Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Discuss books and videos related to the principles of Freedom and proper role of government, U.S. Constitution, LDS Church, etc.

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby Oldemandalton » Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:44 pm

OMD;Can you do it without attacking my lack of knowledge?

Reese;
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 have considered buying his books but not if he has false doctrine in them. “Doctrines of men, mingled with scripture/truth” doesn’t sit well with me. :D

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

Reese;
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.

“In October 1841 the Prophet announced that no more baptisms for the dead would be administered until the temple’s font was completed. It was finished in November, and baptisms recommenced on the twenty-first (see D&C 124:27–30 ).” http://institute.lds.org/manuals/doctri ... 21-124.asp

You are right, Reese, Brigham Young and others received the sealing power in the Nauvoo temple;

Ensign, 1994, November. “The Keys That Never Rust”.
Elder James E. Faust Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

Prior to the martyrdom, no doubt with a sense of foreboding, the Prophet Joseph prepared for his death. President Joseph Fielding Smith states:
“The Prophet declared that he knew not why, but the Lord commanded him to endow the Twelve with these keys and priesthood, and after it was done, he rejoiced very much, saying in substance, ‘Now, if they kill me, you have all the keys and all the ordinances and you can confer them upon others, and the powers of Satan will not be able to tear down the kingdom as fast as you will be able to build it up, and upon your shoulders will the responsibility of leading this people rest.’ ” [Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56), 1:259.]

After learning of the deaths of the Prophet Joseph and the Patriarch Hyrum, Wilford Woodruff reports his meeting with Brigham Young, who was then the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, as follows: “I met Brigham Young in the streets of Boston, he having just returned, opposite to Sister Voce’s house. We reached out our hands, but neither of us was able to speak a word. … After we had done weeping we began to converse. … In the course of the conversation, he [Brigham Young] smote his hand upon his thigh and said, ‘Thank God, the keys of the kingdom are here’. (“The Keys of the Kingdom,” Millennial Star, 2 Sept. 1889, p. 546.’)
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnex ... &hideNav=1[/color
]
OMD;Does Bro. Snuffer actually believe that the sealing power is not with the Church and was lost?
Reese;I think he does.

[color=#FF0000]The General Authorities going all the way back to B.Y. say they have the sealing power. I will believe a prophet or apostle over a church member
.

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

Reese;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."

I agree but if GOD tells a prophet to do something, should he disobey God and say “God, I can’t do that, Joseph Smith says we should do it this way so therefore, God, I will disobey your will and not do it”?
God is the arbiter of what is taught in church not man. If Bro. Snuffer disagrees with what is being taught in church then he is disagreeing with GOD not His prophets.


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

Reese;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.

Strange that you didn’t find these topics, maybe you did not look hard enough. I easily found these topics.
The 2nd comforter; In the Index to the triple combination, Bible Dictionary, The Guide to the Scriptures, Topical Guide, New Testament Teacher Resource Manual, Many Ensign articles, and General Conference talks.

Baptism by fire and the holy ghost; Triple Index, Many Ensign articles, Institute manuals, General Conference talks.

Calling & election; Ensign articles, New Testament Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, Guide to the Scriptures, May 2011 Mormon Channel Radio, etc.

I am sorry Reese that you did not hear about these topics in Church or General Conference. Maybe you weren’t in class when they were being discussed or just asleep like me. ;) They are very familiar to me BTW.


Reese;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.

I have shown above that Brigham Young and the apostles DID receive all of the keys of the Priesthood. As for the Nauvoo Temple, many endowment were performed there before the Saints had to abandon it and flee to the Rockies;

Temple in Nauvoo
By Sherrie Johnson
September 1997 Liahona
http://lds.org/liahona/1997/09/temple-i ... endowments

….The temple capstone was laid on 24 May 1845, but the interior was still unfinished. The Saints were so eager to receive the temple ordinances that rooms were dedicated as they were completed so that temple work could be started.

The attic of the temple was dedicated for ordinance work on 30 November 1845. Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball began helping faithful Saints receive their endowments on the evening of 10 December, and so many people were eager to receive them that the work did not end until three o’clock the next morning.

… As the time to leave Nauvoo drew near, the Brethren redoubled their efforts to help as many Saints as possible receive their endowments. Brigham Young wrote, “Such has been the anxiety manifested by the saints to receive the ordinances (of the Temple), and such the anxiety on our part to administer to them, that I have given myself up entirely to the work of the Lord in the Temple night and day, not taking more than four hours sleep, upon an average, per day, and going home but once a week.”

But it was not just the Apostles who were working hard. Many faithful Saints gave freely of their time by washing the temple clothing each night so the temple work could continue the next morning.

The Brethren planned to stop the ordinance work on 3 February 1846. President Young left the temple to make final preparations to leave Nauvoo, but upon seeing a large crowd gathered to receive their endowments, he returned. This delayed his departure for another two weeks, but it meant that 5,615 Saints were endowed before they left Nauvoo.

Work on the temple continued even as the Saints began to leave. Finally, on 30 April 1846, a special nighttime dedicatory service was held for the finished building. The following day a public service was held in which Orson Hyde, one of the Apostles, dedicated the building to the Lord. By the end of the year, however, most of the Saints were gone and the building stood unused.



OMD
An Ancient Chinese Curse "May you live in interesting times!"
Oldemandalton
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 4:55 pm

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Sponsor

Sponsor
 
The Mormon Chronicle

Latter-day Conservative

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby one4freedom » Fri Oct 21, 2011 10:16 am

I haven't seen any reference where he gets this info.
Law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual. -Thomas Jefferson

...the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances. -Hugh Nibley
one4freedom
captain of 100

User avatar
 
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Sandy, UT

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby notjamesbond003.5 » Fri Oct 21, 2011 11:59 pm

I finished reading "Passing the Heavenly Gift" about 3 weeks ago.
Very informative book.

I'm re reading it slower now -to absorb it's full import and impact.

For those carping on and on about Denver being on the road to apostasy, until the Brethren ask him to cease and desist from writing or speaking about his spiritual experiences which include face to face conversations with the Savior and other manifestations, I really think it's not one's place to designate a faithful Latter Day Saint as a heretic or being misguided.

Let the Brethren handle it, who have access to the internet, who can read, who have ears and can even attend questionable meetings if they desire to do so.
That they haven't after 8 published books and several public speaking engagements -speaks volumes.

Denver is sort of becoming a Willaim Tyndale of Christ's modern day Church-by supposed "do-gooders".

Peacefully,

njb
notjamesbond003.5
captain of 100

User avatar
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: Tempe Az

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby NoGreaterLove » Sat Oct 22, 2011 7:34 am

Question #4

Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

So do you rationalize it this way. You say in your mind, "Except the sealing keys. Those died with Joseph Smith". And then go on and answer yes to the question?

