Snuffer LIVE From Los Angeles California

[underdog]

LDS anarchist. It is interesting that you bring up common consent. I would say common consent is no longer present in the LDS church because it is now obtained under threat of punishment.

I've never been threatened.

Neither was Samuel Smith in July 1844.

Neither were any of the "equal" Quorums (the First Pres, the 70, the Nauvoo stake high council) in Brigham's day.

Neither was the man who objected to blacks not being able to hold the priesthood in 1977 in GC when N Eldon Tanner was conducting. One brother objected. Then was promptly excommunicated. Then the next year OD2 came out.

Neither have hosts of righteous LDS who have been excommunicated who hold temple recommends been threatened.

These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along.

[underdog]

It is crystal clear that both Thomas and underdog are Snufferite trolls with the intent of coming on this site to try and sow seeds of discord and doubt and contention among those who really are practicing Latter Day Saints. Since Brian seems to have no problem allowing them to do so, which frankly I don't really understand since anti LDS bashing used to be off limits here in times past and banished to outer darkness, I recommend that they be ignored and maybe they will start to lose interest and return back to their remnant boards to bash and accuse the LDS church to their hearts content. They are both filled with the spirit of contention and accusation and discussions with them are totally fruitless. What's the point?

Mark,

You said earlier today:

So in your world being an accuser of the Brethren is coming from the light of Christ? It just shows everyone what spirit you are responding to. I want no part of that spirit. It cometh of evil. You just are to steeped in it to tell the difference.

I replied:

Mark,

Jesus commands us to discern (or "accuse", as you say) false prophets. He commands us to distinguish between false and true prophets, between false and true Christs, between tares and wheat. Without "accusing" (a pejorative word you use in place of distinguishing and discerning), we cannot keep the commandment to follow the Light.

Obviously we have to judge righteously and choose the right. We have to choose light over darkness.

So let me reword exactly what you said above with correct meanings:

So in your world being one who distinguishes between true and false messengers is coming from the light of Christ?

Yes, that is the world I live in. We SHOULD do that.

It just shows everyone what spirit you are responding to. I want no part of that spirit. It cometh of evil. You just are to steeped in it to tell the difference.

So yes, I agree with the first part, it does show the spirit I'm responding to, which is the Spirit of Christ which commands us to discern between good and evil and to choose the good. Are you saying you want no part of the Spirit of Christ, which requires us to discern good from evil? Yes, that means we must "accuse" as you say with indignation. What this means is that we just judge right from wrong. That means we are saying that the thing we reject in favor of Christ is wrong!! That makes us all an "accuser." Or just might you have some wrong thinking going on here? I think you mean well, but perhaps it is you who are steeped in an unbelief so you can't see the truth that "we must discern", which means we must say, "This is a tare, and this is wheat". Your ENTIRE objection to what I am saying is based on your belief that "the Brethren" are true messengers, despite them doing things which deny the gospel of Jesus Christ.

If I have rephrased your statement incorrectly, please tell me how I erred. I seek to be one with Christ and if you can show me how what I said it not at one with Christ, then I'd like to know. I have showed you how what you're saying is not one with Christ. If I was not accurate, please explain why.

Why not concede instead of disengaging? Did I not make a valid point?

[underdog]

Any other takers?

I honestly would like to hear an answer.

Again, my question remains unanswered:

Please explain why this elder believes in his heart that we members should be tested on whether or not we are united with any leader not named Jesus Christ?

This is pretty basic stuff, underdog:

40 ¶ He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.

42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward. (Matt. 10)

Normally I would expound the above scripture, since I suppose you will attempt to wrest its meaning to fit your narrative, but I just got through posting a very long reply and then something unexpected happened and I lost the whole post. So, I'm no longer in the mood for explaining anything.

Sorry to hear about losing your post! Hate when that happens.

Those verses are wonderful!

But they're off topic. You're attempting to use them to fit your narrative.

My assertion, founded in Scriptures galore, remains-- that it is cultish and idolatrous for a leader to correct somebody, which acts as a test of whether the member will unite with the leader. We unite with Christ and seek HIS mind and no leader's. Any leader who asks for your oath-like indication that you're loyal to his prophetic priorities is practicing priestcraft and unrighteous dominion.

