Listen to the Snufferite conference

[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."