So how does one get a temple recommend if one does not believe the prophet holds all the keys? Either you lie to yourself about what that means or you lie to the bishop.

The next question would be, if one does not really believe Pres. Monson holds all the keys and can exercise them on earth, and still gets a recommend, have they entered the temple worthily. Which by the way is where one gets the final endowments.
If someone is teaching false doctrine, is he leading someone to Christ?

Please do not be so quick to get upset at what I just pointed out. Reflect upon it for awhile. How do you think the bishop would answer these questions, the stake president, the prophet?
NoGreaterLove
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 3912
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:11 am
Location: Grantsville, Utah

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby Inspire » Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:56 am

...have they entered the temple worthily. Which by the way is where one gets the final endowments.


My understanding is that we do NOT receive actual endowments in the temple (indeed, wouldn't that be the presence of the Lord?). What we receive is the promise of endowments, if we are true and faithful. Their realization is dependent on us. The temple is a place where we are anointed to become kings and queens, etc. but don't actually become such. So the idea that that this is final seems to close the door on an open invitation to enter. (Just an observation)

If someone is teaching false doctrine, is he leading someone to Christ?


What are you using as your basis for what "true" doctrine is? What the President of the Church says it is? Or is it what Christ Himself explicitly declares:

...And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.
29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.
31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.
32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.


Christ is clearly stating here that FALSE DOCTRINE = STIRRING UP THE HEARTS OF MEN via contention and disputations, and then elaborates that His doctrine IS repenting and believing in Him. Isn't believing in Him necessarily a personal thing? If I look at someone else and say, "They don't believe like I believe, so I should tell them how wrong they are..." does that qualify as disputations and contention? Wouldn't that be (according to Christ's own words), creating for myself the VERY THING I'm accusing of another? It brings this scripture to mind:

Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Inspire
captain of 50
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:41 pm

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby NoGreaterLove » Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:15 pm

Inspire wrote:
...have they entered the temple worthily. Which by the way is where one gets the final endowments.


My understanding is that we do NOT receive actual endowments in the temple (indeed, wouldn't that be the presence of the Lord?). What we receive is the promise of endowments, if we are true and faithful. Their realization is dependent on us. The temple is a place where we are anointed to become kings and queens, etc. but don't actually become such. So the idea that that this is final seems to close the door on an open invitation to enter. (Just an observation)

Not talking about what your are talking about.


If someone is teaching false doctrine, is he leading someone to Christ?


What are you using as your basis for what "true" doctrine is? What the President of the Church says it is? Or is it what Christ Himself explicitly declares:

Here are the words of Christ:

Doctrine and Covenants 1:38

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.



...And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.
29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.
31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.
32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.


I am not disputing doctrine, I am standing behind what our prophets and Christ himself has said is doctrine. Christ did not say we could not judge what is of Him and what is not. Nor did he say we are to keep quiet about false teachings coming from those who proclaim falsehoods about our church. On the contrary we are to teach correct doctrine to dispel the incorrect doctrine. There is no difference between me speaking up against false doctrine than those on this forum speaking up against secret combinations. Both have been defined by the scriptures and modern day prophets and both involve people who participate spreading them.


Christ is clearly stating here that FALSE DOCTRINE = STIRRING UP THE HEARTS OF MEN via contention and disputations, and then elaborates that His doctrine IS repenting and believing in Him. Isn't believing in Him necessarily a personal thing? If I look at someone else and say, "They don't believe like I believe, so I should tell them how wrong they are..." does that qualify as disputations and contention? Wouldn't that be (according to Christ's own words), creating for myself the VERY THING I'm accusing of another? It brings this scripture to mind:
From your own words"We are here to debate, share and hopefully learn. I have learned a lot from those in this forum"

Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Surely you do not believe that is all there is to the law of judging? If so, then look to our modern day prophets, scriptures and conference talks to get more of the law.

I notice you did not answer any of the questions.
NoGreaterLove
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 3912
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:11 am
Location: Grantsville, Utah

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby Inspire » Sat Oct 22, 2011 4:56 pm

From your own words"We are here to debate, share and hopefully learn. I have learned a lot from those in this forum"


Actually, you took a quote of someone else who I quoted (of the 10 times I've posted). Those are not my words. Debate, while engaging and enlightening for some people, has never been my mantra. The whole premise of "I'm right and you are wrong" only serves to puff up my SELF-righteousness. I have no desire to accuse you or anyone else of one thing or another, but to make an observation and present an alternate perspective. I realize that just by expressing my viewpoints, it may come across as contending, which is why I so rarely post. If my post seemed like I was debating... my apologies. So, there you go. Viewpoint expressed. All my best to you and yours.

PS - Yes, I do believe it is that simple. What I put out, I get back. If I put out mercy and grace, it comes around. If I'm all about justice, then justice it is!
Inspire
captain of 50
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:41 pm

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby NoGreaterLove » Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:29 pm

Inspire wrote:
From your own words"We are here to debate, share and hopefully learn. I have learned a lot from those in this forum"


Actually, you took a quote of someone else who I quoted (of the 10 times I've posted). Those are not my words. Debate, while engaging and enlightening for some people, has never been my mantra. The whole premise of "I'm right and you are wrong" only serves to puff up my SELF-righteousness. I have no desire to accuse you or anyone else of one thing or another, but to make an observation and present an alternate perspective. I realize that just by expressing my viewpoints, it may come across as contending, which is why I so rarely post. If my post seemed like I was debating... my apologies. So, there you go. Viewpoint expressed. All my best to you and yours.

PS - Yes, I do believe it is that simple. What I put out, I get back. If I put out mercy and grace, it comes around. If I'm all about justice, then justice it is!


There was good conference talk about judging righteous judgments a few years ago. I can not find it at the moment. It goes into the doctrine of judging and the laws surrounding it. I think we all have to judge at all times, good from evil. I believe if we use the iron rod to be our guide, we will judge fairly. When confronted with false doctrine or what we believe to be false doctrine I also believe we need to correct that doctrine and not stand idly by. The same can be said about the truths behind liberty.
But I respect your thoughts you posted.
NoGreaterLove
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 3912
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:11 am
Location: Grantsville, Utah

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby gruden2.0 » Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:48 pm

Raindrop wrote:NGL, on the other hand, has not so much as read one of Snuffer's books, unless I'm mistaken.


I suspect if NGL had actually read Snuffer's book he might be a bit embarrassed by all that he has posted on this subject. To say all that stuff and claim Snuffer is on the road to apostasy and excommunication - how anyone can write all that without having actually looked at what Snuffer actually wrote and said is just amazing. And that's saying it very nicely.