Folks, that is some scary stuff. The Church should issue a retraction!

[lemuel]

Joseph actually did this on occasion:

"A story is told of an encounter between the Prophet Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. In the presence of a rather large group of brethren, the Prophet severely chastised Brother Brigham for some failing in his duty. Everyone, I suppose somewhat stunned, waited to see what Brigham’s response would be. After all, Brigham, who later became known as the Lion of the Lord, was no shrinking violet by any means. Brigham slowly rose to his feet, and in words that truly reflected his character and his humility, he simply bowed his head and said, “Joseph, what do you want me to do?” The story goes that sobbing, Joseph ran from the podium, threw his arms around Brigham, and said in effect, “You passed, Brother Brigham, you passed”

To my knowledge I've never heard of a living prophet taking it that far, but It is not hard to see why you find this council difficult.

Can anyone find the earliest version of this story?

A story is told of an encounter between the Prophet Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. In the presence of a rather large group of brethren, the Prophet severely chastised Brother Brigham for some failing in his duty. Everyone, I suppose somewhat stunned, waited to see what Brigham’s response would be. After all, Brigham, who later became known as the Lion of the Lord, was no shrinking violet by any means. Brigham slowly rose to his feet, and in words that truly reflected his character and his humility, he simply bowed his head and said, “Joseph, what do you want me to do?” The story goes that sobbing, Joseph ran from the podium, threw his arms around Brigham, and said in effect, “You passed, Brother Brigham, you passed” (see Truman G. Madsen, “Hugh B. Brown—Youthful Veteran,” New Era, Apr. 1976, 16).

I go to the issue
https://www.LDS.org/new-era/1976/04?lang=eng
and the article is missing.

This blog
http://earlymormonsaints.blogspot.com/2 ... smith.html
says it's BY's family lore. Just wondering if there's an earlier source since it happened in front of a large group.

[Seek the Truth]

Issue a retraction for saying bears crap in the woods?

No for saying I redefined the word "is". Provide a citation where I did that or apologize and retract.

You are an incredibly dishonest person.

Where does Scripture say we should unite with a leader not named Jesus? You just repeat stuff because I guess it makes you feel productive. The notion we should unite with a leader who is correcting us who is not Jesus is absolutely cultish and idolatrous. Gives me the willies that such a teaching could be uttered in General Conference, truth be told.

It is the plain teaching of Christ and Joseph Smith as has been provided to you numerous times. You are no longer in Christianity or Mormonism, but another gospel.

Listen, it's circular with you. It's contentious. Contention is of the devil. It's better to not respond to your circular statements. It fuels your fire.

The words of a man losing badly.

[AI2.0]

I stumbled across a blog by a fellow who really is no friend of the LDS church and frankly disagreed with Snuffers excommunication yet even he lays out the case of excommunication by showing one pointed accusation after another concerning Snuffers interpretations of the so called downfall of the LDS faith and its leadership hierarchy from Snuffers book and I also might ad his blogs he wrote that were even more accusatory toward LDS church leadership from its very beginnings. If you read his words you will begin to see that Snuffer was in open rebellion against church leadership and was accusing them of being in an apostate state since clear back to the time of Joseph's administration. He clearly says that the church and its ordinances were rejected by the Lord. Period. If you read his stuff you will see that Snuffer was subtlety setting himself up to become the leader of this new movement who love to shout from their rameumptons that they are the chosen remnant people of the Lord. Just exactly what Jim Harmston did in the early 90's and so many others have done in the past 200 years. This story is not new. The movement will crumble and fade away just like Harmstons did and Rigdons did and Stranges did and (insert your favorite apostate breakoff here). None have any valid Priesthood keys. None will prosper. All are in apostasy.

https://mormonheretic.org/2013/11/30/wh ... -got-exed/

I want to learn more about Harmston--any good books or articles I should check out?

A google search led me here and I just don't honestly see many similarities between Snuffer and Harmston. Sure, both were excommunicated and said that the leaders are out of the way, but Jesus said that too, not that Snuffer (or Harmston for that matter) is the equal of Jesus.

Harmston was a strong proponent of polygamy, Snuffer is not a fan.

