Challenging Denver Snuffer re: arms and self-defense

[BroJones]

A friend referred me to a blog by Denver Snuffer, here:

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2010/ ... lords.html

I have found much to admire in Denver's blogs, but not this one (above). Please note that disagreeing with someone and discussing in a frank manner is not in itself contention. I have no malice towards Denver whatsoever. But I do disagree with his blog as noted below.

I posted a comment to the blog, apparently needs to be approved by Denver before it goes on-line:

Denver,
Would you overturn the counsel of the Prophets? Brigham Young wrote clearly about this issue:

"We all believe that the Lord will fight our battles; but how? Will He do it while we are unconcerned and make no effort whatever for our own safety when an enemy is upon us? If we make no effort to guard our towns, our houses, our cities, our wives and children, will the Lord guard them for us? He will not; but if we pursue the opposite course and strive to help Him to accomplish His designs, then will He fight our battles. We are baptized for the remission of sins; but it would be quite as unreasonable to expect a remission of sins without baptism, as to expect the Lord to fight our battles without our taking every precaution to be prepared to defend ourselves. The Lord requires us to be quite as willing to fight our own battles as to have Him fight them for us. If we are not ready for an enemy when he comes upon us, we have not lived up to the requirements of Him who guides the ship of Zion, or who dictates the affairs of his kingdom." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 131, August 1-10, 1865.)

Further,
"As for this people fostering to themselves that the day has come for them to sell their guns and ammunition to their enemies, and sit down to sleep in peace, they will find themselves deceived and before they know, they will sleep until they are slain. They have got to carry weapons with them, to be ready to send their enemy to hell cross lots, whether they be Lamanites or mobs who may come to take their lives, or destroy their property. We must be prepared that they dare not come to us in a hostile manner without being assured they will meet a vigorous resistance and ten to one they will meet their grave." (Brigham Young Journal of Discourses,Vol 1, P . 171 - 172, July 31, 1853)

"Let me say to all of you learn to be true and faithful and instead of laying out your means for fine bonnets and fine shoes and for coffee and tea my advice to you is, if you can [sic] 5 or 10 dollars, go and buy a good blanket, a gun, or a sword. And we want you, ladies, to provide yourselves with weapons, and with all that is necessary and be ready to defend yourselves, for you won't always have your husbands to defend you." (Heber C Kimball, Journal of Discourses 4:376.)


Likewise, Joseph Smith was quoted in the Sept. 2008 Ensign, a letter he wrote from Carthage jail:

"There is one principle which is eternal…It is the duty of all men to protect their lives and the lives of their households whenever necessity requires, and no power has a right to forbid it."

Note the word "duty" by the Prophet.

Now Denver, you wrote:

"Since the wicked are responsible for killing the wicked, you join them when you decide to take up arms. You also exclude yourself from those who are to come to Zion - for that group will be composed only of those who refuse to take up arms against their neighbor."

Logical fallacy! -- is it ONLY the wicked who slay the wicked? NO! Is it "ONLY.. those who refuse to take up arms" who will be part of Zion? NO! for we have Alma, Moroni, Mormon, Nephi, Moses and many other righteous men who slayed the wicked, consistent with the Lord's commands.

Thus, there are many times noted in our scriputres when the Lord commands the righteous to defend themselves and slay the wicked. It is not ONLY the wicked who slay the wicked.

As you cite D&C 45:68-69, please quote the passage IN FULL including the important opening phrase "And it shall come to pass AMONG THE WICKED", and in context of other Prophetic statements (such as above).


You also stated: "We live in a world today in which Pax Americana has established controlled violence the world over. The fear of destruction holds forces at bay which would gladly destroy one another if permitted. The key to replacing the current world order with another one, as many insurgencies the world over recognize, is the destruction of Pax Americana by destroying American hegemony."

Are you in favor then of "American hegemony" and maintenance of "Pax Americana" (terms used by the neo-cons) by means of "controlled violence"? Please explain.

--Steven E. Jones

Note -- my comments were too long and so the final version is shortened from the above.