Snuffer is not going to be ex'd nor lose his temple recommend.
Last edited by gruden2.0 on Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
gruden2.0
captain of 100
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 3:28 pm

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby Like » Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:49 pm

NoGreaterLove wrote:There was good conference talk about judging righteous judgments a few years ago.



I like Elder Oaks speech on judging:

Judge Not and Judging

DALLIN H. OAKS

As a student of the scriptures and as a former judge, I have had a special interest in the many scriptures that refer to judging. The best known of these is "Judge not, that ye be not judged" (3 Nephi 14:1, Matthew 7:1).

I have been puzzled that some scriptures command us not to judge and others instruct us that we should judge and even tell us how to do it. I am convinced that these seemingly contradictory directions are consistent when we view them with the perspective of eternity. The key is to understand that there are two kinds of judging: final judgments, which we are forbidden to make; and intermediate judgments, which we are directed to make, but upon righteous principles. Today I will speak about gospel judging.

Final Judgments

I will speak first of the final judgment. This is that future occasion in which all of us will stand before the judgment seat of Christ to be judged according to our works (see 1 Nephi 15:33, 3 Nephi 27:15, Mormon 3:20, D&C 19:3). Some Christians look on this as the time when individuals are assigned to heaven or hell. With the increased understanding we have received from the Restoration, Latter-day Saints understand the final judgment as the time when all mankind will receive their personal dominions in the mansions prepared for them in the various kingdoms of glory (see D&C 76:111, John 14:2, 1 Corinthians 15:40­44). I believe that the scriptural command to "judge not" refers most clearly to this final judgment, as in the Book of Mormon declaration that "man shall not . . . judge; for judgment is mine, saith the Lord" (Mormon 8:20).

Since mortals cannot suppose that they will be acting as final judges at that future, sacred time, why did the Savior command that we not judge final judgments? I believe this commandment was given because we presume to make final judgments whenever we proclaim that any particular person is going to hell (or to heaven) for a particular act or as of a particular time. When we do this--and there is great temptation to do so--we hurt ourselves and the person we pretend to judge.

The effect of one mortal's attempting to pass final judgment on another mortal is analogous to the effect on athletes and observers if we could proclaim the outcome of an athletic contest with certainty while it was still underway. Similar reasoning forbids our presuming to make final judgments on the outcome of any person's lifelong mortal contest.

President Brigham Young taught:

I am very thankful that it is not our province . . . to judge the world; if it were, we would ruin everything. We have not sufficient wisdom, our minds are not filled with the knowledge and power of God. . . . And we must also acquire the discretion that God exercises in being able to look into futurity, and to ascertain and know the results of our acts away in the future, even in eternity, before we will be capable of judging. [JD 19:7­8]

In this teaching Brigham Young was, typically, merely elaborating on a teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, who said:

While one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard. . . . He holds the reins of judgment in His hands; He is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according to the narrow, contracted notions of men . . . , "not according to what they have not, but according to what they have," those who have lived without law, will be judged without law, and those who have a law, will be judged by that law. [Teachings, p. 218]

Thus, we must refrain from making final judgments on people, because we lack the knowledge and the wisdom to do so. We would even apply the wrong standards. The world's way is to judge competitively between winners and losers. The Lord's way of final judgment will be to apply his perfect knowledge of the law a person has received and to judge on the basis of that person's circumstances, motives, and actions throughout his or her entire life (see Luke 12:47­48, John 15:22, 2 Nephi 9:25). As was wisely taught in a BYU devotional, "The Lord does not grade on a curve." He will judge us in terms of "qualities," not "quotas" (in Janet G. Lee, "The Lord Doesn't Grade on a Curve," BYU 1994­95 Devotional and Fireside Speeches [Provo: Brigham Young University, 1995], pp. 91, 93).

Even the Savior, during his mortal ministry, refrained from making final judgments. We see this in the account of the woman taken in adultery. After the crowd who intended to stone her had departed, Jesus asked her about her accusers: "Hath no man condemned thee?" (John 8:10). When she answered no, Jesus declared, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more" (v. 11). In this context the word condemn apparently refers to the final judgment (see John 3:17).

The Lord obviously did not justify the woman's sin. He simply told her that he did not condemn her--that is, he would not pass final judgment on her at that time. This interpretation is confirmed by what he then said to the Pharisees: "Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man" (John 8:15). The woman taken in adultery was granted time to repent, time that would have been denied by those who wanted to stone her. The Savior gave this same teaching on another occasion, when he said to the Pharisees, "And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world" (John 12:47).

From all of this we see that final judgment is the Lord's and that mortals must refrain from judging any human being in the final sense of concluding or proclaiming that they are irretrievably bound for hell or have lost all hope of exaltation.

Intermediate Judgments

In contrast to forbidding mortals to make final judgments, the scriptures require mortals to make what I will call "intermediate judgments." These judgments are essential to the exercise of personal moral agency. Our scriptural accounts of the Savior's mortal life provide the pattern. He declared, "I have many things to say and to judge of you" (John 8:26) and "For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see" (John 9:39).

During his mortal ministry the Savior made and acted upon many intermediate judgments, such as when he told the Samaritan woman of her sinful life (see John 4:17­19); when he rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy (see Matthew 15:1­9, 23:1­33); and when he commented on the comparative merit of the rich men's offerings and the widow's mites (see Mark 12:41­44).

Church leaders are specifically commanded to judge. Thus, the Lord said to Alma:

Whosoever transgresseth against me, him shall ye judge according to the sins which he has committed; and if he confess his sins before thee and me, and repenteth in the sincerity of his heart, him shall ye forgive, and I will forgive him also. . . .

. . . And whosoever will not repent of his sins the same shall not be numbered among my people. [Mosiah 26:29, 32]

Similarly, in modern revelation the Lord appointed the bishop to be a "judge in Israel" to judge over property and transgressions (D&C 58:17, 107:72).

The Savior also commanded individuals to be judges, both of circumstances and of other people. Through the prophet Moses the Lord commanded Israel, "Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour" (Leviticus 19:15).

On one occasion the Savior chided the people, "Judge ye not what is right?" (Luke 12:57). On another occasion he said, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).

We must, of course, make judgments every day in the exercise of our moral agency, but we must be careful that our judgments of people are intermediate and not final. Thus, our Savior's teachings contain many commandments we cannot keep without making intermediate judgments of people: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine" (Matthew 7:6); "Beware of false prophets. . . . Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:15­16); and "Go ye out from among the wicked" (D&C 38:42).

We all make judgments in choosing our friends, in choosing how we will spend our time and our money, and, of course, in choosing an eternal companion. Some of these intermediate judgments are surely among those the Savior referred to when he taught that "the weightier matters of the law" include judgment (Matthew 23:23).