Harmston taught something called the Doctrine of Rescue, in which a man can take another man's wife if he has more priesthood keys.

"The second way in which a wife can be separated from her husband while he continues to be faithful to his God and his priesthood I have not revealed except to a few persons in this church, and a few have received it from Joseph the Prophet as well as myself. If a woman can find a man holding the keys of the priesthood with higher power and authority than her husband, and he is disposed to take her, he can do so, otherwise she has got to remain where she is. In either of these ways of separation you can discover there is no need for a bill of divorcement.

Snuffer denounced this doctrine.

Harmston centralized power in himself. If Snuffer is getting it wrong, he's getting it wrong in the other direction--the remnant is more anarchy than anything.

I think the reason you aren't seeing the similarities is that you are comparing later Harmston with Denver Snuffer. If you look at the beginnings of what Harmston preached, when he was holding his study groups--before he got involved in polygamy, you'll see that their doctrines were similar--I think they were both built on the idea that the church had moved away from early church teachings (fundamentalism) and they both teach esoteric, speculative doctrines, IMO.

If you ask me, the jury is still out on Snuffer and polygamy. I could see him eventually embracing some form of polygamy that he will claim Joseph was actually practicing. The reason I say this is that one--polygamy is such a draw for break off sects. The men seem to be addicted to it and the women apparently, will go along. And two--Snuffer claims to be restoring the church to what Joseph taught and practiced--and Snuffer has admitted that Joseph was involved in something. So, I don't rule it out that eventually, an elite group may be practitioners of something like it.

[Seek the Truth]

Neither was Samuel Smith in July 1844.

Neither were any of the "equal" Quorums (the First Pres, the 70, the Nauvoo stake high council) in Brigham's day.

Neither was the man who objected to blacks not being able to hold the priesthood in 1977 in GC when N Eldon Tanner was conducting. One brother objected. Then was promptly excommunicated. Then the next year OD2 came out.

Neither have hosts of righteous LDS who have been excommunicated who hold temple recommends been threatened.

These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along.

All in accordance with Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ. The scriptures and teachings have been provided for you.

[lemuel]

I stumbled across a blog by a fellow who really is no friend of the LDS church and frankly disagreed with Snuffers excommunication yet even he lays out the case of excommunication by showing one pointed accusation after another concerning Snuffers interpretations of the so called downfall of the LDS faith and its leadership hierarchy from Snuffers book and I also might ad his blogs he wrote that were even more accusatory toward LDS church leadership from its very beginnings. If you read his words you will begin to see that Snuffer was in open rebellion against church leadership and was accusing them of being in an apostate state since clear back to the time of Joseph's administration. He clearly says that the church and its ordinances were rejected by the Lord. Period. If you read his stuff you will see that Snuffer was subtlety setting himself up to become the leader of this new movement who love to shout from their rameumptons that they are the chosen remnant people of the Lord. Just exactly what Jim Harmston did in the early 90's and so many others have done in the past 200 years. This story is not new. The movement will crumble and fade away just like Harmstons did and Rigdons did and Stranges did and (insert your favorite apostate breakoff here). None have any valid Priesthood keys. None will prosper. All are in apostasy.

https://mormonheretic.org/2013/11/30/wh ... -got-exed/

I want to learn more about Harmston--any good books or articles I should check out?

A google search led me here and I just don't honestly see many similarities between Snuffer and Harmston. Sure, both were excommunicated and said that the leaders are out of the way, but Jesus said that too, not that Snuffer (or Harmston for that matter) is the equal of Jesus.

Harmston was a strong proponent of polygamy, Snuffer is not a fan.

Harmston taught something called the Doctrine of Rescue, in which a man can take another man's wife if he has more priesthood keys.

"The second way in which a wife can be separated from her husband while he continues to be faithful to his God and his priesthood I have not revealed except to a few persons in this church, and a few have received it from Joseph the Prophet as well as myself. If a woman can find a man holding the keys of the priesthood with higher power and authority than her husband, and he is disposed to take her, he can do so, otherwise she has got to remain where she is. In either of these ways of separation you can discover there is no need for a bill of divorcement.

Snuffer denounced this doctrine.