[BroJones]

To make it easier for discussion on this important topic -- here is Denver's post in full:

THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2010
The battle is the Lord's

I had an interesting conversation yesterday. It provoked this comment.

When Julius ended the Republic by crossing the Rubicon with the 13th Legion from Gaul, he established a dictatorship that would change into the Empire thereafter. The Republic was dead. The Empire lived on.

Julius' great nephew is regarded as the first fully recognized Emperor of the Roman Empire. He ruled until his death in 14 AD as dictator for life.

Rome dominated the world, subduing other peoples who were considered inferior to Romans. They believed it was Rome's right to rule the world. Roman control was benefiting others. This was the Pax Romana, or peace of Rome. It came at the point of a spear. Such is the peace offered by the leaders of this world.

Among the lands under Roman control was the Judean province in which Jesus Christ was born. The place of His birth was directly affected by Augustus' taxing. (Luke 2: 1-6.) He was a Jewish subject to the vassal king of the Herodian family. His life was lived between two Roman controlled provinces.

Jesus was asked if it was lawful to give tribute to Rome. He responded by asking for a coin, noting Caesar's image on it, and remarking "give unto Caesar the things that are Casear's; and unto God the things that are God's." (Matt. 22: 17-22.)

Jesus never challenged Roman authority. He submitted to it. When the time comes for the establishment of Zion, it will not be necessary for us to deviate from Christ's example. Those who are in the promised latter-day Zion will be protected by the "the terror of the Lord." The residents will be those who "will not take up arms against their neighbor." (D&C 45: 66-71.) There is no need to overthrow the world. It will overthrow itself. The Lord will not permit the wicked to destroy the righteous. (1 Ne. 22: 16.) It is the wicked who destroy the wicked. (Mormon 4: 5.)

We live in a world today in which Pax Americana has established controlled violence the world over. The fear of destruction holds forces at bay which would gladly destroy one another if permitted. The key to replacing the current world order with another one, as many insurgencies the world over recognize, is the destruction of Pax Americana by destroying American hegemony. A lot of people are working on that, both inside and outside the United States.

Latter-day Zion will not need to take up the sword to defend themselves. The Lord will be their shield and protection. Since the wicked are responsible for killing the wicked, you join them when you decide to take up arms. You also exclude yourself from those who are to come to Zion - for that group will be composed only of those who refuse to take up arms against their neighbor. (D&C 45: 68, above.)

Read again how Zion was protected in the days of Enoch. (Moses 7: 13-17.) It wasn't an army or arms which protected them. It was the Lord who dwelt among them.

Our challenge as a people is to live so the Lord can dwell among us. He will "take up His abode" with us as the Second Comforter, if we are prepared to receive Him. This is why I have written what I have written. Zion will be a byproduct of a prepared people. It never has been and never will be the result of a violent, armed, and politically motivated insurrection by people who want to isolate themselves from the world. Such people will only be a part of those who take up arms, and acting as part of the wicked, join in the destruction of the wicked, including themselves.

This does not mean that some righteous will not be required to die. The Lord's ability to protect us will require His hand move in "justice and mercy" to fulfill His promises. Those who die will die unto the Lord. Those who live will live unto the Lord. But the battle is the Lord's.
Posted by Denver Snuffer at 2:17 PM
Labels: battle, destruction of the wicked, Pax Americana, Pax Romana, Roman Empire

[Mark]

When the time comes for the establishment of Zion, it will not be necessary for us to deviate from Christ's example. Those who are in the promised latter-day Zion will be protected by the "the terror of the Lord." The residents will be those who "will not take up arms against their neighbor." (D&C 45: 66-71.) There is no need to overthrow the world. It will overthrow itself. The Lord will not permit the wicked to destroy the righteous. (1 Ne. 22: 16.) It is the wicked who destroy the wicked. (Mormon 4: 5.)

I think you are missing the context of this Brothers assertion Doc. He is speaking about the time when Zion is redeemed. That time is not yet. You are confusing the two.