The scriptures not only command or contemplate that we will make intermediate judgments, but they also give us some guidance--some governing principles--in how to do so.

Righteous Intermediate Judgment

The most fundamental principle is contained in the Savior's commandment that we "judge not unrighteously . . . : but judge righteous judgment" (JST, Matthew 7:1­2; see also John 7:24, Alma 41:14). Let us consider some principles or ingredients that lead to a "righteous judgment."

First of all, a righteous judgment must, by definition, be intermediate. It will refrain from declaring that a person has been assured of exaltation or from dismissing a person as being irrevocably bound for hellfire. It will refrain from declaring that a person has forfeited all opportunity for exaltation or even all opportunity for a useful role in the work of the Lord. The gospel is a gospel of hope, and none of us is authorized to deny the power of the Atonement to bring about a cleansing of individual sins, forgiveness, and a reformation of life on appropriate conditions.

Second, a righteous judgment will be guided by the Spirit of the Lord, not by anger, revenge, jealousy, or self-interest. The Book of Mormon teaches:

For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain . . . as the daylight is from the dark night.

For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil. [Moroni 7:15­16]

The Savior taught that one of the missions of the Comforter he would send would be to assist in judgment of the world by guiding the faithful "into all truth" (John 16:13; see also vv. 8, 11).

Third, to be righteous, an intermediate judgment must be within our stewardship. We should not presume to exercise and act upon judgments that are outside our personal responsibilities. Some time ago I attended an adult Sunday School class in a small town in Utah. The subject was the sacrament, and the class was being taught by the bishop. During class discussion a member asked, "What if you see an unworthy person partaking of the sacrament? What do you do?"

The bishop answered, "You do nothing. I may need to do something." That wise answer illustrates my point about stewardship in judging.

A fourth principle of a righteous intermediate judgment of a person is that we should, if possible, refrain from judging until we have adequate knowledge of the facts. In an essay titled "Sitting in the Seat of Judgment," the great essayist William George Jordan reminded us that character

cannot be judged as dress-goods--by a yard or so of sample unrolled from a bolt on the counter. . . . One judges a painting by the full view of the whole canvas; separate isolated square inches of colour are meaningless. Yet we dare to judge our fellow man by single acts and words, misleading glimpses, and deceptive moments of special strain. From these we magnify a mood into a character and an episode into a life. . . .

We have a right to our preferences, our likes and dislikes, our impressions, our opinions, but we should withhold final judgment--as an honest unprejudiced juryman keeps his verdict in suspense until he has heard and tested all of the evidence. . . .

. . . We misinterpret motives, do not know facts, and judge from wrong standards. [William George Jordan, "Sitting in the Seat of Judgment," The Crown of Individuality (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1909), pp. 101­5]

In another essay, William George Jordan wrote:

There is but one quality necessary for the perfect understanding of character, one quality that, if [a] man have it, he may dare to judge--that is, omniscience. Most people study character as a proofreader pores over a great poem: his ears are dulled to the majesty and music of the lines, his eyes are darkened to the magic imagination of the genius of the author; that proofreader is busy watching for an inverted comma, a misspacing, or a wrong font letter. He has an eye trained for the imperfections, the weaknesses. . . .

We do not need to judge nearly so much as we think we do. This is the age of snap judgments. . . . [We need] the courage to say, "I don't know. I am waiting further evidence. I must hear both sides of the question." It is this suspended judgment that is the supreme form of charity. ["The Supreme Charity of the World," The Kingship of Self-Control (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Revell, n.d.), pp. 27­30; emphasis in original]

Someone has said that you cannot slice cheese so fine that it doesn't have two sides.

Two experiences illustrate the importance of caution in judging. A Relief Society worker visiting a sister in her ward asked whether the woman's married children ever visited her. Because of a short-term memory loss, this elderly sister innocently answered no. So informed, her visitor and others spoke criticisms of her children for neglecting their mother. In fact, one of her children visited her at least daily, and all of them helped her in many ways. They were innocent of neglect and should not have been judged on the basis of an inadequate knowledge of the facts.

Another such circumstance was described in an Ensign article by BYU professor Arthur R. Bassett:

I was troubled when one person whispered to another all through the opening prayer. The guilty parties were not hard to spot because they continued whispering all through the class. I kept glaring at them, hoping that they would take the hint, but they didn't seem to notice. Several times during the hour, I was tempted to ask them to take their conversation outside if they felt it was so urgent--but fortunately something kept me from giving vent to my feelings.

After the class, one of them came to me and apologized that she hadn't explained to me before class that her friend was deaf. The friend could read lips, but since I was discussing--as I often do--with my back to the class, writing at the chalkboard and talking over my shoulder, my student had been "translating" for her friend, telling her what I was saying. To this day I am thankful that both of us were spared the embarrassment that might have occurred had I given vent to a judgment made without knowing the facts. [Arthur R. Bassett, "Floods, Winds, and the Gates of Hell," Ensign, June 1991, p. 8]

The scriptures give a specific caution against judging where we cannot know all the facts. King Benjamin taught:

Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just--

But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God. . . .

And if ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance. [Mosiah 4:17­18, 22]

There is one qualification to this principle that we should not judge people without an adequate knowledge of the facts. Sometimes urgent circumstances require us to make preliminary judgments before we can get all of the facts we desire for our decision making.

From time to time some diligent defenders deny this reality, such as the writer of a letter to the editor who insisted that certain publicly reported conduct should be ignored because "in this country you are innocent until you are proven guilty." The presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law is a vital rule to guide the conduct of a criminal trial, but it is not a valid restraint on personal decisions. There are important restraints upon our intermediate judgments, but the presumption of innocence is not one of them.

Some personal decisions must be made before we have access to all of the facts. Two hypotheticals illustrate this principle:

1. If a particular person has been arrested for child sexual abuse and is free on bail awaiting trial on his guilt or innocence, will you trust him to tend your children while you take a weekend trip?

2. If a person you have trusted with your property has been indicted for embezzlement, would you continue to leave him in charge of your life savings?

In such circumstances we do the best we can, relying ultimately on the teaching in modern scripture that we should put our "trust in that Spirit which leadeth to do good--yea, to do justly, to walk humbly, to judge righteously" (D&C 11:12).

A fifth principle of a righteous intermediate judgment is that whenever possible we will refrain from judging people and only judge situations. This is essential whenever we attempt to act upon different standards than those of others with whom we must associate--at home, at work, or in the community. We can set and act upon high standards for ourselves or our homes without condemning those who do otherwise. For example, I know of an LDS family with an older teenage son who has become addicted to smoking. The parents have insisted that he not smoke in their home or in front of his younger siblings. That is a wise judgment of a situation, not a person. Then, even as the parents take protective measures pertaining to a regrettable situation, they need to maintain loving relations and encourage improved conduct by the precious person.