Harmston centralized power in himself. If Snuffer is getting it wrong, he's getting it wrong in the other direction--the remnant is more anarchy than anything.

I think the reason you aren't seeing the similarities is that you are comparing later Harmston with Denver Snuffer. If you look at the beginnings of what Harmston preached, when he was holding his study groups--before he got involved in polygamy, you'll see that their doctrines were similar--I think they were both built on the idea that the church had moved away from early church teachings (fundamentalism) and they both teach esoteric, speculative doctrines, IMO.

If you ask me, the jury is still out on Snuffer and polygamy. I could see him eventually embracing some form of polygamy that he will claim Joseph was actually practicing. The reason I say this is that one--polygamy is such a draw for break off sects. The men seem to be addicted to it and the women apparently, will go along. And two--Snuffer claims to be restoring the church to what Joseph taught and practiced--and Snuffer has admitted that Joseph was involved in something. So, I don't rule it out that eventually, an elite group may be practitioners of something like it.

Any good stuff on early Harmston? I definitely don't want to end up there. I offered Snuffer my wife and he said no (my wife is totally hot though) so things are good so far. It's pretty indeterminate what exactly happened in Nauvoo polygamy, it's a huge mess. But that's definitely my jumping off point.

At the very least, the claim about when the church jumped the shark is different--after Joseph vs after John Taylor.

[AI2.0]

AI2,

The worst of the above quotes has got to be this:

"It is also likely that we will all experience some correction from our ecclesiastic leaders, which will be a test on how united we are with them."

Am I really off my rocker? Please, any TBM here, please edify me. Please explain why this elder believes in his heart that we members should be tested on whether or not we are united with any leader not named Jesus Christ?

Because, we were sent down here to learn to submit--to offer our agency as the only thing we truly have, to God. Just as Jesus Christ submitted to the will of the father, we are asked to submit. And, if you are 'corrected' by your church leaders--those who hold stewardship over you, then part of your test is to humble yourself and accept and repent.



Honestly I am horrified that TBM's here are not horrified themselves. If you want to motivate me to leave the Church then here is your chance. I honestly am sickened if none of you are able to see how cultish and wicked this teaching is.

Underdog, the sad thing is that you are blind to the cultish nature of the Remnant, which you've joined. That's the irony of this, it would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.

You seem oblivious to the nature of that 'covenant' you all were asked to make. Do you not see that it asked you to accept everything that Denver Snuffer teaches you? You are following a man just the same as you accuse LDS of following men. The difference? We LDS have our scriptures to admonish us to follow the prophet at the head of our church, and because we believe in apostles, 70's, Bishops, Stake Pres. etc, then we understand the role of delegated authority of divinely called leaders who hold a certain position of stewardship. We also understand clearly the necessity of being guided by the holy ghost to know when our leaders are inspired and speak the Lord's will and our need to follow counsel.

Your cult, called the Remnant, is already changing and evolving. It's clearly built around a man, Denver Snuffer, and his teachings are evolving as he slowly moves into the role of 'prophet' with his pronouncements that the Lord directs him to teach you all what you need to do to create Zion. Can you not see this? Why are you not horrified that you've embraced exactly what Snuffer initially stood against???

Sorry, but there's nothing wrong with believing that the Lord's called his righteous servants to lead and guide his church and his people. It's a sound doctrine and practice--shown time after time in our canon of scriptures. And, their responsibility is to keep the church undefiled by dealing with heresies, immoral and imprudent behavior--so when a member is called in to answer for their actions or behavior, they ought to be humble and repentant, united with them in the common cause of building up the Kingdom of God.

And Underdog, I didn't see you 'horrified' when John Doe was called in to answer the accusations against him in the Women's council. Why were you not upset by that? I'm certain that the expectation was that if John Doe was repentant, he should support the women and their decision and be 'united' with them in trying to protect the Remnant from sinful behavior, right? Why, once again, are you incapable of seeing these supposed unrighteous dominion and oppressive actions when they are on display in your Remnant church?

AI2, please come out and say it. Please don't skirt my challenge. Allow me to ask the questions in the form of a true/ false question.

For reference here is what one of the Bretheren creepily said in GC:

"It is also likely that we will all experience some correction from our ecclesiastic leaders, which will be a test on how united we are with them."

True or false: You're doing it again, I already answered this. I'm not sure how you missed my response. I won't restate it, instead,
I will share drtanner's response because it was perfect:

A story is told of an encounter between the Prophet Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. In the presence of a rather large group of brethren, the Prophet severely chastised Brother Brigham for some failing in his duty. Everyone, I suppose somewhat stunned, waited to see what Brigham’s response would be. After all, Brigham, who later became known as the Lion of the Lord, was no shrinking violet by any means. Brigham slowly rose to his feet, and in words that truly reflected his character and his humility, he simply bowed his head and said, “Joseph, what do you want me to do?” The story goes that sobbing, Joseph ran from the podium, threw his arms around Brigham, and said in effect, “You passed, Brother Brigham, you passed”

So there you have a 'test' from the Prophet Joseph. Did it creep you out??

Our leaders should test us to see if we will be united with them?

Our leaders should view correcting us as a test to see if we will be united with them?

We individuals in the church should aspire, to pass the test, to be united with any church leader not named Jesus Christ?

We individuals in the church should consider it a virtue to be united with any church leader not named Jesus Christ?

********

Keep in mind, this General Conference will be the course material for RS and Priesthood meetings the 3rd hour. We teachers will be expected to teach this absolutely idolatrous, sickening precept to each other. 'We teachers'???? Are you actually going to teach an LDS church class when you think our leaders are murderers, apostates, creeps? I find that very disingenuous on your part. You don't believe in the church,
don't you think it's wrong to pretend that you do? I think there's no problem with attending church meetings, but teaching, where you have to say things that you don't believe? Why don't you just ask to be released?

I intend to object. This little dialogue with you all will help me prepare. I'll report my findings with you all later.

Do you know why you are here participating in threads attempting to prove the LDS church false? Are you trying to show the LDS members here that we are following a false religion? Do you think this is a proper venue to do this?

There's nothing wrong in the LDS religion with being united with our church leaders. This is part of our faith and if you find it so reprehensible on our part, I'm not sure who you want to point it out to us. It would be like me going to a Catholic website and telling the members there that believing the Pope is the Vicar of Christ or that the Priests and Nuns are Jesus' servants on earth is offensive and horrible. Can you imagine how they would take that? Do you think I'd win any converts? Of course not and it would be offensive on my part.

[underdog]

Issue a retraction for saying bears crap in the woods?

No for saying I redefined the word "is". Provide a citation where I did that or apologize and retract.

You are an incredibly dishonest person.

Where does Scripture say we should unite with a leader not named Jesus? You just repeat stuff because I guess it makes you feel productive. The notion we should unite with a leader who is correcting us who is not Jesus is absolutely cultish and idolatrous. Gives me the willies that such a teaching could be uttered in General Conference, truth be told.

It is the plain teaching of Christ and Joseph Smith as has been provided to you numerous times. You are no longer in Christianity or Mormonism, but another gospel.

Listen, it's circular with you. It's contentious. Contention is of the devil. It's better to not respond to your circular statements. It fuels your fire.

The words of a man losing badly.

Folks who know recent American history know that scheister lawyer and POTUS Bill Clinton famously said "is" doesn't mean "is." You're probably not old enough to know about the 1990's joke of a president and his f-you to justice and the Constitution and decency in America. Sophistry is fun for you, but I don't think it has a place in honest discussions re: the magnitude of topics we discuss. You don't bring new things, you keep repeating, like LDS Anarchist does, premises which are false. The PREMISE is false, and then you use the premise to argue your side. You honestly don't even comprehend what I'm saying to you. That's fine. But I don't have to spend time going back and forth with someone who is circular. AI2 is different from you. So is Jesef. They have a sincere, and loving tone and try to use persuasion, but you don't care to persuade but instead like to do personal attacks, like above. You keep repeating your unbeliefs as if they are true. I believe it engenders contention and I don't want to add fuel to your fire. I'll do my best not to take your bait when you come back with more repetition of your false premises and hollow assertions.

[Seek the Truth]

So show me where I redefined the word "is" or issue a retraction and apology.

Scriptures are not false premises. We keep repeating scriptures because they keep defeating Snufferism. They protect us from false teaching.

Look at my start date and post count. I know all the Snufferite tricks. You will not be able to put anything over on me.

[underdog]

So show me where I redefined the word "is" or issue a retraction and apology.

Scriptures are not false premises. We keep repeating scriptures because they keep defeating Snufferism. They protect us from false teaching.

Look at my start date and post count. I know all the Snufferite tricks. You will not be able to put anything over on me.

You are taking things literally. Of course you didn't redefine "is" as meaning something different from "is" literally. To spell it out for you, you define things according to your premises, which are false. You take scriptures that clearly say one thing, and say they mean something different.

I understand the wisdom of Moroni 7 and stick to that the "perfect way to judge". You have no rebuttal to that. That's why you ignore that and go circular. Good night to you.

[Seek the Truth]

Lol bro the scriptures say over and over again that Joseph Smith was head of the last dispensation. Therefore Snuffer cannot be a dispensation head. We have provided those scriptures for you over and over and you can look them up easily in the digital age.

Also we have provided a great deal of material from scripture and teachings of Joseph Smith where the structure of the LDS Church/Kingdom of God is necessary for the salvation of any man. You and Snuffer have repeatedly rejected such teachings. As such you now teach another gospel the does not have the power to save.

We have provided no false premises. You OTOH have rejected the teachings of Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith. This will not change.

[Thomas]

Lol bro the scriptures say over and over again that Joseph Smith was head of the last dispensation. Therefore Snuffer cannot be a dispensation head. We have provided those scriptures for you over and over and you can look them up easily in the digital age.

Also we have provided a great deal of material from scripture and teachings of Joseph Smith where the structure of the LDS Church/Kingdom of God is necessary for the salvation of any man. You and Snuffer have repeatedly rejected such teachings. As such you now teach another gospel the does not have the power to save.

We have provided no false premises. You OTOH have rejected the teachings of Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith. This will not change.

Denver Snuffer wrote: I would
remind all of those who hear or read this that, in the Church, the First Presidency has a quorum
which is equal in authority with the First Presidency, and that is the Quorum of the 12.7 And
there is a Quorum of 70, which likewise forms a quorum equal in authority with the 12.8 And
then there is the High Council that is established as a group equal in authority with the Quorum
of the 12 and the First Presidency.9 All of these separate groups are considered to be equal in
holding the authority of the church, which is the definition of the keys of the kingdom.10 God in
His wisdom saw fit before I was excommunicated from the LDS Church to call me into a
quorum equal in authority with the First Presidency, the Quorum of the 12, and the 70. Unlike
these others who dismissed me from the church, I did not exercise control, dominion and
authority over others. The priesthood I hold cannot be regarded as having come to an end, if I
was excommunicated without just cause. "Amen" to the priesthood or the authority of those that
exercise unrighteous dominion.11 So if you want to lawyer this, I can tell you, I hold the keys of
the kingdom.

Having keys and keeping keys are two different things. None of your scriptures say that those keys will remain within the ranks of title holders.

[shadow]

Snuffer is a moron and his followers, if they believe he has the keys to the kingdom because he once served as a high councilman, are also morons. The council has authority as a council. Snuffster was released from the council long before he was even exed. He was released. Get it? Someone aught to clue him in.

[underdog]

AI2,

The worst of the above quotes has got to be this:



Am I really off my rocker? Please, any TBM here, please edify me. Please explain why this elder believes in his heart that we members should be tested on whether or not we are united with any leader not named Jesus Christ?

Because, we were sent down here to learn to submit--to offer our agency as the only thing we truly have, to God. Just as Jesus Christ submitted to the will of the father, we are asked to submit. And, if you are 'corrected' by your church leaders--those who hold stewardship over you, then part of your test is to humble yourself and accept and repent.



Honestly I am horrified that TBM's here are not horrified themselves. If you want to motivate me to leave the Church then here is your chance. I honestly am sickened if none of you are able to see how cultish and wicked this teaching is.

Underdog, the sad thing is that you are blind to the cultish nature of the Remnant, which you've joined. That's the irony of this, it would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.

You seem oblivious to the nature of that 'covenant' you all were asked to make. Do you not see that it asked you to accept everything that Denver Snuffer teaches you? You are following a man just the same as you accuse LDS of following men. The difference? We LDS have our scriptures to admonish us to follow the prophet at the head of our church, and because we believe in apostles, 70's, Bishops, Stake Pres. etc, then we understand the role of delegated authority of divinely called leaders who hold a certain position of stewardship. We also understand clearly the necessity of being guided by the holy ghost to know when our leaders are inspired and speak the Lord's will and our need to follow counsel.

Your cult, called the Remnant, is already changing and evolving. It's clearly built around a man, Denver Snuffer, and his teachings are evolving as he slowly moves into the role of 'prophet' with his pronouncements that the Lord directs him to teach you all what you need to do to create Zion. Can you not see this? Why are you not horrified that you've embraced exactly what Snuffer initially stood against???

Sorry, but there's nothing wrong with believing that the Lord's called his righteous servants to lead and guide his church and his people. It's a sound doctrine and practice--shown time after time in our canon of scriptures. And, their responsibility is to keep the church undefiled by dealing with heresies, immoral and imprudent behavior--so when a member is called in to answer for their actions or behavior, they ought to be humble and repentant, united with them in the common cause of building up the Kingdom of God.

And Underdog, I didn't see you 'horrified' when John Doe was called in to answer the accusations against him in the Women's council. Why were you not upset by that? I'm certain that the expectation was that if John Doe was repentant, he should support the women and their decision and be 'united' with them in trying to protect the Remnant from sinful behavior, right? Why, once again, are you incapable of seeing these supposed unrighteous dominion and oppressive actions when they are on display in your Remnant church?

AI2, please come out and say it. Please don't skirt my challenge. Allow me to ask the questions in the form of a true/ false question.

For reference here is what one of the Bretheren creepily said in GC:

"It is also likely that we will all experience some correction from our ecclesiastic leaders, which will be a test on how united we are with them."

True or false: You're doing it again, I already answered this. I'm not sure how you missed my response. I won't restate it, instead,
I will share drtanner's response because it was perfect:

A story is told of an encounter between the Prophet Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. In the presence of a rather large group of brethren, the Prophet severely chastised Brother Brigham for some failing in his duty. Everyone, I suppose somewhat stunned, waited to see what Brigham’s response would be. After all, Brigham, who later became known as the Lion of the Lord, was no shrinking violet by any means. Brigham slowly rose to his feet, and in words that truly reflected his character and his humility, he simply bowed his head and said, “Joseph, what do you want me to do?” The story goes that sobbing, Joseph ran from the podium, threw his arms around Brigham, and said in effect, “You passed, Brother Brigham, you passed”

So there you have a 'test' from the Prophet Joseph. Did it creep you out??

Our leaders should test us to see if we will be united with them?

Our leaders should view correcting us as a test to see if we will be united with them?

We individuals in the church should aspire, to pass the test, to be united with any church leader not named Jesus Christ?

We individuals in the church should consider it a virtue to be united with any church leader not named Jesus Christ?

********

Keep in mind, this General Conference will be the course material for RS and Priesthood meetings the 3rd hour. We teachers will be expected to teach this absolutely idolatrous, sickening precept to each other. 'We teachers'???? Are you actually going to teach an LDS church class when you think our leaders are murderers, apostates, creeps? I find that very disingenuous on your part. You don't believe in the church,
don't you think it's wrong to pretend that you do? I think there's no problem with attending church meetings, but teaching, where you have to say things that you don't believe? Why don't you just ask to be released?

I intend to object. This little dialogue with you all will help me prepare. I'll report my findings with you all later.

Do you know why you are here participating in threads attempting to prove the LDS church false? Are you trying to show the LDS members here that we are following a false religion? Do you think this is a proper venue to do this?

There's nothing wrong in the LDS religion with being united with our church leaders. This is part of our faith and if you find it so reprehensible on our part, I'm not sure who you want to point it out to us. It would be like me going to a Catholic website and telling the members there that believing the Pope is the Vicar of Christ or that the Priests and Nuns are Jesus' servants on earth is offensive and horrible. Can you imagine how they would take that? Do you think I'd win any converts? Of course not and it would be offensive on my part.

