Listen to the Snufferite conference

[Rose Garden]

So....what was/is "The Covenant"?

The covenant in short is a Gentile attempt at receving the Covenant that is the Book of Mormon. The prayer for the covenant can be read here. Or Listen.

The answer from the Lord is here. Or Listen.

A Paper discussing the importance: Scripture, Prophecy, and Covenant

A talk on the subject: Things that Keep us awake at night

The part I really liked was what the Lord said here:

But remember that without the fruit of repentance, and a broken heart and a contrite spirit, you cannot keep my covenant; for I, your Lord, am meek and lowly of heart. Be like me. You have all been wounded, your hearts pierced through with sorrows because of how the world has treated you. But you have also scarred one another by your unkind treatment of each other, and you do not notice your misconduct toward others because you think yourself justified in this. You bear the scars on your countenances, from the soles of your feet to the head, and every heart is faint. Your visages have been so marred that your hardness, mistrust, suspicions, resentments, fear, jealousies and anger toward your fellow man bear outward witness of your inner self; you cannot hide it. When I appear to you, instead of confidence you feel shame. You fear and withdraw from me because you bear the blood and sins of your treatment of brothers and sisters. Come to me and I will make sins as scarlet become white as snow, and I will make you stand boldly before me, confident of my love.

I descended below it all, and know the sorrows of you all, and have borne the grief of it all and I say to you, Forgive one another. Be tender with one another, pursue judgment, bless the oppressed, care for the orphan, and uplift the widow in her need for I have redeemed you from being orphaned and taken you that you are no longer a widowed people. Rejoice in me, and rejoice with your brethren and sisters who are mine also. Be one.

What a beautiful revelation, how merciful of The Lord to help us understand how we must repent and follow Him.

It's not a revelation.

Is it untrue? I mean, is there anything in there that appears doctrinally unsound or that would be wrong to do?

[Hidingbehindmyhandle]

So....what was/is "The Covenant"?

The covenant in short is a Gentile attempt at receving the Covenant that is the Book of Mormon. The prayer for the covenant can be read here. Or Listen.

The answer from the Lord is here. Or Listen.

A Paper discussing the importance: Scripture, Prophecy, and Covenant

A talk on the subject: Things that Keep us awake at night

The part I really liked was what the Lord said here:

But remember that without the fruit of repentance, and a broken heart and a contrite spirit, you cannot keep my covenant; for I, your Lord, am meek and lowly of heart. Be like me. You have all been wounded, your hearts pierced through with sorrows because of how the world has treated you. But you have also scarred one another by your unkind treatment of each other, and you do not notice your misconduct toward others because you think yourself justified in this. You bear the scars on your countenances, from the soles of your feet to the head, and every heart is faint. Your visages have been so marred that your hardness, mistrust, suspicions, resentments, fear, jealousies and anger toward your fellow man bear outward witness of your inner self; you cannot hide it. When I appear to you, instead of confidence you feel shame. You fear and withdraw from me because you bear the blood and sins of your treatment of brothers and sisters. Come to me and I will make sins as scarlet become white as snow, and I will make you stand boldly before me, confident of my love.

I descended below it all, and know the sorrows of you all, and have borne the grief of it all and I say to you, Forgive one another. Be tender with one another, pursue judgment, bless the oppressed, care for the orphan, and uplift the widow in her need for I have redeemed you from being orphaned and taken you that you are no longer a widowed people. Rejoice in me, and rejoice with your brethren and sisters who are mine also. Be one.

What a beautiful revelation, how merciful of The Lord to help us understand how we must repent and follow Him.

It's not a revelation.

Is it untrue? I mean, is there anything in there that appears doctrinally unsound or that would be wrong to do?

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

[Robin Hood]

The Snufferite "revelation" posted by clarkkent14 is very reminiscent of late RLDS/Community of Christ efforts.
It is so obviously not from the Lord; that much is very clear.
Maybe the Snuffy's and the CofC's are in the clutches of the same deceiving spirit.

[Rose Garden]

The covenant in short is a Gentile attempt at receving the Covenant that is the Book of Mormon. The prayer for the covenant can be read here. Or Listen.

The answer from the Lord is here. Or Listen.