A recent Ensign article by an anonymous victim of childhood sexual abuse illustrates the contrast between judging situations and judging persons. The article begins with heart-wrenching words and with true statements of eternal principles.

I am a survivor of childhood physical, emotional, and sexual abuse. I no longer view myself as a victim. The change has come from inside me--my attitude. I do not need to destroy myself with anger and hate. I don't need to entertain thoughts of revenge. My Savior knows what happened. He knows the truth. He can make the judgments and the punishments. He will be just. I will leave it in his hands. I will not be judged for what happened to me, but I will be judged by how I let it affect my life. I am responsible for my actions and what I do with my knowledge. I am not to blame for what happened to me as a child. I cannot change the past. But I can change the future. I have chosen to heal myself and pass on to my children what I have learned. The ripples in my pond will spread through future generations. ["The Journey to Healing," Ensign, September 1997, p. 19]

This wise author also treats the importance of forgiveness. Forgiveness is a companion principle to the commandment that in final judgments we judge not and in intermediate judgments we judge righteously. The Savior taught, "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven" (Luke 6:37). In modern revelation the Lord has declared, "I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men" (D&C 64:10).

Pursuing that principle, the author of the Ensign article writes:

Somewhere along the journey of healing comes the essential task of forgiving. Often the command to forgive (see D&C 64:10) seems almost more than one can bear, but this eternal principle can bring lasting peace. . . .

". . . I love that truth that although I need to evaluate situations . . . , I do not need to condemn or judge my abusers nor be part of the punishment. I leave all that to the Lord. I used the principle of forgiveness to strengthen me." ["Journey to Healing," p. 22]

A final ingredient or principle of a righteous judgment is that it will apply righteous standards. If we apply unrighteous standards, our judgment will be unrighteous. By falling short of righteous standards, we place ourselves in jeopardy of being judged by incorrect or unrighteous standards ourselves. The fundamental scripture on the whole subject of not judging contains this warning: "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again" (Matthew 7:2; see also 3 Nephi 14:2).

The prophet Mormon taught:

And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged. [Moroni 7:18]

A standard can be unrighteous because it is too harsh--the consequences are too severe for the gravity of the wrong and the needs of the wrongdoer. Here I remember a conversation with an LDS newspaperwoman who described what happened when she reported that the Prophet Joseph Smith received the golden plates in 1826--a mistake of one year from the actual date of 1827. She said she received about 10 phone calls from outraged Latter-day Saints who would not accept her admission of error and sincere apology and berated her with abusive language. I wonder if persons who cannot handle an honest mistake without abusing the actor can stand up to having their own mistakes judged by so severe a standard.

As I have observed the judgments of presidents of the Church in matters of Church discipline, I have marveled at the care they have exercised to assure that justice is balanced with mercy, with loving concern for the consequences to innocent family members--born and unborn--as well as to the transgressors themselves.

In a BYU devotional address, Professor Catherine Corman Parry gave a memorable scriptural illustration of the consequences of judging by the wrong standards. The scripture is familiar. Martha received Jesus into her house and worked to provide for him while her sister Mary sat at Jesus' feet and heard his word.

But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.

And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:

But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her. [Luke 10:40­42]

Professor Parry comments:

Those of us with more of Martha than of Mary in us . . . do not doubt the overriding importance of listening to the Lord, [but] does the listening have to be done during dinner preparations? Would it have hurt Mary to have joined us in serving, then we all could have sat down to hear the Lord together? And furthermore, what about the value of our work in the world? If it weren't for us Marthas cleaning whatever we see and fussing over meals, there would be a lot of dirty, hungry people in this world. We may not live by bread alone, but I've never known anyone to live without it. Why, oh, why couldn't the Lord have said, "You're absolutely right, Martha. What are we thinking of to let you do all this work alone? We'll all help, and by the way, that centerpiece looks lovely"?

What he did say is difficult to bear, but perhaps somewhat less difficult if we examine its context. . . . The Lord acknowledges Martha's care: "Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things" (v. 41). Then he delivers the gentle but clear rebuke. But the rebuke would not have come had Martha not prompted it. The Lord did not go into the kitchen and tell Martha to stop cooking and come listen. Apparently he was content to let her serve him however she cared to, until she judged another person's service: "Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me" (v. 40). Martha's self-importance, expressed through her judgment of her sister, occasioned the Lord's rebuke, not her busyness with the meal. [Catherine Corman Parry, "'Simon, I Have Somewhat to Say unto Thee': Judgment and Condemnation in the Parables of Jesus," Brigham Young University 1990­91 Devotional and Fireside Speeches [Provo: BYU, 1991], p. 116]

In subsequent portions of her talk, Professor Parry observed that in this instance--and also in the example of Simon the Pharisee, who criticized the woman who anointed the feet of the Savior (see Luke 7:36­50)--the Savior took one individual's judgment of another individual as a standard and applied that judgment back upon the individual who was judging. Professor Parry observed:

Quite literally, they were measured by their own standards and found wanting. . . .

. . . While there are many things we must make judgments about, the sins of another or the state of our own souls in comparison to others seems not to be among them. . . .

. . . Our own sins, no matter how few or seemingly insignificant, disqualify us as judges of other people's sins. ["Simon, I Have Somewhat to Say unto Thee," pp. 118­19]

I love the words in Susan Evans McCloud's familiar hymn:

Who am I to judge another

When I walk imperfectly?

In the quiet heart is hidden

Sorrow that the eye can't see.

Who am I to judge another?

Lord, I would follow thee.

["Lord, I Would Follow Thee," Hymns, 1985, no. 220]

In one of the monthly General Authority fast and testimony meetings, I heard President James E. Faust say, "The older I get, the less judgmental I become." That wise observation gives us a standard to live by in the matter of judgments. We should refrain from anything that seems to be a final judgment of any person--manifesting our determination to leave final judgments to the Lord, who alone has the capacity to judge.

In the intermediate judgments we must make, we should take care to judge righteously. We should seek the guidance of the Spirit in our decisions. We should limit our judgments to our own stewardships. Whenever possible we should refrain from judging people until we have an adequate knowledge of the facts. So far as possible, we should judge circumstances rather than people. In all our judgments we should apply righteous standards. And, in all of this, we must remember the command to forgive.