[NoGreaterLove]

I think that is the key here Doc. Does the author know the difference? When the City of Zion is built, Satan will have no more power over the Saints. Once that temple is erected and the keys have been transferred to Christ at Adam-Ondi-Ahmen.
The nations of the earth will fear Zion and will not come against her. However, as you point out, before that time, the saints need to follow the examples you pose in your writing.

[eric]

When the time comes for the establishment of Zion, it will not be necessary for us to deviate from Christ's example. Those who are in the promised latter-day Zion will be protected by the "the terror of the Lord." The residents will be those who "will not take up arms against their neighbor." (D&C 45: 66-71.) There is no need to overthrow the world. It will overthrow itself. The Lord will not permit the wicked to destroy the righteous. (1 Ne. 22: 16.) It is the wicked who destroy the wicked. (Mormon 4: 5.)

I think you are missing the context of this Brothers assertion Doc. He is speaking about the time when Zion is redeemed. That time is not yet. You are confusing the two.

I second the motion - that does apply for the final callout to Zion.

Right now, the Gentiles (us), are not pure enough to operate on faith alone - thus the wicked will kill the wicked.
Once we (the Gentiles) have been cleansed and are ready to accept the Bridegroom (at the New Jerusalem), we will largely be operating on faith alone and can stay the powers of evil through divine intervention alone. Right now, as in the days of Moroni, Helaman, etc., there are too many wicked interspersed to operate on that higher plane of terrestrial law that will be in effect after we have been cleansed as a people.

[BroJones]

When the time comes for the establishment of Zion, it will not be necessary for us to deviate from Christ's example. Those who are in the promised latter-day Zion will be protected by the "the terror of the Lord." The residents will be those who "will not take up arms against their neighbor." (D&C 45: 66-71.) There is no need to overthrow the world. It will overthrow itself. The Lord will not permit the wicked to destroy the righteous. (1 Ne. 22: 16.) It is the wicked who destroy the wicked. (Mormon 4: 5.)

I think you are missing the context of this Brothers assertion Doc. He is speaking about the time when Zion is redeemed. That time is not yet. You are confusing the two.

Not so fast, Mark and others, for Denver states:

" Since the wicked are responsible for killing the wicked, you join them when you decide to take up arms."

This is not limited to that time when the New Jerusalem is already in operation, as far as I can tell from his essay/blog. It also contains the serious logical fallacy referred to above.

[BroJones]

Also, you guys missed the second major question I posed based on Denver's essay:

You also stated: "We live in a world today in which Pax Americana has established controlled violence the world over. The fear of destruction holds forces at bay which would gladly destroy one another if permitted. The key to replacing the current world order with another one, as many insurgencies the world over recognize, is the destruction of Pax Americana by destroying American hegemony."

Let me pose the question to you, Mark and NGlove -- I would be interested in your answer to this:

Are you in favor then of "American hegemony" and maintenance thereby of "Pax Americana"?

[Mark]

When the time comes for the establishment of Zion, it will not be necessary for us to deviate from Christ's example. Those who are in the promised latter-day Zion will be protected by the "the terror of the Lord." The residents will be those who "will not take up arms against their neighbor." (D&C 45: 66-71.) There is no need to overthrow the world. It will overthrow itself. The Lord will not permit the wicked to destroy the righteous. (1 Ne. 22: 16.) It is the wicked who destroy the wicked. (Mormon 4: 5.)

I think you are missing the context of this Brothers assertion Doc. He is speaking about the time when Zion is redeemed. That time is not yet. You are confusing the two.

Not so fast, Mark and others, for Denver states:

" Since the wicked are responsible for killing the wicked, you join them when you decide to take up arms."

This is not limited to that time when the New Jerusalem is already in operation, as far as I can tell from his essay/blog. It also contains the serious logical fallacy referred to above.

I still maintain that you are taking this writer out of context on the point of taking up arms against ones brother. He clearly said prior to the statement you quote above that "Latter-day Zion will not need to take up the sword to defend themselves. The Lord will be their shield and protection." He is talking here about the time when Zion is being redeemed and the Lords elect choose to beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. The spirit of peace will reign in the hearts of those Zion people. That would be the way i would be interpreting his example. If you continue to see it differently then get him to clarify it for you. I suspect he would be glad to not be misunderstood and taken out of context.

[BroJones]

Indeed I have have asked him to clarify and I await a response. So far, Denver has not even posted my comments to his blog (let alone replied to them).

Mark (and NGlove), you did not answer my question about whether you support "American hegemony" in order to maintain "Pax Americana".

[Mark]

Indeed I have have asked him to clarify and I await a response. So far, Denver has not even posted my comments to his blog (let alone replied to them).

Mark (and NGlove), you did not answer my question about whether you support "American hegemony" in order to maintain "Pax Americana".

Here is the quote I guess you are referring to Doc:

We live in a world today in which Pax Americana has established controlled violence the world over. The fear of destruction holds forces at bay which would gladly destroy one another if permitted. The key to replacing the current world order with another one, as many insurgencies the world over recognize, is the destruction of Pax Americana by destroying American hegemony. A lot of people are working on that, both inside and outside the United States.

I think the author here is merely making an observation about the current state of world affairs. He is not saying as far as I can tell that he supports hegemony to maintain world order but is just stating that barbarianism on a world scale is held in check somewhat by the overall concept of Pax Americana. The propensity to conquer and control is inherent in all powers worldwide who would like to exercise unrighteous dominion over their brethren. I am sure the fear of retaliation for committing acts of barbarianism does exist with some of these powers globally and that keeps them from going forward with some of those acts. Satan has great hold upon the hearts of men in todays world and inspires them to seek for power and control.

Isaiah talked about a latter day Assyrian king that desired to conquer the world over and needed to finally overcome and conquer the other super power Egypt which was the only other power that could neutralize and hold in check this Assyrian plan. All smaller nations looked to Egypt for protection until the Assyrians surprised Egypt with a crushing blow and this began Assyria's reign of blood and horror globally. I think this may have some application to the point addressed.

[BroJones]

Mark, how about you?
I asked what YOU think about "American hegemony" (including unchallenged military power and "controlled violence" to use Snuffer's term) to maintain "Pax Americana" -- do you support this?

Snuffer: "We live in a world today in which Pax Americana has established controlled violence the world over. The fear of destruction holds forces at bay which would gladly destroy one another if permitted. The key to replacing the current world order with another one, as many insurgencies the world over recognize, is the destruction of Pax Americana by destroying American hegemony."

[Mosby]

"Since the wicked are responsible for killing the wicked, you join them when you decide to take up arms. You also exclude yourself from those who are to come to Zion - for that group will be composed only of those who refuse to take up arms against their neighbor."

Logical fallacy! -- is it ONLY the wicked who slay the wicked? NO! Is it "ONLY.. those who refuse to take up arms" who will be part of Zion? NO! for we have Alma, Moroni, Mormon, Nephi, Moses and many other righteous men who slayed the wicked, consistent with the Lord's commands.

Thus, there are many times noted in our scriputres when the Lord commands the righteous to defend themselves and slay the wicked. It is not ONLY the wicked who slay the wicked.

I would argue that statement is not a Logical fallacy Doc, taking up arms to slay anyone without the expressed permission of the Lord (note here self defense is justified in our Doctrine and Covenants) would put you in the camp of the wicked.

You are correct in stating that it is not only the "wicked" that slay the "wicked" - but as a general rule that is usually the case.

This has been a hard thing for me to learn over the years (because of my.....um....training) but the more I read and study the scriptures I have learned that it probably be alot better for me if I went "burying my weapons of warfare" instead of "full-auto".

However- I am 100% committed to defending my family, my life, and those who cannot defend themselves by the sword if necessary- IF justified under God's laws and patterns of warfare.

It is true that in the last days "Zion" will be made up of those who will not draw the sword against their neighbor. A Zion people have no need to fight- their hearts are set on peace and the Lord fights their battles.

Currently I'm reading "Approaching Zion" by Hugh Nibley- I cannot tell you how powerful that book is, I highly recommend it to all Latter Day Saints.
It will shift your paradigm on this and other topics relating to Zion.

[Mark]

It is true that in the last days "Zion" will be made up of those who will not draw the sword against their neighbor. A Zion people have no need to fight- their hearts are set on peace and the Lord fights their battles.

That is precisely the point of the authors post Mosby. Dr. Jones misunderstood this point and made something out of nothing. I personally thought it was a good reminder of the peaceable things of the kingdom that we have to look forward to. I am tired of all the violence and killing to satisfy the desire for power and control. I share in the authors premise to work toward building Zion in ones heart so as to live those principles when Zion becomes a reality for all the faithful.


By the way Mosby I agree with you on Approaching Zion as an excellent book with a word of caution. Many have used that book as an excuse to disassociate themselves with the body of Saints. It was a favorite of the Manti bunch while they were falling away as pride took control of their hearts and they became judgemental of the church. That was not Nibleys intent in the slightest. He was faithful to the church and the living Prophets until the day he died.

[Original_Intent]

Allow me to get everyone angry and saying you are both right.

[Mosby]

That is precisely the point of the authors post Mosby. Dr. Jones misunderstood this point and made something out of nothing. I personally thought it was a good reminder of the peaceable things of the kingdom that we have to look forward to. I am tired of all the violence and killing to satisfy the desire for power and control. I share in the authors premise to work toward building Zion in ones heart so as to live those principles when Zion becomes a reality for all the faithful.

Mark- I never thought I would say this....................but I agree with you

You gotta get your hands on "Approaching Zion".................you would love it.

[Mark]

That is precisely the point of the authors post Mosby. Dr. Jones misunderstood this point and made something out of nothing. I personally thought it was a good reminder of the peaceable things of the kingdom that we have to look forward to. I am tired of all the violence and killing to satisfy the desire for power and control. I share in the authors premise to work toward building Zion in ones heart so as to live those principles when Zion becomes a reality for all the faithful.

Mark- I never thought I would say this....................but I agree with you

You gotta get your hands on "Approaching Zion".................you would love it.

I did love the book Mosby. It was a great reminder to me of the need for personal repentence in my own life to not become part of the principles used to build up babylon. I especially liked the Chapter titled "What is Zion: A Distant View". I still get daily guilt pangs from that lecture.

[Mosby]

I especially liked the Chapter titled "What is Zion: A Distant View". I still get daily guilt pangs from that lecture.

yeah- I hear you on that. I never realized what a "builder of babylon" I was until I read it, but many of the streets there are named after me!

[Mark]

I especially liked the Chapter titled "What is Zion: A Distant View". I still get daily guilt pangs from that lecture.

yeah- I hear you on that. I never realized what a "builder of babylon" I was until I read it, but many of the streets there are named after me!

Me to Bro. Here is another great Nibley quote that causes me sleepless nights.


" For those who hold the priesthood on this earth, it is, as the prophet Joseph said, "an onerous burden", not a prize. One cannot give orders to another by the priesthood. One cannot use it to acquire prestige, fame, or wealth. Far from impressing ones fellow men, it is often held in derision by them. The moment one tries to make honor or glory or exercise dominion by the priesthood, "amen to the priesthood of that man"- it automatically becomes null and void. What good is it then? Over whom does it exercise dominion? Over the spirits and over the elements- but not over ones fellow men, who cannot under any circumstances be deprived of their complete agency."

"Very few men on earth, including those in the Church, are really qualified. In terms of prestige, status, power, influence, pleasure, privilege, "power and authority and riches", (3Nephi 6:37) the priesthood has absolutely nothing to offer. The world laughs at it, many of the Latter Day Saints abuse or ignore it, and those who take it seriously do so in "fear and trembling".

[Raindrop]

Denver continues on the topic...

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/searc ... 20Massacre

[Mark]

Denver continues on the topic...

