Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Locked
User avatar
lemuel
Operating Thetan
Posts: 993

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by lemuel »

underdog wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 11:37 am
shadow wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 11:26 am
underdog wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 11:17 am It's all about staying true to the Brethren. They mandate that we read General Conference talks. That we study them in Sacrament meetings, Sunday School, and now in RS and Priesthood meetings the 3rd hour.

The writing is on the wall. That's why they are closing ranks and doing everything in their power to get the members to not lose faith IN THEM. It's so sad, because all that energy COULD BE given to persuade members to have faith IN CHRIST! But they divert that energy to persuade to believe in man.
Silly underdog, you're now accusing Alma of abusing the Priesthood-
19 And he commanded them that they should teach nothing save it were the things which he had taught, and which had been spoken by the mouth of the holy prophets.

Like I said earlier, it's gotta be tough being a Snufferite.
Why don't you quote it in context?
19 And he commanded them that they should teach nothing save it were the things which he had taught, and which had been spoken by the mouth of the holy prophets.

20 Yea, even he commanded them that they should preach nothing save it were repentance and faith on the Lord, who had redeemed his people.

Mosiah 18
Alma was a true prophet. Big time. King Mosiah even asked him to establish a church once they got back to the main body of believers.

Please note he commanded that the words of the holy prophets be taught. That would be scripture. I'm attacking and you are defending the teaching of General Conference talks. You are saying General Conference talks = scripture. If you can't tell the difference, there's nothing more to say to you. We agree to disagree.

Also, in verse 20 it says that they were to teach faith ON THE LORD, and NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT Alma. I'm declaring the Brethren are saying to put trust in THEM. You defend this? Dig your whole deeper. Or make the obvious concession and come into the light.
Those Almaites though--meeting in secret, baptizing in secret. Why couldn't they just be honest with their priesthood leaders? And Alma didn't have a leg to stand on regarding priesthood authority. If Noah was apostate, then Alma's priesthood was invalid, right? ( It's like those movies where all the vampires die when the head vampire is killed)

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by shadow »

underdog wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 11:26 am

You quote scriptures that talk about casting out people who "repent not."

Glad you gave me the opportunity. What did Denver need to repent of? What sin did he commit?

Please don't come back with some technicality about not walking 20 feet from one room to the next, as you have been incessantly doing.

Come up with a sin! Please cease and desist with the silly technicality.
Snuffer needs to repent of teaching his false opinions which have been and continue to be that the church and church leaders are apostate. Teaching false doctrine is a practice that needs repenting of. He refused. A court was scheduled. He refused to attend. He was ex'd. He has nothing to appeal since he refused to attend. He needs to repent of his lies that he wrested the keys because the First Presidency didn't honor his appeal. There is nothing for them to appeal because he didn't attend his court. He also refused to stop teaching his false philosophies. Bye bye to the priesthood of that man- first for teaching lies and second for not repenting of them and third because he was justly excommunicated.

You still don't get what Joseph said about those who, like Snuffer, refuse to attend their courts. It doesn't matter if Snuffer or you believe the philosophies he was teaching were correct or not, he completely failed to attend his court. Had he attended and was still ex'd, then you can at least in your demented mind feel his excommunication was unjust, but when the man utterly refused to attend altogether Joseph Smith taught that either way it's a just excommunication. Why do you reject Joseph's teachings?

Thomas
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4622

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by Thomas »

shadow wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 11:59 am
underdog wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 11:26 am

You quote scriptures that talk about casting out people who "repent not."

Glad you gave me the opportunity. What did Denver need to repent of? What sin did he commit?

Please don't come back with some technicality about not walking 20 feet from one room to the next, as you have been incessantly doing.

Come up with a sin! Please cease and desist with the silly technicality.
Snuffer needs to repent of teaching his false opinions which have been and continue to be that the church and church leaders are apostate. Teaching false doctrine is a practice that needs repenting of. He refused. A court was scheduled. He refused to attend. He was ex'd. He has nothing to appeal since he refused to attend. He needs to repent of his lies that he wrested the keys because the First Presidency didn't honor his appeal. There is nothing for them to appeal because he didn't attend his court. He also refused to stop teaching his false philosophies. Bye bye to the priesthood of that man- first for teaching lies and second for not repenting of them and third because he was justly excommunicated.

You still don't get what Joseph said about those who, like Snuffer, refuse to attend their courts. It doesn't matter if Snuffer or you believe the philosophies he was teaching were correct or not, he completely failed to attend his court. Had he attended and was still ex'd, then you can at least in your demented mind feel his excommunication was unjust, but when the man utterly refused to attend altogether Joseph Smith taught that either way it's a just excommunication. Why do you reject Joseph's teachings?
Once again, a false premise about not attending the court. You come from the assumption that the priesthood leader is always right. Do you think God is that unjust? The whole court was a kangaroo court anyway. It should have never been called in the first place. It was a flat out abuse of power. It doesn't matter what leaders of the church have taught, they do not legitimately have the power to compel people to agree with them.

It is no different than what the Catholics did to Martin Luther.

Abinadi would be justly burned by your position.

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by shadow »

underdog wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 11:37 am

Also, in verse 20 it says that they were to teach faith ON THE LORD, and NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT Alma.

Sure, teach faith ON THE LORD as Alma see's it.
19 And he commanded them that they should teach nothing save it were the things which he (Alma) had taught

If it were ever mentioned in General Conference to teach nothing save it were the things President Monson had taught you'd completely lose whatever marbles you have left! You'd talk about unrighteous dominion, about pointing to oneself etc.
What has President Monson and all the previous Prophets taught? The doctrine of Christ- to have faith in Him, to Repent.

Silly Snuffers.

underdog
captain of 100
Posts: 495

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by underdog »

shadow wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 11:59 am
underdog wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 11:26 am

You quote scriptures that talk about casting out people who "repent not."

Glad you gave me the opportunity. What did Denver need to repent of? What sin did he commit?

Please don't come back with some technicality about not walking 20 feet from one room to the next, as you have been incessantly doing.

Come up with a sin! Please cease and desist with the silly technicality.
Snuffer needs to repent of teaching his false opinions which have been and continue to be that the church and church leaders are apostate. Teaching false doctrine is a practice that needs repenting of.

You still don't get what Joseph said about those who, like Snuffer, refuse to attend their courts.
So you would excommunicate Christ for calling the leaders corrupt and apostate? Or John the Baptist? Or Joseph?