There is a doctrine underlying the subject of gospel judging. It was taught when a lawyer asked the Savior, "Which is the great commandment in the law?" (Matthew 22:36). Jesus answered:

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. [vv. 37­40]

Later, in the sublime teachings the Savior gave his apostles on the eve of his suffering and the Atonement, he said:

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. [John 13:34­35]

May God bless us that we may have that love and that we may show it in refraining from making final judgments of our fellowman. And in those intermediate judgments we are responsible to make, may we judge righteously and with love. The gospel of Jesus Christ is a gospel of love. Our Master, whom we seek to serve, is, as the scriptures say, a "God of love" (2 Corinthians 13:11). May we have his love. May we grow in faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, of whom I testify, as our Redeemer, our Creator, and our Savior. And may we grow in the capacity to live his gospel, I pray, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Like
Member
 
Posts: 2439
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:10 pm

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby NoGreaterLove » Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:57 pm

gruden2.0 wrote:
Raindrop wrote:NGL, on the other hand, has not so much as read one of Snuffer's books, unless I'm mistaken.


I suspect if NGL had actually read Snuffer's book he might be a bit embarrassed by all that he has posted on this subject. To say all that stuff and claim Snuffer is on the road to apostasy and excommunication - how anyone can write all that without having actually looked at what Snuffer actually wrote and said is just amazing. And that's saying it very nicely.

Snuffer is not going to be ex'd nor lose his temple recommend.


Have you read the secret combinations book, the how to and the justification behind it? And then you teach against it? Just amazing! See the point. You know enough about the stove to not touch it when it is hot. Especially when you see the steam coming from the water boiling on the fire. I do not need to read an entire book that teaches that the power to seal on earth and heaven is not with the prophet, to know it is something I need not read. Your argument lacks merit.
NoGreaterLove
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 3912
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:11 am
Location: Grantsville, Utah

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby Mahonri » Sat Oct 22, 2011 7:14 pm

Inspire wrote:My understanding is that we do NOT receive actual endowments in the temple (indeed, wouldn't that be the presence of the Lord?). What we receive is the promise of endowments, if we are true and faithful. Their realization is dependent on us. The temple is a place where we are anointed to become kings and queens, etc. but don't actually become such. So the idea that that this is final seems to close the door on an open invitation to enter. (Just an observation)

Actually the Temple is where you get both (typically)
And I mean that in the nicest possible way. Insert tact here.
Mahonri
Master

User avatar
 
Posts: 3983
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 7:20 pm
Location: Where you want to be when crap hits the fan, but I'm not telling.

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby Raindrop » Sat Oct 22, 2011 7:39 pm

NoGreaterLove wrote:
gruden2.0 wrote:
Raindrop wrote:NGL, on the other hand, has not so much as read one of Snuffer's books, unless I'm mistaken.


I suspect if NGL had actually read Snuffer's book he might be a bit embarrassed by all that he has posted on this subject. To say all that stuff and claim Snuffer is on the road to apostasy and excommunication - how anyone can write all that without having actually looked at what Snuffer actually wrote and said is just amazing. And that's saying it very nicely.

Snuffer is not going to be ex'd nor lose his temple recommend.


Have you read the secret combinations book, the how to and the justification behind it? And then you teach against it? Just amazing! See the point. You know enough about the stove to not touch it when it is hot. Especially when you see the steam coming from the water boiling on the fire. I do not need to read an entire book that teaches that the power to seal on earth and heaven is not with the prophet, to know it is something I need not read. Your argument lacks merit.


The secret combinations book? You mean the Book of Mormon? I have read that, actually.

Your argument, which to me lacks merit, sounds just like the people who reject the BOM on grounds that Joseph was a money-digger and a womanizer and looked in a peep stone for crying out loud... why in the world would they need to read that heretical garbage when they already know all about it and that it couldn't possibly contain anything of any worth to them? Don't tell me you didn't run into this argument on your mission... how on earth did you overcome their reasoning? Oh, excuse me - it looks like you've adopted it.
Raindrop
captain of 100
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:23 pm

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby LukeAir2008 » Sun Oct 23, 2011 4:09 am

Been listening to this address now for 17 minutes 30 seconds and so far no edification, no intelligence or information communicated. I'll persevere.
The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.
Benjamin Disraeli
LukeAir2008
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 2332
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:19 pm
Location: Highland

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby LukeAir2008 » Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:05 am

Mr.Snuffer is re-writing church history. So the Melchizedek Priesthood wasn't conferred by Peter, James and John at all but by God's voice several years after the organization of the Church.

Im sorry but I think Mr. Snuffer is very, very confused...
The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.
Benjamin Disraeli
LukeAir2008
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 2332
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:19 pm
Location: Highland

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby NoGreaterLove » Sun Oct 23, 2011 7:57 am

LukeAir2008 wrote:Mr.Snuffer is re-writing church history. So the Melchizedek Priesthood wasn't conferred by Peter, James and John at all but by God's voice several years after the organization of the Church.

Im sorry but I think Mr. Snuffer is very, very confused...

Imagine you and me agreeing on something. :-\ :ymapplause:
NoGreaterLove
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 3912
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:11 am
Location: Grantsville, Utah

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby NoGreaterLove » Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:22 am

The foundation of Christ's church and the rock upon which it is built was explained to Peter in Christ's day.

Matthew 16:18

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The rock was all the priesthood keys being given to Peter so the Church could run without Christ being on earth. That included the keys to bind on earth and have it bound in heaven.


Now what would happen is this rock were removed? Would the gates of hell prevail against it? So to teach that this rock is removed is to state that the gates of hell are prevailing against the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.



Matthew 16:19

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.


Doctrine and Covenants 128:10

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



From the "Guide to the Scripures" at LDS.org:


The Prophet Joseph Smith said that Elijah held the sealing power of the Melchizedek Priesthood and was the last prophet to do so before the time of Jesus Christ. He appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration with Moses and conferred the keys of the priesthood on Peter, James, and John (Matt. 17:3). He appeared again, with Moses and others, on 3 April 1836, in the Kirtland Ohio Temple and conferred the same keys upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery (D&C 110:13–16). All of this was in preparation for the second coming of the Lord, as spoken of in Malachi 4:5–6.

The power of Elijah is the sealing power of the priesthood by which things that are bound or loosed on earth are bound or loosed in heaven (D&C 128:8–18). Chosen servants of the Lord on earth today have this sealing power and perform the saving ordinances of the gospel for the living and the dead (D&C 128:8). http://lds.org/scriptures/gs/elijah.p4? ... g&letter=e


Joseph Smith received these keys



Doctrine and Covenants 132:7

7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.


Official Declaration—1
To Whom It May Concern:
.........................................
President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:

“I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.”

It is a serious and blasphemous thing to say that our prophet President Thomas S. Monson does not hold all the keys. It is false doctrine and is the doctrine of Satan himself. If Satan can get someone to believe that the keys are not with the prophet he can lead them to apostasy. Is that not what apostasy is?