A Paper discussing the importance: Scripture, Prophecy, and Covenant

A talk on the subject: Things that Keep us awake at night

The part I really liked was what the Lord said here:

What a beautiful revelation, how merciful of The Lord to help us understand how we must repent and follow Him.

It's not a revelation.

Is it untrue? I mean, is there anything in there that appears doctrinally unsound or that would be wrong to do?

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.

[Hidingbehindmyhandle]

It's not a revelation.

Is it untrue? I mean, is there anything in there that appears doctrinally unsound or that would be wrong to do?

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.

Why be satisfied with only good when best is readily available.

[Hezekiah]

Why listen to a Beatles cover band when you can listen to The Beatles?

[clarkkent14]

But remember that without the fruit of repentance, and a broken heart and a contrite spirit, you cannot keep my covenant; for I, your Lord, am meek and lowly of heart. Be like me. You have all been wounded, your hearts pierced through with sorrows because of how the world has treated you. But you have also scarred one another by your unkind treatment of each other, and you do not notice your misconduct toward others because you think yourself justified in this. You bear the scars on your countenances, from the soles of your feet to the head, and every heart is faint. Your visages have been so marred that your hardness, mistrust, suspicions, resentments, fear, jealousies and anger toward your fellow man bear outward witness of your inner self; you cannot hide it. When I appear to you, instead of confidence you feel shame. You fear and withdraw from me because you bear the blood and sins of your treatment of brothers and sisters. Come to me and I will make sins as scarlet become white as snow, and I will make you stand boldly before me, confident of my love.

I descended below it all, and know the sorrows of you all, and have borne the grief of it all and I say to you, Forgive one another. Be tender with one another, pursue judgment, bless the oppressed, care for the orphan, and uplift the widow in her need for I have redeemed you from being orphaned and taken you that you are no longer a widowed people. Rejoice in me, and rejoice with your brethren and sisters who are mine also. Be one.

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

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

[brlenox]

It's not a revelation.

Is it untrue? I mean, is there anything in there that appears doctrinally unsound or that would be wrong to do?

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.

[setyourselffree]

It's not a revelation.

Is it untrue? I mean, is there anything in there that appears doctrinally unsound or that would be wrong to do?

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.

I'm sure that a lot of people thought that what Satan was saying was beautiful to. In fact 1 third thought it was so beautiful they followed him off the cliff. Satan's lie continue today.

[LukeAir2008]

I'm pretty sure that John Pratt is still a faithful Latter Day Saint, but, one of the things that John Pratt is saying is that 2017 is very significant astronomically and that on September 23, the holiest day of the year, there could be a return or rebirth of the kingdom of God.
Snuffer may have seized upon this and believe that his covenant is a fulfilment of this prediction.

[Seek the Truth]

Is it untrue? I mean, is there anything in there that appears doctrinally unsound or that would be wrong to do?

Yes it is untrue. It is a collection of platitudes Snufferites have been pushing for years now they want to put authority behind it. It is a fraud and a deception.

[Rose Garden]

Is it untrue? I mean, is there anything in there that appears doctrinally unsound or that would be wrong to do?

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.

[Seek the Truth]

Satan will tell you 100 truths to get you to believe one lie. The lie in this case is that Denver is a prophet of God authorized to receive revelations. He isn't. That is the lie.

[Rose Garden]

Satan will tell you 100 truths to get you to believe one lie. The lie in this case is that Denver is a prophet of God authorized to receive revelations. He isn't. That is the lie.

So are you implying that there is nothing doctrinally unsound in the quote that was posted?

[Seek the Truth]

I am implying that anyone can write something like that. And when you write something like that and it came from your own pen you are a fraud and a deceiver.

[brlenox]

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.

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:

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.

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.

[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.

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:

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.

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.

[brlenox]

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.

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.

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 have reattached the original document but 2 posts from here I have uploaded images of the document. If that does not work then let me know.

[brlenox]

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.

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:

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.

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]

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 (339.81 KiB) Viewed 943 times

Sources of truth 2.JPG (290.03 KiB) Viewed 980 times

Sources of truth 3.JPG (170.67 KiB) Viewed 980 times

[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.