If not, you MUST remove this as one of your reasons.

I asked for what sin he is guilty of. You say his sin was a technicality. He showed up AS YOU KNOW AND CONTINUE TO COVER UP, but the SP refused to let previously-announced family members to quietly attend.

The SP had the right to change his mind and and make up whatever rules he wanted. Nobody debates that.

So you're sticking with Denver's great "sin" being a technicality. To be honest by even addressing this ridiculous technicality you're calling a "sin", I'm dignifying it. I should not dignify such childishness.

Please, for the love of truth, please list at least one sin of this evil man. How was he unworthy of being cast out?

To summarize, you have quoted no sin. How do you feel about that?

underdog
captain of 100
Posts: 495

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by underdog »

shadow wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 12:24 pm
underdog wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 11:37 am

Also, in verse 20 it says that they were to teach faith ON THE LORD, and NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT Alma.

Sure, teach faith ON THE LORD as Alma see's it.
19 And he commanded them that they should teach nothing save it were the things which he (Alma) had taught

If it were ever mentioned in General Conference to teach nothing save it were the things President Monson had taught you'd completely lose whatever marbles you have left! You'd talk about unrighteous dominion, about pointing to oneself etc.
What has President Monson and all the previous Prophets taught? The doctrine of Christ- to have faith in Him, to Repent.

Silly Snuffers.
Your entire case is based on this false premise: the Brethren are true messengers.

Prove it.

I've given you loads of evidence of abuse by the Church. No rebuttals from you.

And yet you leave your premise unexamined. Wow.

User avatar
lemuel
Operating Thetan
Posts: 993

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by lemuel »

It really does come down to two simple questions:

1. Are the Q15 God's chosen leaders with whom God is well pleased?
2. If no, did He send Snuffer to preach to them?

If the answer to (1) is yes, then the handbook, not stuff Joseph said about not attending the court, prevails, since current church doctrine is only esatblished in councils, not by individuals. And the handbook says, roughly speaking, that apostasy occurs when a member continues to be insubordinate after the leaders say to shut up (repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the church and its leaders). It doesn't say anything about attending one's court. But unrighteous dominion is baked into the process--one must submit to their authoritah. At any rate, given their rules, the excommunication is legitimate. (Burning Abinadi at the stake was legitimate according to Noah's rules too).

If the answer to (1) is no and the answer to (2) is yes, then the church might be in apostasy and it would be bad for the Q15 who directed the process.

Since it is clear that none of us will be able to prove (1) or (2) to each other's satisfaction, we have to figure this out for ourselves. Or we could just cast aspersions at those who disagree with our views.

underdog
captain of 100
Posts: 495

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by underdog »

lemuel wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 12:35 pm It really does come down to two simple questions:

1. Are the Q15 God's chosen leaders with whom God is well pleased?
2. If no, did He send Snuffer to preach to them?

If the answer to (1) is yes, then the handbook, not stuff Joseph said about not attending the court, prevails. And the handbook says, roughly speaking, that apostasy occurs when a member continues to be insubordinate after the leaders say to shut up (repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the church and its leaders). It doesn't say anything about attending one's court. But unrighteous dominion is baked into the process--one must submit to their authoritah. At any rate, given their rules, the excommunication is legitimate. (Burning Abinadi at the stake was legitimate according to Noah's rules too).

If the answer to (1) is no and the answer to (2) is yes, then it's bad for the Q15 who directed the process.

Since it is clear that none of us will be able to prove (1) or (2) to each other's satisfaction, we have to figure this out for ourselves. Or we could just cast aspersions at those who disagree with our views.
Lemuel,

If the Q15 are true, then CHI 1 Section 6.7.3 on Apostasy would not look like it does today. True messengers would not approve of such authoritarian language. They could not "bake in" unrighteous dominion into the handbook. Agreed?

User avatar
lemuel
Operating Thetan
Posts: 993

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by lemuel »

Yup.

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by shadow »

Thomas wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 12:18 pm
shadow wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 11:59 am
underdog wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 11:26 am

You quote scriptures that talk about casting out people who "repent not."

Glad you gave me the opportunity. What did Denver need to repent of? What sin did he commit?

Please don't come back with some technicality about not walking 20 feet from one room to the next, as you have been incessantly doing.

Come up with a sin! Please cease and desist with the silly technicality.
Snuffer needs to repent of teaching his false opinions which have been and continue to be that the church and church leaders are apostate. Teaching false doctrine is a practice that needs repenting of. He refused. A court was scheduled. He refused to attend. He was ex'd. He has nothing to appeal since he refused to attend. He needs to repent of his lies that he wrested the keys because the First Presidency didn't honor his appeal. There is nothing for them to appeal because he didn't attend his court. He also refused to stop teaching his false philosophies. Bye bye to the priesthood of that man- first for teaching lies and second for not repenting of them and third because he was justly excommunicated.

You still don't get what Joseph said about those who, like Snuffer, refuse to attend their courts. It doesn't matter if Snuffer or you believe the philosophies he was teaching were correct or not, he completely failed to attend his court. Had he attended and was still ex'd, then you can at least in your demented mind feel his excommunication was unjust, but when the man utterly refused to attend altogether Joseph Smith taught that either way it's a just excommunication. Why do you reject Joseph's teachings?
Once again, a false premise about not attending the court. You come from the assumption that the priesthood leader is always right. Do you think God is that unjust? The whole court was a kangaroo court anyway. It should have never been called in the first place. It was a flat out abuse of power. It doesn't matter what leaders of the church have taught, they do not legitimately have the power to compel people to agree with them.

It is no different than what the Catholics did to Martin Luther.

Abinadi would be justly burned by your position.
That's your opinion. The facts teach otherwise. If you recall back prior to Snuff's excommunication most LDS on this site pointed out how Snuffer was on the high road to apostasy. The disaffected approved of him but they knew their beliefs were already contrary to the church. His excom was of no surprise to anyone. Snuffer absolutely should've been ex'd for teaching the church and church leaders were apostate and didn't hold the keys they hold etc., that church leaders were the "new popes" meaning they claim authority but don't have it. You know this is true. Church leaders have a mandate to watch over the church and make sure wolves don't sneak in, which Snuffer is. President Hunt tried working with Snuffer for well over a year but to no avail. He even purchased over a dozen PTHG books and passed them out to the High Council (which Snuff had already been released from) and a few other HP's in the Stake and had them read it and report back on their findings. Every one of them said it was incorrect. So Snuffer is being disingenuous when he claims he wasn't given an opportunity. He was correctly called into a court when he refused to respond by correcting or even to simply by stop teaching his false philosophies. It was not a kangaroo court even though Snuffer (and his daughter) tried to make it into one.
But the fact remains- he refused to attend. So even if you believe he was correct, the fact that he didn't show, according to Joseph Smith, justifies his excommunication. The First Presidency had no choice but to uphold his excommunication based on his absence alone.

Thomas
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4622

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by Thomas »

And what parts did they say were wrong?

I guess you will never get it. Like Snuffer said, " priesthood is not a franchise for controlling men'. It is to be used to serve and bless. Its pretty hard to get over the traditions and find truth.
Doctrine and Covenants 74:4

4 And it came to pass that the children, being brought up in subjection to the law of Moses, gave heed to the traditions of their fathers and believed not the gospel of Christ, wherein they became unholy.


Matthew 15:3-4

3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

underdog
captain of 100
Posts: 495

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by underdog »

shadow wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 12:47 pm
Thomas wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 12:18 pm
shadow wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 11:59 am
underdog wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 11:26 am

You quote scriptures that talk about casting out people who "repent not."

Glad you gave me the opportunity. What did Denver need to repent of? What sin did he commit?

Please don't come back with some technicality about not walking 20 feet from one room to the next, as you have been incessantly doing.

Come up with a sin! Please cease and desist with the silly technicality.
Snuffer needs to repent of teaching his false opinions which have been and continue to be that the church and church leaders are apostate. Teaching false doctrine is a practice that needs repenting of. He refused. A court was scheduled. He refused to attend. He was ex'd. He has nothing to appeal since he refused to attend. He needs to repent of his lies that he wrested the keys because the First Presidency didn't honor his appeal. There is nothing for them to appeal because he didn't attend his court. He also refused to stop teaching his false philosophies. Bye bye to the priesthood of that man- first for teaching lies and second for not repenting of them and third because he was justly excommunicated.

You still don't get what Joseph said about those who, like Snuffer, refuse to attend their courts. It doesn't matter if Snuffer or you believe the philosophies he was teaching were correct or not, he completely failed to attend his court. Had he attended and was still ex'd, then you can at least in your demented mind feel his excommunication was unjust, but when the man utterly refused to attend altogether Joseph Smith taught that either way it's a just excommunication. Why do you reject Joseph's teachings?
Once again, a false premise about not attending the court. You come from the assumption that the priesthood leader is always right. Do you think God is that unjust? The whole court was a kangaroo court anyway. It should have never been called in the first place. It was a flat out abuse of power. It doesn't matter what leaders of the church have taught, they do not legitimately have the power to compel people to agree with them.

It is no different than what the Catholics did to Martin Luther.

Abinadi would be justly burned by your position.
That's your opinion. The facts teach otherwise. If you recall back prior to Snuff's excommunication most LDS on this site pointed out how Snuffer was on the high road to apostasy. The disaffected approved of him but they knew their beliefs were already contrary to the church. His excom was of no surprise to anyone. Snuffer absolutely should've been ex'd for teaching the church and church leaders were apostate and didn't hold the keys they hold etc., that church leaders were the "new popes" meaning they claim authority but don't have it. You know this is true. Church leaders have a mandate to watch over the church and make sure wolves don't sneak in, which Snuffer is. President Hunt tried working with Snuffer for well over a year but to no avail. He even purchased over a dozen PTHG books and passed them out to the High Council (which Snuff had already been released from) and a few other HP's in the Stake and had them read it and report back on their findings. Every one of them said it was incorrect. So Snuffer is being disingenuous when he claims he wasn't given an opportunity. He was correctly called into a court when he refused to respond by correcting or even to simply by stop teaching his false philosophies. It was not a kangaroo court even though Snuffer (and his daughter) tried to make it into one.
But the fact remains- he refused to attend. So even if you believe he was correct, the fact that he didn't show, according to Joseph Smith, justifies his excommunication. The First Presidency had no choice but to uphold his excommunication based on his absence alone.
Shadow, do you really not feel the sandy, shaky foundation upon which you stand by defending an institution instead of Christ?

I know you justify loyalty to an institution because you equate the institution to Christ. It's okay to separate the two. It's not only okay, it's imperative that you do so, because no man comes unto the Father but by Christ.

No institution is mentioned, Christ employes no servant at the gate. There's no TSM, no president of a corporation, no Snuffer. Christ saves and not man. So you must find the courage and humility to separate the two. As Elder Poelman taught in 1984. As the Scriptures teach. There's only one name under heaven whereby man can be saved. And that isn't a man or the name of an institution.

You keep asserting that "Snuffer absolutely should've been ex'd for teaching the church and church leaders were apostate and didn't hold the keys they hold etc...."

You're evading the obvious and natural evolution of your apostate position: which is that you would absolutely have to ex Jesus Christ or Joseph Smith or John the Baptist or Jonah or Noah or ANY prophet who declared repentance to the leaders he was sent by God to.

So stop a second and do a gut check. If you would categorically ex a man for calling certain religious leaders to repentance, you MUST (you can't deny this) also categorically ex other righteous, true prophets (incl Christ Himself), agreed? Please concede this important point.

I'm trying to salvage your credibility with YOURSELF. You can't continue to doublespeak. You're proposing a double standard. Do you really want to be known to YOURSELF as a hypocrite?

There's no need to distract yourself from this question by trying to talk about some weird technicality you're dreaming up and then calling it a sin worthy of being cast out. That's nonsense. Focus on the double standard you're publicly attaching yourself to. For your own self worth, please concede the point.
Last edited by underdog on October 3rd, 2017, 1:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
lemuel
Operating Thetan
Posts: 993

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by lemuel »

I'm looking through handbook 1(starting around page 60) for what it says about people that don't attend their disciplinary councils.
If the person does not attend the council, the presiding officer informs him of the decision
Not seeing anything about an automatic guilty verdict. The appeals process on page 65-66 doesn't say that those who don't attend don't have the right to appeal to the FP.

Finally, on page 67, it states "The First Presidency has ultimate authority over all church discipline. Decisions of the FP take precedence despite any rules or procedures to the contrary."


I think the main thrust of where the disciplinary process went wrong was that Snuffer's leaders refused to engage with his arguments--they just said "shut up, you're wrong, pull the book". This does not seem, to me at least, as persuasion, long-suffering, etc. It seems more like power maintained by virtue of the priesthood.

underdog
captain of 100
Posts: 495

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by underdog »

lemuel wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 1:10 pm I'm looking through handbook 1(starting around page 60) for what it says about people that don't attend their disciplinary councils.
If the person does not attend the council, the presiding officer informs him of the decision
Not seeing anything about an automatic guilty verdict. The appeals process on page 65-66 doesn't say that those who don't attend don't have the right to appeal to the FP.

Finally, on page 67, it states "The First Presidency has ultimate authority over all church discipline. Decisions of the FP take precedence despite any rules or procedures to the contrary."


I think the main thrust of where the disciplinary process went wrong was that Snuffer's leaders refused to engage with his arguments--they just said "shut up, you're wrong, pull the book". This does not seem, to me at least, as persuasion, long-suffering, etc. It seems more like power maintained by virtue of the priesthood.
I've carefully studied CHI 1 on this point Shadow is making. You are correct. There's nothing there. Only that the SP can set the rules.

Shadow has found some Joseph Smith quote dealing with administration of courts in his day, and then claiming violating this administrative rule from 180+ years ago is a "sin", making Denver unworthy, and justified in being cast out. It's silliness. Grasping.

Now that I think about it...Shadow is focusing on a technicality that occurred in the stake center just minutes before the council began. But I've been asking him to tell us what "sin" qualified Denver for having the court called on him in the first place. What "sin" was he ever called out for by the SP or anybody "in authority"? That's the embarrassing predicament the SP found himself in and Shadow finds himself in. That's why the SP looked ashamed that day.

Shadow's answer is that he sounded like Christ, like Joseph, like Jonah, like Noah, like John the Baptist, like Alma the Older, like Lehi, like any prophet who declares the leadership of his day is corrupt and needs to repent. In other words, Shadow is saying that Denver's sin was playing the part of a true prophet. He believes him to be false (as a universal truth; just as he believes it's 100% true the leadership could not apostatize), but then is not willing to excommunicate the aforementioned prophets, incl Christ, which creates a hypocritical double standard that so far he's not willing to overcome by conceding he's painted himself into a corner.
Last edited by underdog on October 3rd, 2017, 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
lemuel
Operating Thetan
Posts: 993

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by lemuel »

Image

underdog
captain of 100
Posts: 495

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by underdog »

lemuel wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 1:31 pm Image
Good one. Thanks.

Mormon taught his son that perfect love casts out fear.

There's no reason for Shadow to fear, or for the Church to fear, if they had love for Denver.

Let's say he was a crazy, lunatic false prophet crying in the wilderness.
Why not embrace the man, and say...

The Church: "We love you, but you do understand that we have to protect the members by engaging you. We will have to call you out, and because you are publicly teaching, we must publicly correct your errors. We love you and don't want to have to go down that path. Will you reconsider your teachings?"

Denver: What teachings do you object to?

The Church: Ummm. Well....you wrote a book. We don't like the book.

Denver: Okay. Sure. I'll be happy to issue a correction and fall on the sword. What do you have in mind? Where did I err?

The Church: Well....we just need you to obey us and pull the book. And we hear that you're going on a speaking tour. We need you to cancel that, or we will have to ex you and you will lose all your blessings. Do not pit yourself against us. We warn you.

Denver: I'm happy to be corrected. What specifically are you taking issue with?

The Church: We're not going to talk about it further. We are proceeding with action against you.
That's more or less how it went down.

The problem is: Denver is right. The Church is wrong. Repentance was in order. And pride kept repentance from starting. Now the Church is closing ranks.

User avatar
shadow
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10542
Location: St. George

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by shadow »

underdog wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 1:19 pm

Shadow has found some Joseph Smith quote dealing with administration of courts in his day, and then claiming violating this administrative rule from 180+ years ago is a "sin", making Denver unworthy, and justified in being cast out. It's silliness. Grasping.

Now that I think about it...Shadow is focusing on a technicality that occurred in the stake center just minutes before the council began. But I've been asking him to tell us what "sin" qualified Denver for having the court called on him in the first place. What "sin" was he ever called out for by the SP or anybody "in authority"? That's the embarrassing predicament the SP found himself in and Shadow finds himself in. That's why the SP looked ashamed that day.

Shadow's answer is that he sounded like Christ, like Joseph, like Jonah, like Noah, like John the Baptist, like Alma the Older, like Lehi, like any prophet who declares the leadership of his day is corrupt and needs to repent. In other words, Shadow is saying that Denver's sin was playing the part of a true prophet. He believes him to be false (as a universal truth; just as he believes it's 100% true the leadership could not apostatize), but then is not willing to excommunicate the aforementioned prophets, incl Christ, which creates a hypocritical double standard that so far he's not willing to overcome by conceding he's painted himself into a corner.
Your're such a liar. I hope one day you'll start being honest, not only with yourself and with others but with God.

Snuffer wasn't ex'd on a technicality. The technicality only validates it for those who question it. He taught his own false philosophies and was ex'd for it. I've mentioned them to you many times. It wasn't that Snuffer told apostates that they were apostate, he told true servants of Jesus Christ, His apostles, that they were apostate. He was actively teaching others this same falsehood. You keep equating it to Christ telling apostate church leaders that they were apostate but that's not the case. The "technicality" I mention is so you and all other Snufferites who claim to follow Joseph Smith can recognize that you actually don't. Everyone knows that Snufferites believe Snuffer was called into court for no valid reason. That's fine, they can believe whatever they want even tho they acknowledge that his teaching are contrary to what the Lord's servants teach. But they can't claim his excommunication wasn't valid and still hold claim to following the teachings of Joseph Smith. Joseph CLEARLY noted that those who refuse to attend their courts (innocent or not) and are excommunicated deserve their excommunication. I know this has been hard for you to grasp, as most things are, but if you had your young son explain to you that Snuffer's excommunication is valid in the eyes of Joseph Smith then you might, just might, start to open your eyes a bit. Since his excommunication was valid, and Joseph taught that simply not attending the court makes it valid, then Snuffer had no leg to stand on when he appealed the First Presidency. The First Presidency had no reason to overturn the excommunication. Without a reason to overturn it they cannot be charged with unrighteous dominion from the pompous and arrogant Snuffster. The keys that Snuffer claims were lost with Joseph Smith yet he somehow wrested from the First Presidency (crazy, right!) because they didn't accept the appeal and the church still sustained them didn't happen. Your prophet, the man you look to for guidance, is a sham. Wake up! Look to Christ and follow Him. He's provided true Prophets and Apostles and a church to help you on your journey back to Him. Don't let a man named Snuffer get in the way of your salvation.

underdog
captain of 100
Posts: 495

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by underdog »

shadow wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 2:09 pm
underdog wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 1:19 pm

Shadow has found some Joseph Smith quote dealing with administration of courts in his day, and then claiming violating this administrative rule from 180+ years ago is a "sin", making Denver unworthy, and justified in being cast out. It's silliness. Grasping.

Now that I think about it...Shadow is focusing on a technicality that occurred in the stake center just minutes before the council began. But I've been asking him to tell us what "sin" qualified Denver for having the court called on him in the first place. What "sin" was he ever called out for by the SP or anybody "in authority"? That's the embarrassing predicament the SP found himself in and Shadow finds himself in. That's why the SP looked ashamed that day.

Shadow's answer is that he sounded like Christ, like Joseph, like Jonah, like Noah, like John the Baptist, like Alma the Older, like Lehi, like any prophet who declares the leadership of his day is corrupt and needs to repent. In other words, Shadow is saying that Denver's sin was playing the part of a true prophet. He believes him to be false (as a universal truth; just as he believes it's 100% true the leadership could not apostatize), but then is not willing to excommunicate the aforementioned prophets, incl Christ, which creates a hypocritical double standard that so far he's not willing to overcome by conceding he's painted himself into a corner.
Your're such a liar. I hope one day you'll start being honest, not only with yourself and with others but with God.

Snuffer wasn't ex'd on a technicality. The technicality only validates it for those who question it. He taught his own false philosophies and was ex'd for it. I've mentioned them to you many times. It wasn't that Snuffer told apostates that they were apostate, he told true servants of Jesus Christ, His apostles, that they were apostate. He was actively teaching others this same falsehood. You keep equating it to Christ telling apostate church leaders that they were apostate but that's not the case. The "technicality" I mention is so you and all other Snufferites who claim to follow Joseph Smith can recognize that you actually don't. Everyone knows that Snufferites believe Snuffer was called into court for no valid reason. That's fine, they can believe whatever they want even tho they acknowledge that his teaching are contrary to what the Lord's servants teach. But they can't claim his excommunication wasn't valid and still hold claim to following the teachings of Joseph Smith. Joseph CLEARLY noted that those who refuse to attend their courts (innocent or not) and are excommunicated deserve their excommunication. I know this has been hard for you to grasp, as most things are, but if you had your young son explain to you that Snuffer's excommunication is valid in the eyes of Joseph Smith then you might, just might, start to open your eyes a bit. Since his excommunication was valid, and Joseph taught that simply not attending the court makes it valid, then Snuffer had no leg to stand on when he appealed the First Presidency. The First Presidency had no reason to overturn the excommunication. Without a reason to overturn it they cannot be charged with unrighteous dominion from the pompous and arrogant Snuffster. The keys that Snuffer claims were lost with Joseph Smith yet he somehow wrested from the First Presidency (crazy, right!) because they didn't accept the appeal and the church still sustained them didn't happen. Your prophet, the man you look to for guidance, is a sham. Wake up! Look to Christ and follow Him. He's provided true Prophets and Apostles and a church to help you on your journey back to Him. Don't let a man named Snuffer get in the way of your salvation.
You're distracting by ad hominem. Stop the childishness please. In the spirit of genuine help, will you allow me to kindly focus you?

If you would categorically ex a man for calling certain religious leaders to repentance, you MUST (you can't deny this) also categorically ex other righteous, true prophets (incl Christ Himself), agreed? Please concede this important point.

You must drop your premise. Just look at things objectively.

I have no false premise by stating: Jesus called the religious leadership in His faith to repentance. So did a host of other prophets, like Lehi, Joseph, etc.

Agreed so far? No objection? Was Jesus wrong because of calling folks to repentance? You would say NO.

Now, fast forward to the future the present day (referring to Denver's day): a man came along and called the religious leadership in his faith to repentance.

NOTE: Comparing the two, the activity is precisely the same. There is no difference in the action. Agreed?

You have to agree that the action is the same. I am assuming you will agree!

And if you do, my prayer and hope is that a light goes on in your head. What you are thinking is this:

"But wait, they're not the same. The difference is Jesus and the others were true messengers. But Denver is false!"

What this little exercise did was hopefully help you see that you are incapable of judging rightly because you are superimposing your assumptions onto the question.

For you, you utterly refuse to admit the following:

Yes, Underdog, I realize that I have a double standard. I humbly admit that if I'm saying the specific ACTION of calling Church leaders to repentance is a sin, then I must also say that that the identical action would be a sin if done by Jesus or any other prophet.
But, you say, it's not a double standard because Jesus (Joseph, Lehi, etc.) were true, but Denver is false.

Which brings us full circle to the question you are evading: What is his sin?

You can't just say it's because he's calling the Church to repentance. Because if that was the case, then the Jews were justified in killing Jesus, or King Noah was justified in burning Abinadi.

You got to come up with a sin worthy of death (excommunication). What is it?

I'm trying to think in your brain.

I think you must literally be INCAPABLE of questioning your tradition. Do these scriptures not apply to you?
And it came to pass that the children, being brought up in subjection to the law of Moses, gave heed to the traditions of their fathers and believed not the gospel of Christ, wherein they became unholy.
- Doctrine and Covenants 74:4

But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
- Matthew 15:3-4

Doctrine and Covenants 93:39

And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers.
- DC 93:39

I say unto you, my sons, were it not for these things, which have been kept and preserved by the hand of God, that we might read and understand of his mysteries, and have his commandments always before our eyes, that even our fathers would have dwindled in unbelief, and we should have been like unto our brethren, the Lamanites, who know nothing concerning these things, or even do not believe them when they are taught them, because of the traditions of their fathers, which are not correct.
- Mosiah 1:5
There are so many warnings to you, my brother, urging you to beware of wicked traditions and not letting them get in the way of true faith in Christ: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/tradi ... ng=eng#p18


Are you not humble even 1% enough to admit these scriptures may apply to you? Perhaps there was a warning meant for you?

I have found application to me. I realized that I labored under many false assumptions. I no doubt STILL DO!!!!! I don't even realize them. That's the devilish thing about tradition. "Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God."

This scripture warns that the folks who do not learn "this one lesson" are UNAWARE of their false tradition.

You should... we ALL should be very concerned by this fact of life. "ere we are aware, we are left unto ourselves, to ignore the promptings of the spirit, to persecute our fellow brothers and sisters and to fight against God." What is the trigger for this? You guessed it, unrighteous dominion.

Scroll up and look, a simple list of abuse of authority has been listed. The Church is guilty of this. No two ways about it. I ask you (in part because I want to know), how DS is guilty of similar abuse? You tell me nothing. Literally nothing. Except that he's pretending to be a prophet by calling the Church to repentance (in your words: "He taught his own false philosophies and was ex'd for it. I've mentioned them to you many times. It wasn't that Snuffer told apostates that they were apostate, he told true servants of Jesus Christ, His apostles, that they were apostate. He was actively teaching others this same falsehood.") What is his sin? Doing the works of Christ isn't a sin. Doing what former prophets did is not a sin.

I remind you that the way to judge is very plain (remember Moroni 7). It's like telling the difference between Noon day and 2 o'clock at night. So how does Denver persuade you to NOT believe in Christ? I've given you the list of abuse of authority of the Church. What do you have?

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by AI2.0 »

Thomas wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 10:17 am Shadow, your comments come from the false perspective that the church leaders have the power to silence people using their priesthood. The power of the priesthood can only be used to persuade, not to threaten. Once you threaten someone with your priesthood, then powers of heaven withdraw and amen to the priesthood. The twelve have no authority to meddle in the affairs of the stakes or to call for any member to be exed. There is no power in the priesthood to compel.

Snuffer asked for them to explain any errors in book and he would correct them. They could point to none. Snuffers crime was that he told the truth, instead of painting a false picture that portrays the church in the best possible light. It has been the policy of the church to hide negative things and always try to make the church look perfect.
Shadow only pointed out what Joseph Smith said. I'm sure you don't want to suggest that the Prophet Joseph was using his priesthood to threaten those who did not attend their disciplinary council.

Snuffer refused to pull the book and refused to not give his lectures. That brought about his excommunication. And, If I can point out his false teachings, I'm certain that his leaders could do so too, so please don't mislead others with the claim that the council could not find any errors in his book. You know perfectly well what Snuffer believes and taught in his book, that the church was rejected in about 1841 when they failed to build the temple in a timely manner. This position alone is a perfect example that Snuffer was teaching the church was apostate. I really don't know why his followers and he can't simply admit that they don't believe the LDS church is the Lord's only true and living church. I don't understand why he'd want to remain a member of an apostate church in the first place?? You obviously didn't since you joined the fellowships.

And sorry, but you are absolutely wrong--the 12 apostles are called to serve the entire church--they can 'meddle' when ever and where ever they choose. And it's their responsibility to protect the church from apostate members and apostate teachings.

Thomas why do you care anyway? You've got your own church and your own prophet now--why keep hassling members who have no interest in joining your fellowships?

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by AI2.0 »

underdog wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 11:26 am
shadow wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 11:01 am
Thomas wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 10:17 am Shadow, your comments come from the false perspective that the church leaders have the power to silence people using their priesthood. The power of the priesthood can only be used to persuade, not to threaten. Once you threaten someone with your priesthood, then powers of heaven withdraw and amen to the priesthood. The twelve have no authority to meddle in the affairs of the stakes or to call for any member to be exed. There is no power in the priesthood to compel.

Snuffer asked for them to explain any errors in book and he would correct them. They could point to none. Snuffers crime was that he told the truth, instead of painting a false picture that portrays the church in the best possible light. It has been the policy of the church to hide negative things and always try to make the church look perfect.
Actually, it's the role of church leaders to excommunicate those who won't repent. The error of Snuff's book were noted to him and he refused to retract them (basically the whole book!). Snuffer did NOT tell the truth, he told his interpretation and gave his opinions which are contrary to the truth and to what the church teaches. He refused to repent.

The role of the Priesthood-

31 But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered.

7 ...if they repented not, and confessed not, their names were blotted out, and they were not numbered among the people of Christ.

The mandate given to church leaders is to excommunicate people, to blot out their names. That is the power of the Priesthood. This is backed by scripture in all the books, including the Book of Mormon. You can call it unrighteous dominion all you want, but all it does is show your disdain for the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Bible.

As far as apostles dealing with Denver and other false teachers- that's also the role of the 15-
42 And to teach, expound, exhort, baptize, and watch over the church;

However, they didn't excommunicate Snuffer, the stake presidency and high council did. Certainly the SP can communicate with the Apostles with questions he may have and the 15 can bring things to the attention of the SP. That's how the Priesthood works. That's watching over the church.
You quote scriptures that talk about casting out people who "repent not."

Glad you gave me the opportunity. What did Denver need to repent of? What sin did he commit?

Please don't come back with some technicality about not walking 20 feet from one room to the next, as you have been incessantly doing.

Come up with a sin! Please cease and desist with the silly technicality.
You really need to read the Book of Mormon again, cover to cover. I'm not calling you an antichrist, but I'm sorry, I have to point out, that your arguments and criticisms against the LDS church are mirroring the things Korihor accused the church of in Alma's day. Read Alma 30 and see for yourself.

Underdog, do you not see how bizarre it is for you to ignore completely why Denver Snuffer was excommunicated? I'm sorry, but there's no way a church is going to keep a member around who is writing books and lecturing, telling the faithful that their church is rejected, it's false and their leaders are greedy, craven, uninspired and proud. Snuffer refused to pull his books and he refused to stop telling other members that the church was apostate and had no priesthood--because that's what he was, in essence, telling them.

And YOU and THOMAS and the other Remnant followers on LDSFF are proof of what I'm saying! You all listened to him and you all and the rest of the Remnant crowd believed his claims in his book and in his lectures and you left the church! You all walked away, some violated temple covenants, turned their backs on temple sealings etc. and left the church because you believed Snuffer's claims and his take on history and his reinterpretation of scripture. You think that the church was wrong to want to keep Snuffer from doing any more damage to the faith and spiritual well-being of LDS members???? Ridiculous.

Sorry, but excommunication is not only for immorality. Apostasy is an excommunicable offense and rightly so. And, it's not a silly technicality, Shadow simply pointed out that Joseph Smith would have approved of SNuffer's excommunication on the single basis that he refused to attend his own disciplinary council.

Snuffer needed to repent of what he was doing--leading people astray with his teachings that the church and leaders were apostate. He was given the opportunity to accept their judgement that he was teaching falsehoods and to stop and he refused. Please, accept facts and give this a rest and don't heap more offense on your own head by working to undermine the faith of LDS members on this forum.

Seek the Truth
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3511

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by Seek the Truth »

Thomas wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 10:17 am Shadow, your comments come from the false perspective that the church leaders have the power to silence people using their priesthood.
I didn't see him say that anywhere. Looks like you were being dishonest again.

Seek the Truth
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3511

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by Seek the Truth »

lemuel wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 7:24 am
Seek the Truth wrote: October 2nd, 2017, 11:19 pm
Thomas wrote: October 2nd, 2017, 10:29 pm
The keys would go to whoever did not abuse their priesthood, regardless of rank. There is a conference talk where one GA said if everyone in the church died except one elder that Elder would hold all the keys. I would look for it if I thought is was worth my time.

Citation desperately needed. The Articles of Faith among many other places state such things are passed by the laying on of hands. So wrong again.
Joseph F. Smith: https://www.lds.org/new-era/1973/01/qa- ... &clang=ase
“If it were necessary … and there was no man left on earth holding the Melchizedek Priesthood, except an elder—that elder, by the inspiration of the Spirit of God and by the direction of the Almighty could proceed, and should proceed, to organize the Church of Jesus Christ in all its perfection, because he holds the Melchizedek Priesthood. But the house of God is a house of order, and while the other officers remain in the Church, we must observe the order of the priesthood, and we must perform ordinances and ordinations strictly in accordance with that order, as it has been established in the Church through the instrumentality of the Prophet Joseph Smith and his successors.” (Gospel Doctrine, p. 148.)
Ok. This doesn't support Thomas, at all. It says a solitary elder could through guidance reorganize the Church with authority. It does NOT SAY that that elder would automatically inherit keys.

So Thomas is wrong again.

User avatar
AI2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3917

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by AI2.0 »

underdog wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 12:31 pm
shadow wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 12:24 pm
underdog wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 11:37 am

Also, in verse 20 it says that they were to teach faith ON THE LORD, and NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT Alma.

Sure, teach faith ON THE LORD as Alma see's it.
19 And he commanded them that they should teach nothing save it were the things which he (Alma) had taught

If it were ever mentioned in General Conference to teach nothing save it were the things President Monson had taught you'd completely lose whatever marbles you have left! You'd talk about unrighteous dominion, about pointing to oneself etc.
What has President Monson and all the previous Prophets taught? The doctrine of Christ- to have faith in Him, to Repent.

Silly Snuffers.
Your entire case is based on this false premise: the Brethren are true messengers.

Prove it.

I've given you loads of evidence of abuse by the Church. No rebuttals from you.

And yet you leave your premise unexamined. Wow.
Read the Book of Mormon again please--maybe it will help you to see what you are doing--this latest turned my blood cold; now you demand a sign?

'Prove it'....the last words a Sherem and Korihor. It did not end well for either of them.

Seek the Truth
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3511

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by Seek the Truth »

underdog wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 11:17 am
The words of Christ and Joseph Smith are as follows. I have highlighted the parts that you are not grasping or ignoring:
34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—

36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.


38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
Great scripture. However God is the judge of such things, not you. To you only is to ask of God if they his authorized administrators. I have asked of God and he has confirmed it to me without question.
Most TBM's fail to understand something. I've highlighted above in red text.

"Ere" mean "before". The abuser is UNAWARE of the abuse he's dishing out.

Failure to understand the impact of this Section (i.e., losing your priesthood because of abuse) explains why you all keep parroting the same old drivel about keys and authority. Because if you DID understand, logic would prevail and you would realize, "Oops! I've been foolish in arguing a moot point. It doesn't matter if somebody SAYS they have the priesthood, IF THEY HAVE BEEN ABUSING IT!"
You are completely and totally wrong. You can have keys and not abuse them. Your argument rests upon a false premise that if you have keys given to you then you are automatically abusing them, which is circular logic.

Discussing the true doctrine of keys and who has them and the power and authority they give is not abuse, it is teaching truth. You couldn't be more in error.
For weeks I've been pointing you to DC 121's warnings. Jesus speaks very plainly here. There are no riddles. He says you (all of us are) likely to "not learn this one lesson." He speaks so logically and clearly, and then repeats Himself in case you missed it.

When you all keep quoting your authority...when the leaders keep pointing to their badges of credentials (their authority)...just like any authoritarian would be expected to do, they are caught red-handed in the act of losing their authority. It's a form of oppression and abuse to say, "I win the argument because I have the keys. So shut up and listen to me and nobody else. Outsiders are pretenders. They are false. Trust me. I have the keys."
This is what's called a strawman argument. What we have done over and over again is simply teach the true doctrine of keys, and how that gives man authority on earth. We are teaching truth and you are teaching falsehood.
The very nature of that argument is ABUSE.
The very nature of your argument is FALSE.
Jesus says such a person is "aspiring to the honors of men." He says their "hearts are set so much upon the things of this world." The "things of this world" are things like: status, position, money, glory of men, the honors of men, power, "authority", financial gain, praise of the world, etc.

The main if not only question should be, "Are my leaders abusing their authority?" Likewise, same question: is Denver, or ANY man claiming he's sent from God abusing their authority?
My leaders are not abusing their authority. Hopefully we can move on from this now.
That's why I've continually pointed your attention to EVIDENCES of unrighteous dominion by the Church:
  • The priestcraft is off the charts with the Brethren.
Really. Show me the chart.
They constantly lift EACH OTHER up by pointing to each other and saying they're prophets, seers, and revelators, when they are just ordinary men like the rest of us.[/list]
Errm, if there are prophets on the earth they should be testifying of each other. If you get to testify of Snuffer then you have to let people testify of Monson.

I don't think you are very good at this.