I speak out against these teachings whole-heartedly. I do not need to nor desire to read from a book in which a man proclaims such things. Those teachings are anti-Christ.
NoGreaterLove
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 3912
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:11 am
Location: Grantsville, Utah

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby LukeAir2008 » Sun Oct 23, 2011 10:49 am

NoGreaterLove wrote:
LukeAir2008 wrote:Mr.Snuffer is re-writing church history. So the Melchizedek Priesthood wasn't conferred by Peter, James and John at all but by God's voice several years after the organization of the Church.

Im sorry but I think Mr. Snuffer is very, very confused...

Imagine you and me agreeing on something. :-\ :ymapplause:



NGL, Im more surprized that you even read my comment. Thought you'd have me on blocked.

You say Sarah Menet is a false prophet? This guy is the real McCoy.
The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.
Benjamin Disraeli
LukeAir2008
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 2332
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:19 pm
Location: Highland

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby NoGreaterLove » Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:31 pm

LukeAir2008 wrote:
NoGreaterLove wrote:
LukeAir2008 wrote:Mr.Snuffer is re-writing church history. So the Melchizedek Priesthood wasn't conferred by Peter, James and John at all but by God's voice several years after the organization of the Church.

Im sorry but I think Mr. Snuffer is very, very confused...

Imagine you and me agreeing on something. :-\ :ymapplause:



NGL, Im more surprized that you even read my comment. Thought you'd have me on blocked.

You say Sarah Menet is a false prophet? This guy is the real McCoy.


LOL My blocked list is more of a warning to myself that I am probably getting ready to get slammed when I read the comment. I still read them. It gives me time to take a deep breath. I need it sometimes. ;)
NoGreaterLove
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 3912
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:11 am
Location: Grantsville, Utah

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby LukeAir2008 » Sun Oct 23, 2011 2:42 pm

NoGreaterLove wrote:
LOL My blocked list is more of a warning to myself that I am probably getting ready to get slammed when I read the comment. I still read them. It gives me time to take a deep breath. I need it sometimes. ;)


Lol. Yes i do exactly the same thing.

I'm surprised anyone is taking this Snuffer guy seriously. This is basic gospel teaching. The transmission of authority and power and the administration of ordinances has to be done physically. We know that from the Endowment. We know that from the Prophet Joseph's teachings on the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration and why the Lord had previously translated Moses and Elijah. Joseph had to have received the Melchizedek Priesthood prior to organizing the Church on April 6, 1830. All things must be done in order. He essentially received the power to bind and seal when he received the Melchizedek Priesthood and the Apostleship. We know that any man holding the Higher Priesthood has the power to bind and seal but they must act under the direction of the Presiding Apostle and High Priest and be given the keys specifically assigned to that task. The keys are the authority and commission to exercise the full power of the Melchizedek Priesthood.
The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.
Benjamin Disraeli
LukeAir2008
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 2332
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:19 pm
Location: Highland

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby NoGreaterLove » Sun Oct 23, 2011 2:53 pm

LukeAir2008 wrote:
NoGreaterLove wrote:
LOL My blocked list is more of a warning to myself that I am probably getting ready to get slammed when I read the comment. I still read them. It gives me time to take a deep breath. I need it sometimes. ;)


Lol. Yes i do exactly the same thing.

I'm surprised anyone is taking this Snuffer guy seriously. This is basic gospel teaching. The transmission of authority and power and the administration of ordinances has to be done physically. We know that from the Endowment. We know that from the Prophet Joseph's teachings on the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration and why the Lord had previously translated Moses and Elijah. Joseph had to have received the Melchizedek Priesthood prior to organizing the Church on April 6, 1830. All things must be done in order. He essentially received the power to bind and seal when he received the Melchizedek Priesthood and the Apostleship. We know that any man holding the Higher Priesthood has the power to bind and seal but they must act under the direction of the Presiding Apostle and High Priest and be given the keys specifically assigned to that task. The keys are the authority and commission to exercise the full power of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Satan sells the same product over and over again. He just wraps it in a different package and markets it differently. That is why it is so important to look past the wrapping paper and measure the product against the iron rod. We have to look past the fluff and get to the core of these authors teachings. What are they really saying? I am afraid so many were looking at the wrapping on this one that they failed to look at the product.
NoGreaterLove
captain of 1,000

User avatar
 
Posts: 3912
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:11 am
Location: Grantsville, Utah

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby gruden2.0 » Sun Oct 23, 2011 8:36 pm

NoGreaterLove wrote:
gruden2.0 wrote:
Raindrop wrote:NGL, on the other hand, has not so much as read one of Snuffer's books, unless I'm mistaken.


I suspect if NGL had actually read Snuffer's book he might be a bit embarrassed by all that he has posted on this subject. To say all that stuff and claim Snuffer is on the road to apostasy and excommunication - how anyone can write all that without having actually looked at what Snuffer actually wrote and said is just amazing. And that's saying it very nicely.

Snuffer is not going to be ex'd nor lose his temple recommend.


Have you read the secret combinations book, the how to and the justification behind it? And then you teach against it? Just amazing! See the point. You know enough about the stove to not touch it when it is hot. Especially when you see the steam coming from the water boiling on the fire. I do not need to read an entire book that teaches that the power to seal on earth and heaven is not with the prophet, to know it is something I need not read. Your argument lacks merit.


Now Snuffer is part of a secret combination? I'm more than willing to entertain the notion that my posts lack merit, but yours are getting downright silly.

Snuffer does not teach the sealing power isn't in the Church. In Beloved Enos he says in no uncertain terms that it is. Yet you kick against the pricks and keep repeating this nonsense. If you'd read it, you'd know what you're talking about. You'd be embarrassed for impugning someone for saying something he didn't say.
gruden2.0
captain of 100
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 3:28 pm

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby zion or bust » Mon Oct 24, 2011 6:24 pm

From Denver's blog today:


MONDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2011

History of Elijah Doctrine
The talk on Elijah given in Spanish Fork and posted on this blog last week is a continuation of the development of information found in Passing the Heavenly Gift. The foundation for why the Elijah issue required further discussion is found in the book. Some people have listened to the talk without first reading the book. Therefore they are unacquainted with the background information which shows the importance of re-examining the Elijah tradition inside the church. I will give a brief explanation here, although you won't really understand the reason for the talk unless you read the book.

