are calling me on it. You will probably ban me for going against someone you seem to revere.

What you are doing in regards to my comments, and in regards to Denver Snuffer, is applying meaning in a way that likely wasn't intended. Sometimes you may think you know what you're reading, but in this case I don't think you do. I believe you have misinterpreted what was written by Denver Snuffer, even though to you, and perhaps others, it seems clear what he is saying. I disagree.

I am not opposed to open, fair, and honest, discussion regarding the messages presented by Denver Snuffer. Don't commit libel in the process (or other rules violations) and you should have no fear of being banned for discussing these things. I believe that some people read his books and "get it" and others don't - and that's okay. And like I said before, I don't agree with everything he has said/written but I also don't agree with many of the things others have implied about what he's said/written.

[braingruntcaptain of 100]

Here is your answer to this concern braingrunt.....

I don't think I am Elijah, and that's so stupid a proposition that I have a hard time even dignifying it with an answer. I want to say: "Are you serious???!!" But I'll leave it with, "no."-DS

lol! I think I actually enjoyed being insulted by Denver.

I'm not one who's determined to think badly of Denver. I sort of liked "Second Comforter" ... but I also vaguely remember parts where I thought he was reaching too far or otherwise coming to conclusions I thought were unfounded. I can't give examples now, I'd have to reread.

I think the proper initial reaction to Denver or anyone else with similar claims is cautious hope. I truly hope he has seen Christ and has insights that will help others see Him too. However, the caution obviously comes into play (at least for someone at my level) because I don't know what to do with all his ideas; comparing the mind to a house: people should only decorate their minds with ideas which have a good place to sit. For example I really like this piece of a sectional sofa Denver's got and I think it fits really beautifully in my living room. But once I get the other piece of the sofa I see that it just doesn't fit. And you know both in real life and in the head, I really hate to move furniture around unless I really see the end goal and like it.

Well, I don't know what to make of his Elijah talk, really I don't. I really would like someone to sum up what the overarching idea was and why he spent such time on Enoch, Shem, John the Baptist etc. I'm not looking to find fault at this point, really.

PHG is a whole other ball of wax which is not currently on my reading list. It appears to have a fair amount of controversial and unfamiliar ideas for which I don't have a good place in my mind right now; and this fact is right now making me very cautious.

But that's the good thing about Denver so far: he says he's nothing and feel free to dump his ideas. (Just so long as you take him at his word and don't just trust him fully because of his apparent humility-go forth and explore. Carefully)

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

NGL,

Speaking of fairminded, calling someone a newbie in order to somehow call into question their right to post an opinion is fairminded how?

A fairminded question for you:

Even though you THINK you have all the context you need to pass judgement, the author himself states that you will not understand isolated statements taken from the book unless you have read the entire book.

- and -

As far as I can see, those who HAVE read the entire book are UNANIMOUS in stating you do not understand the context in which the statements were made,

- here is the question -

Given the above two, does it not stand to reason that you indeed do not have the context needed to have an accurate opinion on the matter?

So we can't take Snuffer's words at face value yet nobody cares to explain what Snuffer means except Reese and Gideon (both have read the book). Both of whom seem to think that yes, Snuffer is teaching that the church and the prophets/apostles are apostate and don't hold the keys they say they do. Reese agrees with that and Gideon disagrees. Heck, I even tried to get Brian to put the context to me correctly via PM and he refused. Silence is golden!

Nothing to see here, move along!

[dewajackcaptain of 100]

Personally, I think Snuffer himself is beside the point. The pertinant information is what the scriptures and Spirit have to convey about the topics at hand. Joseph does claim in 1844 that the coming of Elijah is a future event. I've read the comments myself from his discourses and that struck a chord with me long before I heard anyone else talk about it. For me, I have to take what Joseph says at face value and not insert my assumptions. I think people focus too much on the messenger and not enough on the message. That was part of the problem with how the Savior was viewed, "the carpenter's son."

Also, to believe the LDS church is perfectly on course and is where it should be goes completely against the scriptures and words of the prophets. Modern day prophets have stated we are still "under condemnation." Also, in a March 1990 talk by Boyd K. Packer, from which I posted quotes a while back (interestingly nobody commented on it, I believe), he mentions the church is off course and relates it to the Book of Mormon. You can look it up, it's to regional reps I believe.

I'm grateful to be a member of the church and I have no hard feelings toward anyone in the organization. The Lord has made it clear to me personally it's where I need to be and not to judge anyone, anywhere. I believe the Lord's hand is evident in the church, that to me is also evident, but to pretend all is well in Zion ignores the warnings Nephi, Mormon, Moroni, and Christ gave us in a sacred book.

[braingruntcaptain of 100]

I read Denver's latest blog post, and I formally apologize for my extreme speculation on his talk. He made it clear, both that he thinks Elijah the man will come and descend gloriously and not some mortal man filling an office; and by extension he's not the man.

I get he's saying Elijah will come later, but other than that, I just don't get his talk. It's possible that reading PHG may be prerequisite for me to get what he's driving at. I bow out.

[Stella Solariscaptain of 1,000]

Here you go all, answers to questions straight from Denver:
http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2011/ ... tions.html

Thanks, Jules! I asked this on another thread, but no response yet - maybe you know the answer?

Quote:
The appearance in 1836 in the Kirtland Temple does not appear to have fulfilled the return of Elijah. This is a topic the church is grappling with at the moment. Not at the bottom, where I live and write, but at the top. Though there are continuing statements made in public, behind the scenes there is a debate going on over the meaning of Elijah's appearance, when Joseph Smith received the sealing power, how he received it and whether the history should be revisited and clarified. But this is not as settled a subject as some public statements made for generations by the church make it appear.

Regarding the portions above which I underlined - does Bro. Snuffer ever state how he knows these things? I mean, is he in communication with the First Presidency or Twelve? Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks!

[Oldemandaltoncaptain of 1,000]

Brian, Reese, Gideon, and others;
I have not read Snuffer’s works only the quotes on this forum. Some of them trouble me and seem to be saying that the Church leadership is in apostasy.

Will those who enjoy Snuffer’s works please explain what these quotes mean to you?

Can you do it without attacking my lack of knowledge? I just want YOUR perspective on these quotes.

Please comment on the underlined phrases;
Page 303.
'The saints still claim we fulfilled everything required by the revelation in January, 1841 (Section124). The proud descendants of Nauvoo, who have always retained control of the church's top leadership positions, claim to hold all the keys ever given to Joseph Smith. They teach that they can bind on earth and in heaven. They are the 'new Popes having the authority the Catholic Pope claims to possess, as J. Reuben Clark remarked. According to their account of the historical narrative, all is well in their Zion. They intend to build Zion someday, when they get around to it. In the meantime, they continually curtail the scope of the restored faith, reducing the topics authorized to be taught in Sunday School, Priesthood, and Relief Society. Working to move farther and farther from what will be required for Zion. Their plan seems at odds with the end they seek.'
pages 338-339:

'The gentile church will be secure with false teachings that tell them that Zion is intact. Everything is fine. The power to redeem, to bind on earth and in heaven is with them. Zion is prospering and enjoys God's favor. There is no need to repent and return to Christ, because everything is well with the church. But these ideas are not only false, they come from the devil who "whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with death and hell." The plan to sell a devalued gospel, lacking the power to save, without any connection to Christ, originated with the adversary. Its result will be to condemn to hell those who believe it.... If a gentile follower of this false Zion encounters an inspired view of their own awful state, they can awaken and quickly come to realize that Nephi is speaking to us.'

Does he actually claim in the first quote that all the keys of the priesthood are not held by Thomas S. Monson?

Does Bro. Snuffer actually believe that the sealing power is not with the Church and was lost?

That the GAs over the Church’s curriculum are not teaching what God has instructed them to include in our Church manuals?

We have a ‘devalued gospel’ in the LDS Church?

My belief is that there has been, is, and will be personal apostasy in the Church but that there has not been nor will there be an apostasy by the prophet of God. The parable of the 10 virgins is about the ACTIVE members of the church. Half were not ready. So yes there is apostasy in the church membership. What has been restored ( priesthood keys, revelation, knowledge and truth) on earth during the Restoration of Gods Kingdom through Joseph Smith and later prophets will not diminish but will grow till it fills the whole earth.


OMD

[BrianM]

OMD, this is perhaps the place to post your question, since I believe that thread was started specifically to discuss the questions you are bringing up: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19617

[BrianM]

A response from Denver Snuffer

[reesecaptain of 1,000]

Brian, Reese, Gideon, and others;
I have not read Snuffer’s works only the quotes on this forum. Some of them trouble me and seem to be saying that the Church leadership is in apostasy.

Will those who enjoy Snuffer’s works please explain what these quotes mean to you?

Can you do it without attacking my lack of knowledge?Absolutely! I think the attacks are in response to those who have a lack of knowledge about the content of this book, and yet they make absolute statements without being willing to even educate themselves on what they are commenting on. And I am not talking about quoting prophets to refute Snuffer. I am talking about reading Snuffers words before judging them. I just want YOUR perspective on these quotes.

Please comment on the underlined phrases;
Page 303.
'The saints still claim we fulfilled everything required by the revelation in January, 1841 (Section124). The proud descendants of Nauvoo, who have always retained control of the church's top leadership positions, claim to hold all the keys ever given to Joseph Smith. They teach that they can bind on earth and in heaven. They are the 'new Popes having the authority the Catholic Pope claims to possess, as J. Reuben Clark remarked. According to their account of the historical narrative, all is well in their Zion. They intend to build Zion someday, when they get around to it. In the meantime, they continually curtail the scope of the restored faith, reducing the topics authorized to be taught in Sunday School, Priesthood, and Relief Society. Working to move farther and farther from what will be required for Zion. Their plan seems at odds with the end they seek.'
pages 338-339:

'The gentile church will be secure with false teachings that tell them that Zion is intact. Everything is fine. The power to redeem, to bind on earth and in heaven is with them. Zion is prospering and enjoys God's favor. There is no need to repent and return to Christ, because everything is well with the church. But these ideas are not only false, they come from the devil who "whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with death and hell." The plan to sell a devalued gospel, lacking the power to save, without any connection to Christ, originated with the adversary. Its result will be to condemn to hell those who believe it.... If a gentile follower of this false Zion encounters an inspired view of their own awful state, they can awaken and quickly come to realize that Nephi is speaking to us.'

Does he actually claim in the first quote that all the keys of the priesthood are not held by Thomas S. Monson? He does not say so in these exact words. However as you read in the quote above, he believes that we have not got the sealing power. The leadership of the church has all of the keys to administer and lead the church. However according to sec.124 it seems to be clear that we did not get the fullness of the priesthood that the Lord said we had lost. Joseph Smith could not confer the sealing power on B.Y. or anyone else in the red brick store, because only the Lord can confer that power on any man.

Does Bro. Snuffer actually believe that the sealing power is not with the Church and was lost?I think he does.

That the GAs over the Church’s curriculum are not teaching what God has instructed them to include in our Church manuals?I will let Denver answer that-- " I do think the words of a dispensation head, in any dispensation, are binding upon all who follow. I do not think any prophet subsequent to Moses had the right to change Moses' teachings, for they were binding upon them. Until the Lord makes a change and opens a New Dispensation (which I expect Him to do personally), what Joseph Smith brought us is binding upon everyone, including all following prophets. We are told to be obedient to what we have received from him. (D&C 28: 2-3.) I believe that is still true. Meaning that no one, regardless of position or rank, can ignore what came through Joseph Smith except to their peril. Until a New Dispensation arrives, what Joseph Smith launched is supposed to remain intact."


We have a ‘devalued gospel’ in the LDS Church?The fact that up until 1 1/2 years ago, I had never heard or understood "the 2nd comforter"," baptism by fire and the holy ghost", "calling & election", etc,etc, ever taught or even mentioned in my 30 years as a member....yes I think we are being taught and teaching a devalued gospel. I think this is the result of correlation rather than insipration, from where my studies have led me. IMO what is the point of the gospel if not to bring us to these things.

My belief is that there has been, is, and will be personal apostasy in the Church but that there has not been nor will there be an apostasy by the prophet of God. The parable of the 10 virgins is about the ACTIVE members of the church. Half were not ready. So yes there is apostasy in the church membership. What has been restored ( priesthood keys, revelation, knowledge and truth) on earth during the Restoration of Gods Kingdom through Joseph Smith and later prophets will not diminish but will grow till it fills the whole earth.


OMD

I think it is important for all of us to understand that Denver is not saying He KNOWS these things to be true. He is saying that after many years of study, research and prayer he BELIEVES this to be the case. I have to say after a year of pretty intense study and prayer myself, I too believe this to be an accurate picture of where we are as a church. And trust me I don't come to that conclusion lightly. I can only assume that Denver does not either.

[dewajackcaptain of 100]

OMD,

This is in response to your questions and is my perspective. I’m not going to try to interpret what Snuffer’s intent is, that’s not my place, so I’ll give my opinions. The sealing power can only come from God, not passed down from man to man. Ordinations can come that way, but the power comes only from God. This is consistent with scripture, see Helaman 10 and D&C 132 for just 2 examples.

As for the curtailed faith, many of the doctrines Joseph taught aren’t given approval for topics to teach. A couple examples are the Second Comforter and Calling and Election. I would recommend to anyone to study the words of Joseph Smith. He covers many topics and ideas which aren’t covered today or are covered in a very different manner. The best example in my opinion of the differences is to read the Book of Mormon closely. There are many doctrines taught there (i.e. Baptism of Fire) that are barely touched on today or touched on incorrectly. All of this is consistent with Alma 12:9-11. We never stand still, we either embrace what we’re given, act on it and receive more, or reject it, recoil and receive less. In my opinion, the greater light was rejected and as D&C 84 states, we are under condemnation to this day as a people and much has been taken away.

Do you not see some evidence of the “All is well in Zion” attitude that Nephi warns us against? The Savior talks about the failings of the gentiles, so again, the evidence in my opinion is in the Book of Mormon. Nephi, Christ, Mormon and Moroni are trying to stir us out of our content slumber. Joseph’s example is this dispensation’s paramount example. A mere boy, from humble roots, exercises faith and receives a sacred manifestation. He connected to heaven and desired it for the rest of the saints. The Lord’s hand is still involved with the work.

The bottom line: The church can’t save me, Joseph can’t save me, Thomas Monson can’t, only Christ can save. Exaltation is an individual process between my Savior, my Father and me. Joseph’s experiences aren’t a satisfactory substitute for me. I cherish my own sacred experiences, my connections to heaven. I believe to be a Zion person one will have to be comfortable in the Savior’s presence, redeemed from the fall. If you have so many questions about Snuffer’s book, read it. If you don’t feel good about it, don’t read it and search the scriptures for answers to the questions posed above, which will benefit you more in the long run anyway. In my opinion, I can envision Nephi, Jacob, Mormon and others screaming for us to wake up and take the Book of Mormon as seriously as life and death. For it is a matter of life and death after all.

[gruden2.0captain of 100]

The bottom line: The church can’t save me, Joseph can’t save me, Thomas Monson can’t, only Christ can save. Exaltation is an individual process between my Savior, my Father and me. Joseph’s experiences aren’t a satisfactory substitute for me. I cherish my own sacred experiences, my connections to heaven. I believe to be a Zion person one will have to be comfortable in the Savior’s presence, redeemed from the fall.

Thank you for the good words. In our gospel discussions on the board and elsewhere we need to remind ourselves of these things again and again.

When we "Follow the Prophet" where do we follow to? The measure of a prophet is how well he points us to Christ. To an extent we can also be self-directing. All the prophets in the scriptures have pointed the way many times and many ways.