  • Section 6.7.3 from CHI 1 defines “apostasy” as disobeying your leader. This is an irrefutable evidence of abuse of authority. This in fact, is a HUGE piece of the puzzle. If you have any doubts about abuse of authority from the top, this removes that doubt.
Disobeying leaders at a certain level would be apostasy at some point, for sure.
Surreptitiously adding WW’s excerpts in 1981 to our canon which teach the anti Christ precept of “We can’t lead you astray” is irrefutable evidence of abuse.[/list]
No it isn't. It is biblical teaching.
  • Heavy censorship in the Church is obvious evidence of abuse of authority.
  • Rewriting history is abuse of authority.
  • Trying to unite the Brethren (the Church) with Christ is abuse, because it lifts the Brethren up to Christ’s level, and preys upon trusting members.
  • Having Elder Poelman redo his 1984 talk that reverses the key point of SEPARATING the Lord from the Brethren (the Church) is an irrefutable fact of history.
  • Ceasing publication of details of the Church's financial state of affairs back in 1963 is a massive red flag re: abuse of authority.
  • Converting the Church over to a Corporation Sole in 1923 (I think it was), whereby ONE MAN -- the president of the church -- has absolute control over the assets, properties, investments, and monies of the Church is a "the sky is blue" evidence of abuse of authority.
  • The list goes on and on.
Most of what you wrote isn't true, and what is isn't abuse.
Then, with Denver, there is crickets (silence from critics) as far as any abuse of authority.
Lol, Denver has so many things invalidating him before we get to this. Being a nice guy doesn't mean you are God's prophet on earth.
There are not only zero facts, but there's even a lack of allegations.
His false doctrines sort of overshadow all of that.
Kind of strange, don’t you think, for such an evil impostor? On the contrary, I hear you all say that “he teaches a lot of truth", which makes your testimonies evidence that he's legit.
You don't hear me saying that.
The focus, I've said all along from Day 1, SHOULD BE on "is abuse of authority occurring"? Is there evidence of unrighteous dominion?
The answer is NO!!!
The partial list above is damning, is it not?
It is not.
The only argument is, "to what degree of apostasy has the Church slid?"
No, there is also the argument that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is God's one True Church in the last days for the last time and no unhallowed hand shall prevail against it and is the stone cut without hands from the book of Daniel.
Elder Eyring sees the writing on the wall. That's why he implored the church brothers on Sat night in the General Priesthood Session 'to have faith in your leaders despite their weaknesses'. He said clearly, we (the leaders) are imperfect, but the Lord has called us to serve you! Trust us! If you don't, then you lack faith. Also, that's why Elder Koch on Sunday is saying to the leaders in broad daylight to test the members to see if they will unite with your will. It's all about staying true to the Brethren. They mandate that we read General Conference talks. That we study them in Sacrament meetings, Sunday School, and now in RS and Priesthood meetings the 3rd hour.
It's well established Church doctrine going back to ancient scripture.
The writing is on the wall. That's why they are closing ranks and doing everything in their power to get the members to not lose faith IN THEM. It's so sad, because all that energy COULD BE given to persuade members to have faith IN CHRIST! But they divert that energy to persuade to believe in man.
Men called of God to serve his purposes in a Priesthood God set up to give us instruction and leadership, all teachings that have been provided to you earlier in this thread. YOU have rejected the teachings of Christ and Joseph Smith and I call upon YOU to repent of your pride and repair your status with God's True Church on the face of the earth, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Last edited by Seek the Truth on October 3rd, 2017, 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

e-eye2.0
captain of 100
Posts: 454

Re: Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

Post by e-eye2.0 »

underdog wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 1:19 pm
lemuel wrote: October 3rd, 2017, 1:10 pm I'm looking through handbook 1(starting around page 60) for what it says about people that don't attend their disciplinary councils.
If the person does not attend the council, the presiding officer informs him of the decision
Not seeing anything about an automatic guilty verdict. The appeals process on page 65-66 doesn't say that those who don't attend don't have the right to appeal to the FP.

Finally, on page 67, it states "The First Presidency has ultimate authority over all church discipline. Decisions of the FP take precedence despite any rules or procedures to the contrary."


I think the main thrust of where the disciplinary process went wrong was that Snuffer's leaders refused to engage with his arguments--they just said "shut up, you're wrong, pull the book". This does not seem, to me at least, as persuasion, long-suffering, etc. It seems more like power maintained by virtue of the priesthood.
I've carefully studied CHI 1 on this point Shadow is making. You are correct. There's nothing there. Only that the SP can set the rules.

Shadow has found some Joseph Smith quote dealing with administration of courts in his day, and then claiming violating this administrative rule from 180+ years ago is a "sin", making Denver unworthy, and justified in being cast out. It's silliness. Grasping.

Now that I think about it...Shadow is focusing on a technicality that occurred in the stake center just minutes before the council began. But I've been asking him to tell us what "sin" qualified Denver for having the court called on him in the first place. What "sin" was he ever called out for by the SP or anybody "in authority"? That's the embarrassing predicament the SP found himself in and Shadow finds himself in. That's why the SP looked ashamed that day.

Shadow's answer is that he sounded like Christ, like Joseph, like Jonah, like Noah, like John the Baptist, like Alma the Older, like Lehi, like any prophet who declares the leadership of his day is corrupt and needs to repent. In other words, Shadow is saying that Denver's sin was playing the part of a true prophet. He believes him to be false (as a universal truth; just as he believes it's 100% true the leadership could not apostatize), but then is not willing to excommunicate the aforementioned prophets, incl Christ, which creates a hypocritical double standard that so far he's not willing to overcome by conceding he's painted himself into a corner.
I actually give Shadow a lot of credit here for his work in digging up this quote from Joseph Smith. Understanding who he is dealing with and the thought process of Snufferism in that Joseph Smith was the last true prophet holding the keys it makes sense to quote him. Now from the LDS prospective by either Joseph Smith or the current handbook the excommunication was just. - Makes more sense to use the one Snuffer's followers believe as the other example probably wouldn't hold water to them.

as for what Snuffer said that would fall under criticism:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Crit ... ch_leaders

You can whittle away as many of his comments as you like but it's obvious there was criticism true or not even Joseph Smith disagreed with what Denver did.

“I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.” - Joseph Smith

Orson Hyde, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, reported: “Joseph the Prophet … said, ‘Brethren, remember that the majority of this people will never go astray; and as long as you keep with the majority you are sure to enter the celestial kingdom.’”

William G. Nelson reported: “I have heard the Prophet speak in public on many occasions. In one meeting I heard him say: ‘I will give you a key that will never rust,—if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray.’ The history of the Church has proven this to be true.”

Ezra T. Clark remembered: “I heard the Prophet Joseph say that he would give the Saints a key whereby they would never be led away or deceived, and that was: The Lord would never suffer a majority of this people to be led away or deceived by imposters, nor would He allow the records of this Church to fall into the hands of the enemy.”

Locked