Briefly, and without repeating all the historic records, journals and sources from which the history is explained in the book, this is what happened: Elijah came to visit the Kirtland Temple in 1836 according to the third person account written by Warren Cowdery in the back of the 3rd volume of revelations in Kirtland. It is the last entry made, and the source of all the later claims made about Elijah, his purpose and appearance. The account is third-person, (i.e., The Lord appeared to them... said to them...., etc.) but when it was later discovered it was reworded to the first person (i.e., The Lord appeared to us.... said to us..., etc.). You can read the original document, actually see a photostatic reproduction of the original, in the Joseph Smith Papers. I give the cite in Passing the Heavenly Gift.

The record Joseph Smith left makes no mention of Elijah's appearance. The record Oliver Cowdery left makes no mention of Elijah's appearance. Joseph died without every explaining anything about the event, or making any mention of it. Oliver also. Both of them testified about visitations they received, and wrote about who had come to empower them, but neither of them ever mention Elijah.

In talks in Nauvoo, Joseph refers on every occasion he mentions Elijah as a future event. Not as a past event. He explains Elijah "will return," not that he has returned.

Joseph Smith received the sealing power in a revelation given sometime in the early 1830's, which was recorded in 1843. I take some effort to lay out the chronology in the book, and the information can be reviewed there.

When Joseph Smith died, there is no contemporaneous source to verify the appearance of Elijah in 1836, and the appearance was not known at that time.

There is no mention of the Elijah appearance in 1836, nor 1837, nor 1838 nor '39, '40, '41, '42, '43 nor in 1844, though Joseph does say there will be a future return. After Joseph Smith's death, there was nothing said or known in 1844, '45, '46, '47, '48, '49, '50 nor for years thereafter. When the Kirtland Revelation Book was reviewed in the 1850's the first notice resulted in the revelation being published for the first time in November of the year it was found. Along with the publication was an explanation given by Orson Pratt explaining it was quite significant. He garbles the chronology in that article, and the chronology ever since was taken from his first editorial. Since then the chronology has remained the same as Orson declared, even though he erred in attributing the revelation recorded on July 12, 1843 to having been given on that date. The revelation was received much earlier, the first part in 1829. I also walk through that in Passing the Heavenly Gift.

Since the 1850's when the revelation was found (which is now Section 110) about the Kirtland Temple appearance of Elijah, and then published for the first time in the Deseret News, there have been hundreds of statements which rely upon Orson Pratt's original analysis accompanying the announcement of finding the record.

By the time the words were discovered, Warren Cowdery who wrote it down was dead. He could not explain where it came from because we couldn't ask him. Oliver died shortly before Warren, and he also could not be asked. And, of course, Joseph died before either of them, and so he could not be asked either. Therefore the two witnesses left nothing about it, could not be asked, and the scribe who recorded it could not be asked either.

I walk through all these events using the historical records, scriptures and lengthy explanations. It is a topic which takes a lot of material to set out in full, but has been done in the book.

The talk on Elijah's mission posted on this blog was taking the topic and discussing what the still future mission of Elijah would necessarily involve. Since Joseph expected it to happen in the future when he spoke about it in January and March, 1844, there must be a future mission for him. Because if Joseph, who was present in the Kirtland Temple in 1836 when the Warren Cowdery recorded event took place thought there was still a future mission for Elijah, then it would be important to notice that and give some thought to what it could involve. I've done that. Hence the contents of the talk.

Now, if you disagree with history and you are perfectly content with what Orson Pratt bequeathed us as the accompanying commentary when the account was discovered, then you needn't give this one further thought. There have been generations come and go with that explanation regarded as the absolute truth and the basis for our Temple work. So you'll be in good company. But there are those serious minded individuals who are trying to sort this out right now at high levels of the Church who know these are important issues which are NOT as settled as the past pronouncements make it appear. In fact, I doubt the current explanations will last much longer because the record simply does not support the conclusions we have urged. The place to start is not after the 1850's discovery, when there were conclusions leaped to by Orson Pratt which then became the operative explanation thereafter. The place to start is instead from 1836 to 1844 in the records of that time. What was Joseph saying? What was Oliver saying? Why did both of them leave out mention of Elijah in their testimonies of who had come to visit with them? Where did Section 110 come from? That is, who did Warren Cowdery consult with to learn the material he wrote into the book? I work on that in both the book and the talk.

I think Elijah has a ministry still future. I think it is connected to the very things Joseph Smith was speaking about in January and March, 1844. And I explain what that is in the talk linked on this blog.
zion or bust
captain of 100
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:05 am

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby Gideon » Tue Oct 25, 2011 12:03 am

NoGreaterLove wrote:Satan sells the same product over and over again. He just wraps it in a different package and markets it differently. That is why it is so important to look past the wrapping paper and measure the product against the iron rod. We have to look past the fluff and get to the core of these authors teachings. What are they really saying? I am afraid so many were looking at the wrapping on this one that they failed to look at the product.


Well said!
Gideon
captain of 100

User avatar
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:27 pm

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby ATL Wake » Sat Nov 05, 2011 3:45 pm

NoGreaterLove wrote:Question #4

Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

So do you rationalize it this way. You say in your mind, "Except the sealing keys. Those died with Joseph Smith". And then go on and answer yes to the question?

So how does one get a temple recommend if one does not believe the prophet holds all the keys? Either you lie to yourself about what that means or you lie to the bishop.

The next question would be, if one does not really believe Pres. Monson holds all the keys and can exercise them on earth, and still gets a recommend, have they entered the temple worthily. Which by the way is where one gets the final endowments.
If someone is teaching false doctrine, is he leading someone to Christ?

Please do not be so quick to get upset at what I just pointed out. Reflect upon it for awhile. How do you think the bishop would answer these questions, the stake president, the prophet?


The questions is, "Do you SUSTAIN......?"

Denver has repeatedly stated that he sustains the brethren. The question does not say, do you believe the prophet is the only one with all keys? Denver actually speaks very favorably of many of the brethren, especially Elder Packer. I have read all his books and all of his blogs. I don't recall him ever saying anything negative or criticizing them. He has NEVER brought attention to himself. And he encourages people to stay active in the church. He has stated many inactive members who read PHG have returned to the church because of it. That's a bizarre occurrence for a book that allegedly espouses that the church is apostate.

BTW: An opinion is not libel or slander. If one has the opinion that _____, and that is their sincere opinion, it's not slander, even if it is in fact false. People actually have a right to their opinions still. It is when someone has a knowledge, or should have a knowledge of something and then say something that is false where it becomes slander.
ATL Wake
captain of 1,000
 
Posts: 1041
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:57 am

Re: Denver Snuffer's appearance at the Confetti Bookstore

Postby one4freedom » Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:00 pm

Denver published his talk from that evening. Available here.
Law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual. -Thomas Jefferson

...the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances. -Hugh Nibley
one4freedom
captain of 100

User avatar
 
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Sandy, UT

Previous

Return to Book/Video Reviews, Commentary & Recommendations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests