Listen to the Snufferite conference

[Teancum]

Yes, there is something wrong with it. It is written in first person from the Lord. And that makes it a lie.

Regardless of whether or not it's actually from the Lord, does it matter if it's prompting people to do the Lord's will? To me, it is beautiful, revelation or not. To me, it represents the character of the Lord and offers insight into a God that is compassionate and understanding. Even if it isn't truly from the Lord, I believe it is good.

And there in is the crux of the issue. All Satan has to do is have a servant cite some scripture reword a couple of nice sentiments and platitudes, and the pied pipers tune is set and those who do not recognize God's methodology and spirit go glassy eyed and follow the piper to eventual destruction.

So how would that particular quote lead a person to destruction? I was taught in the church that truth is available everywhere, that there is truth in all things. I was taught that other churches had truth as well. As far as I can tell, this quote is no different than something I might find in another church. While I may not accept Denver as a spokesman for the Lord, that does not mean I need to reject the truth in it.

As far as I can tell, no one has challenged the doctrine in the quote. It seems the only issue is that it tends to lead people away from the church leadership. I personally don't place responsibility for that on Denver. Those individuals who have chosen to listen to him have acted on their own accord. If it weren't Denver that drew them out of the church, it would be some other. But none of that has anything to do with whether or not the quote is doctrinally sound.

So, who's willing to take it on doctrinally? Brlenox? Can anyone show me how it is wrong outside of the idea that it can't be true because Denver isn't actually authorized to speak for the Lord? If he is saying things that are true, I'm not sure it matters if he's authorized or not.

Mark 1:23-26

23 And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,

24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.

25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.

26 And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him.

So, Jesus stopped the unclean spirit which was testifying of the truth (that Jesus of Nazareth is the Holy One of God).
Why? It was true! Shouldn't Jesus be happy that anyone testifies of Him? It was in a church for crying out loud! No! Again why? Because of the source.

[Rose Garden]

So how would that particular quote lead a person to destruction? I was taught in the church that truth is available everywhere, that there is truth in all things. I was taught that other churches had truth as well. As far as I can tell, this quote is no different than something I might find in another church. While I may not accept Denver as a spokesman for the Lord, that does not mean I need to reject the truth in it.

As far as I can tell, no one has challenged the doctrine in the quote. It seems the only issue is that it tends to lead people away from the church leadership. I personally don't place responsibility for that on Denver. Those individuals who have chosen to listen to him have acted on their own accord. If it weren't Denver that drew them out of the church, it would be some other. But none of that has anything to do with whether or not the quote is doctrinally sound.

So, who's willing to take it on doctrinally? Brlenox? Can anyone show me how it is wrong outside of the idea that it can't be true because Denver isn't actually authorized to speak for the Lord? If he is saying things that are true, I'm not sure it matters if he's authorized or not.

Sure. Why not? It will take a moment but since the best material on this issue is found in Timothy at least it is easy to find. Before I do though, I would like to see you take the opposite side of your statement above...this one:

Regardless of whether or not it's actually from the Lord, does it matter if it's prompting people to do the Lord's will? To me, it is beautiful, revelation or not. To me, it represents the character of the Lord and offers insight into a God that is compassionate and understanding. Even if it isn't truly from the Lord, I believe it is good.

Pretend you are going to disprove this statement. What arguments would you use? What credible sources will come to bear against the statement? Why is the statement by Hidingbehindmyhandle able to be glossed over so readily as if it carries no weight. Just like you were in Debate class, make a credible argument for why what you said is ludicrous just that it wasn't you that said it in your rebuttal. I think you will find it easier to refute than ever to support it.

I'm struggling to understand what you are asking here. I guess I'm wondering exactly what statement you are asking me to refute. My comment was pretty much entirely opinion, with the exception of the first sentence which is a genuine question and which I would also personally answer with an opinion. I believe anything that reflects the true nature of the Lord is worthy of consideration, regardless of any erroneous notions of its origin.

The struggle I would have in finding a credible source to back up or refute my opinions is that I pretty much reject the notion that one person can accurately portray the word of the Lord to another. And yet this world is filled with people claiming to authoritatively speak for the Lord. I reject their claims of representation of the Lord but seek to see the good in what they offer as well. I would not know which of the many sources to choose as credible since I consider them all flawed in their assumption that they can speak for the Lord.

Removing the option of a person being authorized to speak for the Lord, all you have left is opinion based upon personal experience, which I recognize is highly subjective. I realize my opinion is probably wrong in some aspect in everything I believe. However, I also recognize that every individual ultimately bases their decisions on their own opinion, including their opinion of which sources are credible or not, and so I've come to a place of comfort with my own notions.

I guess I'm saying that I've already cited the only source I consider credible, which is myself. No one can convince me that I don't find Denver's quote beautiful--I do find it beautiful. No one can convince me to reject it based on the idea that it's not a true representation of the Lord's words. I've already factored that idea into the equation. I haven't glossed over Hiding's statement either. I've given that statement a great deal of serious thought over many years and come to the conclusions I've stated here.

I'm asking for a doctrinally based argument because I feel the people on this thread are making their assumptions about Denver's quote based solely on it's source. I feel that is fallacious. I believe it would be instructive to consider the message on its own merits. I singled you out, brlenox, because I believe you can provide a thorough analysis and I'm curious to see what you come up with. I respect your right to your opinion as I do mine and don't diminish it's validity just because it's different from mine.

I was simply referencing a practice one often sees in a debate environment. Sometimes they will give a subject and conclusion in which the debater completely disagrees. However to test his powers of debate he or she is to credibly sustain and support material that opposes their own perspectives. I wondered if in trying to argue against yourself you might actually uncover the weakness of your perspective. However when you respond with "the only source I consider credible, which is myself" I realize you have lost the debate and undermined the apostles and prophets as guides for you. Of course, you can do that based on your status, I cannot.

You do me a great disservice thinking that I am going to reply with my opinions on the matter. I never support doctrine by opinion. In stead I have provided you with a concise refutation of the material in the attachment provided above. You will have to study it out, as for myself there is no other means of discerning the truth of this matter. If the apostles and prophets and scriptures that I provide are unable to convince you then that will be unfortunate but not entirely unexpected. Still you may surprise me. The format I have chosen is one that I have used for years to come to a full understanding of points of doctrine. On more occasions than a few, I find that my "opinions" are completely false and I must upgrade to knowledge based on the efforts of my study. It is designed by me and so may not be readily grasped by others but let me know if there is a question and I can certainly attempt to provide clarity.

Brlenox, sorry I didn't make my point more clearly. I expected a thoroughly documented response from you. However, from my perspective, the sources you accept as valid constitute an opinion on your part--you cite those specific sources because your opinion is in line with them.

You'll have to give me a bit to look over the material you provided before I respond to it.

[Rose Garden]

Regardless of whether or not it's actually from the Lord, does it matter if it's prompting people to do the Lord's will? To me, it is beautiful, revelation or not. To me, it represents the character of the Lord and offers insight into a God that is compassionate and understanding. Even if it isn't truly from the Lord, I believe it is good.

And there in is the crux of the issue. All Satan has to do is have a servant cite some scripture reword a couple of nice sentiments and platitudes, and the pied pipers tune is set and those who do not recognize God's methodology and spirit go glassy eyed and follow the piper to eventual destruction.

So how would that particular quote lead a person to destruction? I was taught in the church that truth is available everywhere, that there is truth in all things. I was taught that other churches had truth as well. As far as I can tell, this quote is no different than something I might find in another church. While I may not accept Denver as a spokesman for the Lord, that does not mean I need to reject the truth in it.

As far as I can tell, no one has challenged the doctrine in the quote. It seems the only issue is that it tends to lead people away from the church leadership. I personally don't place responsibility for that on Denver. Those individuals who have chosen to listen to him have acted on their own accord. If it weren't Denver that drew them out of the church, it would be some other. But none of that has anything to do with whether or not the quote is doctrinally sound.

So, who's willing to take it on doctrinally? Brlenox? Can anyone show me how it is wrong outside of the idea that it can't be true because Denver isn't actually authorized to speak for the Lord? If he is saying things that are true, I'm not sure it matters if he's authorized or not.

Mark 1:23-26

23 And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,

24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.

25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him.

26 And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him.

So, Jesus stopped the unclean spirit which was testifying of the truth (that Jesus of Nazareth is the Holy One of God).
Why? It was true! Shouldn't Jesus be happy that anyone testifies of Him? It was in a church for crying out loud! No! Again why? Because of the source.

Interesting. So what do you make of statements by Joseph Smith that we should accept truth from whatever source it comes to us? That seems to be something he spoke of on more than one occasion.

[brlenox]

Sure. Why not? It will take a moment but since the best material on this issue is found in Timothy at least it is easy to find. Before I do though, I would like to see you take the opposite side of your statement above...this one:



Pretend you are going to disprove this statement. What arguments would you use? What credible sources will come to bear against the statement? Why is the statement by Hidingbehindmyhandle able to be glossed over so readily as if it carries no weight. Just like you were in Debate class, make a credible argument for why what you said is ludicrous just that it wasn't you that said it in your rebuttal. I think you will find it easier to refute than ever to support it.

I'm struggling to understand what you are asking here. I guess I'm wondering exactly what statement you are asking me to refute. My comment was pretty much entirely opinion, with the exception of the first sentence which is a genuine question and which I would also personally answer with an opinion. I believe anything that reflects the true nature of the Lord is worthy of consideration, regardless of any erroneous notions of its origin.

The struggle I would have in finding a credible source to back up or refute my opinions is that I pretty much reject the notion that one person can accurately portray the word of the Lord to another. And yet this world is filled with people claiming to authoritatively speak for the Lord. I reject their claims of representation of the Lord but seek to see the good in what they offer as well. I would not know which of the many sources to choose as credible since I consider them all flawed in their assumption that they can speak for the Lord.

Removing the option of a person being authorized to speak for the Lord, all you have left is opinion based upon personal experience, which I recognize is highly subjective. I realize my opinion is probably wrong in some aspect in everything I believe. However, I also recognize that every individual ultimately bases their decisions on their own opinion, including their opinion of which sources are credible or not, and so I've come to a place of comfort with my own notions.

I guess I'm saying that I've already cited the only source I consider credible, which is myself. No one can convince me that I don't find Denver's quote beautiful--I do find it beautiful. No one can convince me to reject it based on the idea that it's not a true representation of the Lord's words. I've already factored that idea into the equation. I haven't glossed over Hiding's statement either. I've given that statement a great deal of serious thought over many years and come to the conclusions I've stated here.

I'm asking for a doctrinally based argument because I feel the people on this thread are making their assumptions about Denver's quote based solely on it's source. I feel that is fallacious. I believe it would be instructive to consider the message on its own merits. I singled you out, brlenox, because I believe you can provide a thorough analysis and I'm curious to see what you come up with. I respect your right to your opinion as I do mine and don't diminish it's validity just because it's different from mine.

I was simply referencing a practice one often sees in a debate environment. Sometimes they will give a subject and conclusion in which the debater completely disagrees. However to test his powers of debate he or she is to credibly sustain and support material that opposes their own perspectives. I wondered if in trying to argue against yourself you might actually uncover the weakness of your perspective. However when you respond with "the only source I consider credible, which is myself" I realize you have lost the debate and undermined the apostles and prophets as guides for you. Of course, you can do that based on your status, I cannot.

You do me a great disservice thinking that I am going to reply with my opinions on the matter. I never support doctrine by opinion. In stead I have provided you with a concise refutation of the material in the attachment provided above. You will have to study it out, as for myself there is no other means of discerning the truth of this matter. If the apostles and prophets and scriptures that I provide are unable to convince you then that will be unfortunate but not entirely unexpected. Still you may surprise me. The format I have chosen is one that I have used for years to come to a full understanding of points of doctrine. On more occasions than a few, I find that my "opinions" are completely false and I must upgrade to knowledge based on the efforts of my study. It is designed by me and so may not be readily grasped by others but let me know if there is a question and I can certainly attempt to provide clarity.

Brlenox, sorry I didn't make my point more clearly. I expected a thoroughly documented response from you. However, from my perspective, the sources you accept as valid constitute an opinion on your part--you cite those specific sources because your opinion is in line with them.

You'll have to give me a bit to look over the material you provided before I respond to it.

Wow, if that is not thorough documentation, I'm not sure what it. I think if you read it through you will get the gist of it - if you try. As far as opinions...Since I provide quotes that serve your side of the discussion and I provide quotes that serve my side of the discussion how can that be categorized as selecting only those that support my "opinion?" Since when do we consider the teachings of scripture and prophets and apostles, properly managed as personal opinions? We can wrest them and in so doing create an opinion laden effort but that is not happening here. And since these are just opinions I challenge you to find any quotes from scripture or from prophetic utterance that in context give license to the opinion that you promulgate. You will never find a quote that instructs Latter Day Saints to trust in the words of apostates and that in simplest form is your stance.

I hope you can make a sincere effort at understanding the material. It will completely inform your stance for future usage if you truly seek truth from higher sources than "yourself" and your opinion.

[Rose Garden]

On image number one: The left side is to scriptural or prophetic quotes that give insight into sources of truth that are to be shunned.

The right side is scriptural or prophetic quotes that give insight into sources that speak to all venues that are acceptable sources of truth.

The middle column is to provide specificity into identifying points on either the right or left side of the documents.

On image number two, I evaluate each column above on page one.

On image number three I summarize everything to bring it together to a full understanding of the principles involved.

The images are a little blurry and if too much so then I have added the attachment above to download.

Sources of truth 1.JPG
Sources of truth 2.JPG
Sources of truth 3.JPG

Thank you for compiling those references. I appreciate the effort you took to put them together. I have realized that I cannot provide an answer without violating a personal standard I have set for myself on this site. I made the decision some time ago not to challenge the members of this site (or any Latter-day Saint) in their belief of the church leaders. I want to build relationships based on mutual understanding and on the principles we all accept as true. I've come too close to the edge here and cannot go any further without falling in.

The explanation I offered above does not directly oppose the authority of the LDS church leaders but it is rightly inferred that I do not place them in the same regard as many on this site do. However, despite my diminished perspective of the church leaders, I can say that there is benefit in taking them seriously and studying their words. I did it and I reaped generous benefits. I would not want to turn anyone away from them who might be benefited by their teachings.

[Rose Garden]

I'm struggling to understand what you are asking here. I guess I'm wondering exactly what statement you are asking me to refute. My comment was pretty much entirely opinion, with the exception of the first sentence which is a genuine question and which I would also personally answer with an opinion. I believe anything that reflects the true nature of the Lord is worthy of consideration, regardless of any erroneous notions of its origin.

The struggle I would have in finding a credible source to back up or refute my opinions is that I pretty much reject the notion that one person can accurately portray the word of the Lord to another. And yet this world is filled with people claiming to authoritatively speak for the Lord. I reject their claims of representation of the Lord but seek to see the good in what they offer as well. I would not know which of the many sources to choose as credible since I consider them all flawed in their assumption that they can speak for the Lord.

Removing the option of a person being authorized to speak for the Lord, all you have left is opinion based upon personal experience, which I recognize is highly subjective. I realize my opinion is probably wrong in some aspect in everything I believe. However, I also recognize that every individual ultimately bases their decisions on their own opinion, including their opinion of which sources are credible or not, and so I've come to a place of comfort with my own notions.

I guess I'm saying that I've already cited the only source I consider credible, which is myself. No one can convince me that I don't find Denver's quote beautiful--I do find it beautiful. No one can convince me to reject it based on the idea that it's not a true representation of the Lord's words. I've already factored that idea into the equation. I haven't glossed over Hiding's statement either. I've given that statement a great deal of serious thought over many years and come to the conclusions I've stated here.

I'm asking for a doctrinally based argument because I feel the people on this thread are making their assumptions about Denver's quote based solely on it's source. I feel that is fallacious. I believe it would be instructive to consider the message on its own merits. I singled you out, brlenox, because I believe you can provide a thorough analysis and I'm curious to see what you come up with. I respect your right to your opinion as I do mine and don't diminish it's validity just because it's different from mine.

I was simply referencing a practice one often sees in a debate environment. Sometimes they will give a subject and conclusion in which the debater completely disagrees. However to test his powers of debate he or she is to credibly sustain and support material that opposes their own perspectives. I wondered if in trying to argue against yourself you might actually uncover the weakness of your perspective. However when you respond with "the only source I consider credible, which is myself" I realize you have lost the debate and undermined the apostles and prophets as guides for you. Of course, you can do that based on your status, I cannot.

You do me a great disservice thinking that I am going to reply with my opinions on the matter. I never support doctrine by opinion. In stead I have provided you with a concise refutation of the material in the attachment provided above. You will have to study it out, as for myself there is no other means of discerning the truth of this matter. If the apostles and prophets and scriptures that I provide are unable to convince you then that will be unfortunate but not entirely unexpected. Still you may surprise me. The format I have chosen is one that I have used for years to come to a full understanding of points of doctrine. On more occasions than a few, I find that my "opinions" are completely false and I must upgrade to knowledge based on the efforts of my study. It is designed by me and so may not be readily grasped by others but let me know if there is a question and I can certainly attempt to provide clarity.

Brlenox, sorry I didn't make my point more clearly. I expected a thoroughly documented response from you. However, from my perspective, the sources you accept as valid constitute an opinion on your part--you cite those specific sources because your opinion is in line with them.

You'll have to give me a bit to look over the material you provided before I respond to it.

Wow, if that is not thorough documentation, I'm not sure what it. I think if you read it through you will get the gist of it - if you try. As far as opinions...Since I provide quotes that serve your side of the discussion and I provide quotes that serve my side of the discussion how can that be categorized as selecting only those that support my "opinion?" Since when do we consider the teachings of scripture and prophets and apostles, properly managed as personal opinions? We can wrest them and in so doing create an opinion laden effort but that is not happening here. And since these are just opinions I challenge you to find any quotes from scripture or from prophetic utterance that in context give license to the opinion that you promulgate. You will never find a quote that instructs Latter Day Saints to trust in the words of apostates and that in simplest form is your stance.

I hope you can make a sincere effort at understanding the material. It will completely inform your stance for future usage if you truly seek truth from higher sources than "yourself" and your opinion.

My apologies for again not making myself clear. That was most definitely a thorough documentation, which I expected from you. The point I'm trying to make that appears to be causing the confusion is that from my perspective, the authoritative sources a person chooses also constitutes an opinion on their part. In other words, your acceptance of the LDS church leaders as authorities is your opinion, the acceptance of a Muslim of the Koran as an authoritative sources is the Muslim's opinion, the acceptance of an Asian of Confucius as an authority is the Asian's opinion, and so forth.

I hope that clears up what I was trying to say.

[brlenox]

Brlenox, sorry I didn't make my point more clearly. I expected a thoroughly documented response from you. However, from my perspective, the sources you accept as valid constitute an opinion on your part--you cite those specific sources because your opinion is in line with them.

You'll have to give me a bit to look over the material you provided before I respond to it.

At your request, I have rewritten this in the customary format. It looses somewhat of the visual of being a spectrum of knowledge as opposed to one point of knowledge, when our discussion is actually concerning opposite ends of a line of doctrine. However, this is all stuff that is familiar to me as I have been doing this for years and perhaps it is not as clear to others as it is to me.

First off there is error in your approach to this kinds of situations. It is not the first time you have taken this tack but I guess as a courtesy I have taken up the gauntlet of illustration to advance doctrinally how it is wrong.

Your carefully scripted request to have someone validate the doctrine within the quote and effort to isolate the aspect of consideration to being just the words only is, what I consider one of those deceptive tools that folks use to exonerate error by drawing a tight response arena that they can plead plausible exception to any answers provided that might address the real issue of where the error lies. It is much like Satan in the Garden of Eden and his response to the Lord when questioned about what he is doing and he replies just that which has been done on other worlds. Basically that is diluted from a show me what I said that is untrue, which if we restrict ourselves to the words he used it is difficult to find any fault. They did not die and they did become as the God's knowing good and evil. But Satan wasn't banished from the Garden of Eden for no reason. And in fact it is precisely because his tactic is a liars tactic that he retained culpability for his actions and God was not in the least deceived even though the words he used were seemingly truthful - truthful until considered within the arena of his intent and resulted in his being cast out. Therein is Denver Snuffers problem and the issue with the quote- intent.

Frankly Hidingingbehindmyhandle's response was most adequate to dispel any sustainment for the quote whatsoever and could well have been the last word. However you would like a doctrinal response as to what makes it wrong and so now all I can do is provide one of those, as RED calls them, insufferable responses that tediously examines the points of discussion. As I am very aware of the material which you are pleading as special exception I thought perhaps it might be best to examine this under the auspices of what I call a spectrum of truth which examines the doctrine from all angles to define propriety of when one perspective is correct over the other end of the spectrum.

In this case, we consider the doctrine of seeking truth wherever we can find it; a perfectly supportable perspective and correct in proper considerations. My perspective is on the other side of the same doctrine that some sources should be removed from our sphere of influence for the risk they pose in perverting the truth - also an equally supportable position but still only right when the conditions which are defined in scripture are met for its implementation. Because we are discussing opposites sides of potentially correct doctrine the issue should not be addressed by bantering back and forth but instead by laying the doctrine sources side by side for comparison and understanding - that we can rightly divide the word of truth. I have created an attachment that covers the entire spectrum of our perspectives. If you study it out you will come away with an understanding of the principles involved in receiving truth. These principles once grasped will provide you with light whenever a similar situation arises and you will be able to better and more accurately weigh the conditions that speak to your response.

I’ll write this out in document form since you seemed put off by the spectrum I provided earlier. First let’s explore scriptures that warn concerning sources of knowledge. For myself I find it much easier to grasp that this is an entire spectrum of knowledge instead of focusing on two separate points as if they are mutually exclusive when in fact you are simply on one end of what is an acceptable source and my perspective relative to the Denver Snuffer quote that you have supported is that it is completely unacceptable regardless of it’s contents. Now we can go through the proofs.

From the point of view of sources that should not be sought out for truth.

2 Timothy 2:14
14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenæus and Philetus;
18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

The essence is that there is material which when presented is designed to subvert those who listen. Servants of God are counseled to not debate such material if there is no benefit to be had, and the process of encouraging debating can lead to greater acts of ungodliness as the words of false teachers destroys the faith and cankers it which is to say it corrupts and infects. He gives an example of two men who are teaching a false doctrine which is having a negative impact on believers (This could be replaced with the name of Denver perfectly). In this case it is resurrection but it could be any false doctrine. He indicates that these sources of false information are to be shunned and not given a platform for their efforts.

Paul provides a wondrous bit of advice on rightly dividing the words of truth, which he indicates is achieved by powerful study. Now this is a quote from Brigham Young which expands on the same ideology as Timothy is expressing. As a prophet, his material should have merit to you. If though it is as it appears, that you yourself are the only arbiter of truth in your knowledge base then you need read no further. You will not be swayed by proper venues of truth that do not match your opinions. Let’s look at Brigham:

Many imbibe [conceive] the idea that they are capable of leading out in teaching principles that never have been taught. They are not aware that the moment they give way to this hallucination the Devil has power over them to lead them onto unholy ground; though this is a lesson which they ought to have learned long ago, yet it is one that was learned by but few in the days of Joseph (DBY, 77–78).

This describes the author of the quote you consider so beautiful. Denver feels he is the proprieter of new knowledge and wisdom. The most humorous to me is the 7 women to sustain a man in is priesthood or deny it him. Ludicrous in the extreme and as President Young points out those who seek to advise on correct doctrine that conflicts with the church and the prophets have become subject to the devil. This should advise any about supporting such individuals.

We can accept nothing as authoritative but that which comes directly through the appointed channel, the constituted organizations of the Priesthood, which is the channel that God has appointed through which to make known His mind and will to the world. … And the moment that individuals look to any other source, that moment they throw themselves open to the seductive influences of Satan, and render themselves liable to become servants of the devil; they lose sight of the true order through which the blessings of the Priesthood are to be enjoyed; they step outside of the pale of the kingdom of God, and are on dangerous ground. Whenever you see a man rise up claiming to have received direct revelation from the Lord to the Church, independent of the order and channel of the Priesthood, you may set him down as an imposter (Smith, Joseph F.Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed. [1939], 41–42).

This is all too clear and should end the conversation, however, we are going to explore the comments that support your contention as well after this section. This quote from 1939 fits Denver like a well-tailored suit. “We can accept nothing” that is relative to the Church unless it comes through properly ordained recognized priesthood channels.

The risk comes in when we look to any unauthorized nonpriesthood source and then we become subject to the seductive influences of Satan which can lead to becoming one of his servants. Another subtlety is that when people make the error of entertaining such people “they lose sight of the true order” of how the Lord guides his church and that loss of clarity places them on dangerous ground.

This final caveat should be placed into the points of consideration but we can clearly know when someone violates lines of priesthood authority when they claim to have received revelation from the Lord to the Church. Such a one can be clearly recognized and known to be an imposter. This again is Denver too clear to miss unless you are not trying to truly grasp truth.

However let’s advance to the next subject.

From the Point of View that the Church teaches that all sources of truth are good.

Be willing to receive the truth, let it come from whom it may; no difference, not a particle. Just as soon receive the Gospel from Joseph Smith as from Peter, who lived in the days of Jesus. Receive it from one man as soon as another. If God has called an individual and sent him to preach the Gospel that is enough for me to know; it is no matter who it is,all I want is to know the truth(DBY, 11).

President Young openly claims that truth can come from any person and basically it doesn’t matter if they be of our persuasion or not. However in the next caveat he surrounds his intent with meaning as he cites known righteous individuals and he references that a proper priesthood calling is adequate to draw his ear and listen to their teachings. This is simply a nuance that we will want to keep track of as we develop a complete understanding of this consideration of valid sources of truth.

Mormonism,” so-called, embraces every principle pertaining to life and salvation, for time and eternity. No matter who has it. If the infidel has got truth it belongs to “Mormonism.” The truth and sound doctrine possessed by the sectarian world, and they have a great deal, all belong to this Church. As for their morality, many of them are, morally, just as good as we are. All that is good, lovely, and praiseworthy belongs to this Church and Kingdom. “Mormonism” includes all truth. There is no truth but what belongs to the Gospel. It is life, eternal life; it is bliss; it is the fulness of all things in the gods and in the eternities of the gods (DBY, 3).

Another President Young quote which expands on the first and adds additional clarity. He indicates that even an infidel may be the source of truth. For definition looking up infidel it is specific to “a person who does not believe in religion or who adheres to a religion other than one's own.” Further context again allows us to consider upon his perspective as he provides caveats that should surround our interpretations. Sometimes those of the “sectarian” world or those who are of other sects may have truth. He considers their moral state to be as good as any right living LDS and that is part of his reasoning that they can be valid sources of truth they are striving to be moral upstanding people.

One of the best qualifiers is this quote by Elder Uchtdorf:

When the opinions or “truths” of others contradict our own, instead of considering the possibility that there could be information that might be helpful and augment or complement what we know, we often jump to conclusions or make assumptions that the other person is misinformed, mentally challenged, or even intentionally trying to deceive.
Unfortunately, this tendency can spread to all
areas of our lives—from sports to family relationships and from religion to politics...
The adversary has many cunning strategies for keeping mortals from the truth. He offers the belief that truth is relative; appealing to our sense of tolerance and fairness, he keeps the real truth hidden by claiming that one person’s “truth” is as valid as any other.
Some he entices to believe that there is an absolute truth out there somewhere but that it is impossible for anyone to know it.
For those who already embrace the truth, his primary strategy is to spread the seeds of doubt. For example, he
has caused many members of the Church to stumble when they discover information about the Church that seems to contradict what they had learned previously.(What Is Truth? Dieter F. Uchtdorf)

President Uchtdorf from a talk titled “What Is Truth” This is a wonderful example of how the prophets teach us correct principles and sometimes out of context they might be wielded in weak understanding. However, his caution is meritorious in great ways that we must resist what I will call a self-righteous attitude. We cannot let a sense of preemptive worth of our understandings prevent us from examining what might appear conflicting truths of others as they may be able to add to our understandings. He counsels against outright dismissal and then pigeon holing their perspectives as from idiots, mentally challenged, uninformed, or efforts to deceive. Indicating that such a tendency can bleed into all areas of our lives. However, from a location down in the talk he still caveats the search for truth with a warning of Satan’s efforts to create doubt. He warns against thinking it is being unfair to not give Satan’s efforts equal attention or that “others truths” are equal to actual truth.( What Is Truth? Dieter F. Uchtdorf Of the First Presidency)

There are hundreds of quotes relative to both examples of differing sides of this discussion.
However, even those that you feel you were taught when you were in the church do not sustain your memory of the teachings. From the get go you have simply evinced a mistaken opinion of what you recall but it is in error when we examine source material from prophets and apostles.

Points that define definitions that apply to both aides of the discussion.

Therefore, let us beware of false prophets and false teachers, both men and women, who are self-appointed declarers of the doctrines of the Church and who seek to spread their false gospel and attract followers by sponsoring symposia, books, and journals whose contents challenge fundamental doctrines of the Church. Beware of those who speak and publish in opposition to God’s true prophets and who actively proselyte others with reckless disregard for the eternal well-being of those whom they seduce. Like Nehor and Korihor in the Book of Mormon, they rely on sophistry to deceive and entice others to their views. They “set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion” (2 Ne. 26:29).( Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers October 1999 General Conference, M. Russell Ballard Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles)

Sometimes the terms false prophets and false teachers is to some fraught with ambiguity, however Elder Ballard provides some clarity. Those who are self-appointed declarers of doctrines are false prophets. Those who “seek to spread their false gospel and attract followers by sponsoring symposia, books, and journals whose contents challenge fundamental doctrines of the Church” are false teachers and those who publish in opposition to God’s true prophets are false prophets. These can be compared to Korihor and Nehor as they establish themselves as guides but benefit personally by receiving praise and or financial benefit.

Any intelligent man may learn what he wants to learn. He may acquire knowledge in any field, though it requires much thought and effort. It takes more than a decade to get a high school diploma; it takes an additional four years for most people to get a college degree; it takes nearly a quarter-century to become a great physician. Why, oh, why do people think they can fathom the most complex spiritual depths without the necessary experimental and laboratory work accompanied by compliance with the laws that govern it? (Kimball, Spencer W. Brigham Young University, 6 September 1977)

This is an extremely important aspect of determining gospel truth. Some approach the study of eternity cavalierly and without due respect for the weighty matters it entails. President Kimball wonders why individuals can think they have any ability to understand gospel truths without having put in the due effort required to know how to determine what is truth. This is a huge issue. So many are of the impression that they can simply read a scripture or a quote and reference a couple of pet verses and they are scriptorians that can understand the deep things of the Gospel. It is never true and is actually almost an embarrassment to observe so much of this attitude. This common state of mind applies to all gospel topics.

A man in search of truth has no peculiar system to sustain, no peculiar dogma to defend or theory to uphold. He embraces all truth, and that truth, like the sun in the firmament, shines forth and spreads its effulgent rays over all creation. If men will divest themselves of bias and prejudice, and prayerfully and conscientiously search after truth, they will find it wherever they turn their attention. (Taylor, John, The Gospel Kingdom, 94.)

This is a very important distinction in our quest to understand truth. President Taylor counsels we cannot have a preconceived bias, or positions to defend, or theories to uphold. A person must be devoid of such prejudices. However, considering upon the discoveries one makes there must be prayer and diligent focus on truth as the objective of the search.


The purpose of creating a spectrum of truth is to create a collection of sources that speak to the doctrine as a whole and not just principles that may support one side or another. It is not so that we can cherry pick one quote over another because it supports a particular perspective but it is an effort to allow our minds to grasp the principle involved in a doctrine and then we can apply it anywhere because we understand the internal working and intent of the principal. In fact to argue one side of the spectrum when it does not apply is to become a liar of even greater deception as we have become accountable for being informed.

In short as LDS we are counseled to seek truth from all sources except those which can clearly be discerned to be those sources which have proven to be sourced from an evil desire to undermine the church or its leaders. The points sections defines those who seek to lead people out of the church, or who publish contrary material and seek to draw people to venues in order to preach of their insights which undermine proper authority qualify as those who should be given a wide berth. Timothy tells us to shun these types.

Doctrine and Covenants 50: 19 states:
19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
20 If it be some other way it is not of God.

I think for me this encapsulates the issue. When someone is truly seeking truth, they are going to have to make judgments. Judgments that some are afraid to make as perhaps they have been on the wrong end of others judgment and feel it nobler to not judge at all. Moroni 7:15 reminds us that it is given unto you to judge that you may know good from evil.

Again referencing the Moroni 7:16-18 which clarkkent14 put in his response we can see that a proper understanding of where we seek truth is more involved that simply looking at the words to which he seeks to validate. Another deceptive tool of Satan to wrest scripture to his cause, when we can plainly see by understanding the spectrum of what and where it is that we should seek for truth. Denver Snuffer violates practically every caveat ever spoken in scripture and in prophetic utterance. As a teacher does Denver truly uphold Christ if he denigrates his servants and preaches against the doctrines of the church and creates new doctrine completely outside of any valid source, scripture, prophets or otherwise? Does he teach by the spirit of truth?

Clearly not and while you indicate that you cannot see where that particular quote might lead to destruction it becomes evident that as mentioned above losing sight of who is an authorized representative opens doors to deception and that leads to destruction. As you then launch into the “what you were taught in church about truth that is found in any and all venues” you now find you were never taught quite what you remember. When we put the entire spectrum of related materials together we can get a flavor of what the servants of God mean and they have never stated that apostates are sources of truth and their words to be sanctioned as such. Timothy does not sanction it and Alma does not sanction it, in fact you will not find any valid source that sustains it. This is a very small spectrum I have put together with much less material than I would usually use to make sure I was fully covering all points. I didn’t want to overwhelm but feel it covers the essence of the point to be made. All words of Denver Snuffer are to be shunned as sourced by a deceptive and misled person who seeks the destruction of his church and people.

If you still find occasion against this material please provide some valid resources for me to consider that illustrate why your thoughts might have merit on this gospel discussion. Hopefully this format will be more to your liking.

[Crackers]

Meili,
I have seen your question answered very adequately by several posters already, but these apparently are not speaking to you. The short answer is that the source alone makes the teachings bad, as the intent is to eventually lead you astray. You appear to be coming from a default position of there being no clear Priesthood authority for you to follow, or maybe that there is, but you aren’t able to discern where that authority lies. So you will listen to teachings, and follow whatever you consider to be the best teachings (whether they be doctrine or artfully constructed prose). So this leads me to believe that the reason you won’t accept the answers offered to you here is that you have faith in Jesus, but not in His appointed leaders.

If you fail to engage in a religious query from a position of faith, your search will either be in vain or will lead you astray, as it appears to be doing in your tentative following of Snuffer. It might sound nice in a philosophical sort of way to find and follow “doctrines” that sound pleasing, but that is not the Plan that Jesus has for us. It is to follow His teachings, which includes following His appointed leaders. Maybe this feels stifling or un-free-spirited, but it IS His Plan. If you are trying to follow the Savior, and want all that He has planned for you, then you need to accept that He has organized a church and appointed Priesthood leaders who will help lead you there. If you decide to approach your questions from a position of faith (i.e., believing that Pres. Monson is truly God’s prophet and praying for confirmation of such), you will be rewarded with truth to replace your wonderings. The LDS church’s upcoming General Conference might be a good opportunity to switch to a faith-based position.

Snuffer may say lots of things that are pleasing and sound good, but eventually he will lead you astray.

[Rose Garden]

Brlenox, perhaps you missed my post above in which I explained why I was unable to provide an answer to your well-documented information. The original format was sufficient but perhaps others would like to discuss it and placing it in a post makes that easier. Thank you for making that effort.

Crackers, my question was not to have a well-documented explantation of why Denver's quote is unacceptable but to have the doctrine within the quote doctrinally challenged. That has not occurred by a single poster, unless I missed a post.

You're assessment of my approach is mostly accurate. However, I would not say I'm following Denver anymore than I am the church leaders. If any of them have some good to say, I accept it, if I discover it. But no one's words are esteemed over another's. If a person teaches something that strikes my soul as truth, I accept it as truth, no matter who it is that is speaking.

I believe that whether they realize it or not, everyone takes a subjective approach to their beliefs. If they accept persons of authority, they do so subjectively, based on their personal belief of who is trustworthy and who is not.

[Crackers]

I understand what you are asking, but you are looking for a partial answer rather than a more accurate and complete answer, which has been thoroughly addressed by brlenox.

I agree that truth can be found in sources that are outside of the general teachings of the church, and we should welcome what light and knowledge we receive. The reason your question of whether Snuffer's teachings are doctrinally sound is not being addressed in the manner you'd like is because the much more important question is, "Why is this man purporting to speak for God?" and includes, "What is his purpose in this?" and "What will likely result in following his teachings?" These and others are the questions that you should be looking at.

You might as well be asking us, "Is this flower pretty?" Well sure, maybe, it's kind of subjective, right? "What is that flower going to become?" is the more important question. Dumb analogy, sorry.

I would again suggest that you turn your search for truth into one that is faith-based. If you knew that God had a prophet on the earth to speak for Him, would you not esteem this prophet's words over any other man's? Picking and choosing doctrine is spiritually dangerous.

[brlenox]

Brlenox, perhaps you missed my post above in which I explained why I was unable to provide an answer to your well-documented information. The original format was sufficient but perhaps others would like to discuss it and placing it in a post makes that easier. Thank you for making that effort.

Crackers, my question was not to have a well-documented explantation of why Denver's quote is unacceptable but to have the doctrine within the quote doctrinally challenged. That has not occurred by a single poster, unless I missed a post.

You're assessment of my approach is mostly accurate. However, I would not say I'm following Denver anymore than I am the church leaders. If any of them have some good to say, I accept it, if I discover it. But no one's words are esteemed over another's. If a person teaches something that strikes my soul as truth, I accept it as truth, no matter who it is that is speaking.

I believe that whether they realize it or not, everyone takes a subjective approach to their beliefs. If they accept persons of authority, they do so subjectively, based on their personal belief of who is trustworthy and who is not.

Again as I stated earlier, is the material right or wrong is the question. How or in what way it is right or wrong is what should be important to you. I practically never engage you for this very reason in that you have esteemed yourself as the source for knowing right from wrong and then do so with extreme subjectivity and without an eye to the methods the Lord has provided to guide. That's fine as it is what works for you but inevitably it cannot end where we leave this life having worshiped the God after our image expecting the blessings of our Father in Heaven.

As for your final statement about subjectivity. If you took the subject we are discussing and were honest about your observations then you would show me where some other general authority or scripture speaks to it in just the way you subjectively feel is correct. Then you could illustrate that indeed both opinions exist and I would concede. However, what is subjective is the manner in which you recalled LDS teachings in a way that satisfied your personal preference but as I have illustrated you completely missed the intent of what was said. I think there is a difference between subjectivity and selectivity but to combine them is to make matters exponentially worse.

As for responding to my post, if you wish feel free but I do not think that the defenses you have placed around protecting your mental space and to prevent giving your will over to God will allow you to see the intent of the scriptures or the words of the prophets. It is less about subjectivity as you define it and being willing to see things from His perspective to the best that we are able. If you again can prove your subjective claim by illustrating that you can find a scripture or prophet that sustains your subjective interpretation then your claim can become meritorious. As it is though it is not but a claim and opinion of little value that cannot be substantiated.

[Rose Garden]

I understand what you are asking, but you are looking for a partial answer rather than a more accurate and complete answer, which has been thoroughly addressed by brlenox.

I agree that truth can be found in sources that are outside of the general teachings of the church, and we should welcome what light and knowledge we receive. The reason your question of whether Snuffer's teachings are doctrinally sound is not being addressed in the manner you'd like is because the much more important question is, "Why is this man purporting to speak for God?" and includes, "What is his purpose in this?" and "What will likely result in following his teachings?" These and others are the questions that you should be looking at.

You might as well be asking us, "Is this flower pretty?" Well sure, maybe, it's kind of subjective, right? "What is that flower going to become?" is the more important question. Dumb analogy, sorry.

I would again suggest that you turn your search for truth into one that is faith-based. If you knew that God had a prophet on the earth to speak for Him, would you not esteem this prophet's words over any other man's? Picking and choosing doctrine is spiritually dangerous.

I'm not sure anymore if I would esteem a prophet's words over another's words anymore. There was a time I would have but at present my reasoning is: if that man can receive something from the Lord, why can I not receive the same from the Lord myself? If I can receive truth from the Lord myself, why would I desire to depend on someone else to do that for me? Gaining truth from the Savior myself would be so much more rewarding.

There was a time years ago that the Spirit whispered to me that I was only paying lip service to the idea of following the prophet. I spent about a month and a half examining my life and doing everything in my power to ensure I was implementing the prophet's teachings in my life and came to a place where I felt satisfied I was. I also began a more in-depth study of the general conference talks, praying before and during my study of them. My eyes were opened to many truths and my life was forever changed by principles I learned and implemented into my life.

This was all right around the time that President Monson was first called as the prophet of the church and it occurred to me that I ought to pray and receive a witness of his appointment myself. There was only one answer I would have accepted at the time and that was that he was a prophet. My answer to that prayer confused me and I spent the next several years trying to come to terms with it.

I take my current stance because it brings me peace. I am able to respect the church leaders and my friends and family in their belief of them. I feel confident in my conclusions, as well.

[Crackers]

Based on your response, it appears to me that your leanings are more firmly in the Snuffer camp than you tend to admit. We are taught the doctrine that we can, in fact, have confirmation of any truths, shared by the prophet or otherwise, so you are correct and appropriate in your desire to have truths manifest to you directly. This does not negate the place of or need for a prophet.

I find it interesting that you state that there was only one acceptable answer to your prayer. Maybe your confusion resulted from your attempt to dictate the answer. I had an overwhelming personal confirmation of President Monson's prophetic calling. It appears that many years have passed since we each asked our question. Maybe it is time to ask again (in faith), both of us.

[brlenox]

Based on your response, it appears to me that your leanings are more firmly in the Snuffer camp than you tend to admit. We are taught the doctrine that we can, in fact, have confirmation of any truths, shared by the prophet or otherwise, so you are correct and appropriate in your desire to have truths manifest to you directly. This does not negate the place of or need for a prophet.

I find it interesting that you state that there was only one acceptable answer to your prayer. Maybe your confusion resulted from your attempt to dictate the answer. I had an overwhelming personal confirmation of President Monson's prophetic calling. It appears that many years have passed since we each asked our question. Maybe it is time to ask again (in faith), both of us.

Leanings is a good word and reminded me of a verse that I believe is perfect for this conversation.

Proverbs 3: 5-7

5 ¶ Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

7 ¶ Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil.

[e-eye2.0]

I understand what you are asking, but you are looking for a partial answer rather than a more accurate and complete answer, which has been thoroughly addressed by brlenox.

I agree that truth can be found in sources that are outside of the general teachings of the church, and we should welcome what light and knowledge we receive. The reason your question of whether Snuffer's teachings are doctrinally sound is not being addressed in the manner you'd like is because the much more important question is, "Why is this man purporting to speak for God?" and includes, "What is his purpose in this?" and "What will likely result in following his teachings?" These and others are the questions that you should be looking at.

You might as well be asking us, "Is this flower pretty?" Well sure, maybe, it's kind of subjective, right? "What is that flower going to become?" is the more important question. Dumb analogy, sorry.

I would again suggest that you turn your search for truth into one that is faith-based. If you knew that God had a prophet on the earth to speak for Him, would you not esteem this prophet's words over any other man's? Picking and choosing doctrine is spiritually dangerous.

I'm not sure anymore if I would esteem a prophet's words over another's words anymore. There was a time I would have but at present my reasoning is: if that man can receive something from the Lord, why can I not receive the same from the Lord myself? If I can receive truth from the Lord myself, why would I desire to depend on someone else to do that for me? Gaining truth from the Savior myself would be so much more rewarding.

There was a time years ago that the Spirit whispered to me that I was only paying lip service to the idea of following the prophet. I spent about a month and a half examining my life and doing everything in my power to ensure I was implementing the prophet's teachings in my life and came to a place where I felt satisfied I was. I also began a more in-depth study of the general conference talks, praying before and during my study of them. My eyes were opened to many truths and my life was forever changed by principles I learned and implemented into my life.

This was all right around the time that President Monson was first called as the prophet of the church and it occurred to me that I ought to pray and receive a witness of his appointment myself. There was only one answer I would have accepted at the time and that was that he was a prophet. My answer to that prayer confused me and I spent the next several years trying to come to terms with it.

I take my current stance because it brings me peace. I am able to respect the church leaders and my friends and family in their belief of them. I feel confident in my conclusions, as well.

Interesting. I guess this has been the draw of many to the teaching of Denver Snuffer. Going straight to the Savior for everything and not involving man (or at least that was the draw for many to start with). The problem is that the Savior doesn't always work this way. The Savior does several things that are very important for our gaining knowledge and experience while at the same time not damaging our agency.

I have to wonder the thoughts of Heavenly Father when people won't accept a prophet because they are waiting for the Savior to deliver a message. Even Denver Snuffer is coming around to the idea that he is going to have to be a prophet to his people because that's just how God does things. Now some will accept this and do a 180 on their position and others will leave the movement realizing that was the error in the LDS church, "in their minds." God hasn't stopped calling prophets, it's His pattern.

Now you have to wonder about your answer you received. There is you and a few others that have this witness that President Monson is not a prophet and then you have me and millions others who have received a witness that he is a prophet. Hmmm... I would suggest you continue to study this topic and search in earnest prayer for more answers because the True spirit doesn't lie. I do believe in trials of faith and the Lord will test us but I do know that God does call prophets and there are 15 of them in the church today. Keep working on it - it will be worth it.

[clarkkent14]

17 And it came to pass after I, Nephi, having heard all the words of my father, concerning the things which he saw in a vision, and also the things which he spake by the power of the Holy Ghost, which power he received by faith on the Son of God—and the Son of God was the Messiah who should come—I, Nephi, was desirous also that I might see, and hear, and know of these things, by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is the gift of God unto all those who diligently seek him, as well in times of old as in the time that he should manifest himself unto the children of men.

18 For he is the same yesterday, today, and forever; and the way is prepared for all men from the foundation of the world, if it so be that they repent and come unto him.

19 For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the course of the Lord is one eternal round.

President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel--said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church--that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls--applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall--that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves, envious towards the innocent, while they afflict the virtuous with their shafts of envy.

[Mark]

I think if Meili and others on this forum who have left and/or turned away from the LDS church were being honest they would admit that they were heavily influenced by the writings and talks of Denver Snuffer as he went from being an active LDS member to one who now completely separated himself from the church and trashes its leadership. He was most definitely a catalyst in swaying many people to turn away from the church and take a different path. I was looking at some of Snuffers early blog writings and I found some real irony in this post he did back in 2010. Perhaps he forgot to take his own advice? I think so.

"I was reading in the first volume of the Joseph Smith Papers and came across a letter written by Heber C. Kimball and Orson Hyde upon their return to Kirtland after their mission to England. During the interim things had broken down in Kirtland with lawsuits, cross accusations and apostasy. Although the missions had been a great success, with more than fifteen-hundred converts joining the Church, when they returned they found the existing Saints in disarray.

They were immediately confronted with criticism of Joseph and other Church leaders by the residents of Kirtland. In the letter to Joseph Smith, received on July 6, 1838, they responded to the criticism they were hearing with a comment which stood out to me. It would make a good motto:

"The faults of our bretheren is poor entertainment for us." (JSP, Vol. 1, p. 280.)

I like that. I think it is still good enough advice to remain true over a century and a half later: The faults of the Brethren are poor entertainment for any of us."