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/searc ... 20Massacre

I opened up this brothers blog and he starts it out this way;

There has been an abundant outpouring of vitriol by those who disagree with my view about "the battle is the Lord's" (an earlier post). The comment moderator has asked me about them, because she's reluctant to put some of them up. They claim the view I hold is either Satanic or else I have been deceived by the Devil.

Good grief whats wrong with people? The guy writes a blog about his feelings concerning non violence and all of a sudden a bunch of enlightened ones have to take it upon themselves to call him to repentance by demonizing his thoughts? People are funny.

[BroJones]

Mark, before you said we should ask Denver what his intent was, and I noted that I did that and he has yet to respond to me.
Now you turn around with an insult: "Dr. Jones misunderstood this point and made something out of nothing. (Mark)"

Not cool... and I request an apology. We don't know Denver's intent yet and whether you or I misunderstood UNTIL we have that response from Denver.

And as for your snide remark that I "made something out of nothing," I remind you that my question about "American hegemony" and "controlled violence" to maintain "Pax Americana" remains unanswered by you or NGlove. This IMO is a very important issue.

[Mark]

Mark, before you said we should ask Denver what his intent was, and I noted that I did that and he has yet to respond to me.
Now you turn around with an insult: "Dr. Jones misunderstood this point and made something out of nothing. (Mark)"

Not cool... and I request an apology. We don't know Denver's intent yet and whether you or I misunderstood UNTIL we have that response from Denver.

And as for your snide remark that I "made something out of nothing," I remind you that my question about "American hegemony" and "controlled violence" to maintain "Pax Americana" remains unanswered by you or NGlove. This IMO is a very important issue.

Lose the indignation Doc. It was just my opinion. You give yours all the time here. Don't be shocked if somebody else does the same. I thought you were reading more into the Brothers blog than was intended. You can disagree with me if you like. I am fine with that. I know it is unpopular here to disagree with most anything you say. I just happened to do so in this instance. Thats what a forum like this is for. I'm sure I will be blasted by some of your many admirers for doing so. I can live with that. Besides I am way more afraid of my wifes wrath.

[BroJones]

Mark, before you said we should ask Denver what his intent was, and I noted that I did that and he has yet to respond to me.
Now you turn around with an insult: "Dr. Jones misunderstood this point and made something out of nothing. (Mark)"

Not cool... and I request an apology. We don't know Denver's intent yet and whether you or I misunderstood UNTIL we have that response from Denver.

And as for your snide remark that I "made something out of nothing," I remind you that my question about "American hegemony" and "controlled violence" to maintain "Pax Americana" remains unanswered by you or NGlove. This IMO is a very important issue.

Lose the indignation Doc. It was just my opinion. You give yours all the time here. Don't be shocked if somebody else does the same. I thought you were reading more into the Brothers blog than was intended. You can disagree with me if you like. I am fine with that. I know it is unpopular here to disagree with most anything you say. I just happened to do so in this instance. Thats what a forum like this is for. I'm sure I will be blasted by some of your many admirers for doing so. I can live with that. Besides I am way more afraid of my wifes wrath.

Still no answer to the "American hegemony" question, eh tu, Mark.
Ciao.

[Col. Flagg]

Mark, would you please stop irritating Dr. Jones. You always accuse others of having their own 'paradigm', while refusing to acknowledge your own. I think you need to answer Steve's question.

[Mark]

Mark, would you please stop irritating Dr. Jones. You always accuse others of having their own 'paradigm', while refusing to acknowledge your own. I think you need to answer Steve's question.

Give me a break Bro. Irritating Dr. Jones? What are you his protector and bodyguard? Heaven forbid anyone questions the Doc on one of his posts. My good friend Mosby disagreed with the Doc as well on this thread. How come you aren't lambasting his audacity to question him? I would be happy to address his question further but frankly I don't care for his self righteous tone when clearly to me he was the one who jumped to conclusions on this topic and refuses to admit he may have been incorrect in some of his assumptions. Sounds a bit prideful to me but what do I know. I am just a nobody..