AI2,

I don't see your response. Still don't. It's okay. Let's just say I'm dense and can't see it. I see you said this:

We LDS have our scriptures to admonish us to follow the prophet at the head of our church, and because we believe in apostles, 70's, Bishops, Stake Pres. etc, then we understand the role of delegated authority of divinely called leaders who hold a certain position of stewardship. We also understand clearly the necessity of being guided by the holy ghost to know when our leaders are inspired and speak the Lord's will and our need to follow counsel.

Looks like you're falling back on the leaders being equal with Christ, is that what you're saying? So we should be united with them because they are perfectly united with Christ? Is that what you mean by "delegated authority"? You did say it correctly (restating the main doctrine we actually all agree on in 2 Nephi 28:31) when you said we "understand clearly the necessity of being guided by the holy ghost to know when our leaders are inspired and speak the Lord's will and our need to follow counsel."

But Elder Koch said just yesterday, that

"It is also likely that we will all experience some correction from our ecclesiastic leaders, which will be a test on how united we are with them."

That is idolatrous because we should not seek to be united with men, but with Christ! Why do you argue this?

Then he reinforces this false and cult-like idea by saying:

I testify that as we decide to be one with the members and leaders of the Church—both when we’re assembled together but especially when we are apart—we will also feel more perfectly united with our Heavenly Father and the Savior.

Do you not see how the Brethren are trying to unite the Brethren with Christ? This is a concerted and deliberate effort. I'm jumping up and down on the tower yelling to you, "This is bad news. Wake up. Do not do this!"

Just like my pre adolescent son said, "any man or woman not named Christ can make errors and therefore could lead us astray." He said this with no coaching. I applauded his sense of what is true. And yet you're not grasping it.

Instead you quote the Dr Tanner story. I've heard this story before. It's probably a tall tale. I spent a few minutes researching it. Lemuel above had a link showing that it's folklore from Brigham's family.

What I found is that it that originated Wednesday, April 9, 1890, in Abraham Cannon's journal. In other words, this story was mentioned probably 50 years after the fact. This type of hearsay to make Brigham look good is getting quite old, wouldn't you agree?

Brother Cannon's journal says that William Smith, Joseph's younger brother was accused of adultery and many other sins. Joseph instructed Brigham to charge him appropriately. Then later and before the trial, supposedly Emma got to Joseph and persuaded him that they were just trying to hurt the Smith family's reputation. When the trial started Brigham proceeded with the charges and the witnesses testified of the sins, then Joseph erupted in anger, and protested what was happening. and more or less demanded that his younger brother be spared. Brigham acquiesced and dropped the charges!

The full journal entry is as follows:

Wednesday, April 9, 1890: Very nice day. From 7 a.m. till 10 o'clock I was busy at the office looking over the mail and attending to other matters of business. At the latter time I went to the Historian's office where all the brethren met who were present last evening. After the singing of two hymns and prayer Pres. Snow arose and expressed his pleasure at our fasting (which we all did this morning) and our meeting. He said: Everyone of us who has not already had the experience must yet meet it of being tested in every place where we are weak, and even our lives must be laid on the altar. Brigham Young was once tried to the very utmost by the Prophet, and for a moment his standing in the Church seemed to tremble in the balance. Wm. Smith, one of the first quorum of apostles in this age had been guilty of adultery and many other sins. The Prophet Joseph instructed Brigham (then the Pres. Of the Twelve) to prefer a charge against the sinner, which was done. Before the time set for the trial, however, Emma Smith talked to Joseph and said the charge preferred against William was with a view to injuring the Smith family. After the trial had begun, Joseph entered the room and was given a seat. The testimony of witnesses concerning the culprit's sins was then continued. After a short time Joseph arose filled with wrath and said, “Bro. Brigham, I will not listen to this abuse of my family a minute longer. I will wade in blood up to my knees before I will do it.” This was a supreme moment. A rupture between the two greatest men on earth seemed imminent. But Brigham Young was equal to the danger, and he instantly said, “Bro. Joseph, I withdraw the charge.” Thus the angry passions were instantly stilled.

So the story was written down by Br. Cannon according to what Pres Snow alleged happened between Joseph and Brigham 50 years ago!

The stuff you all bring up to substantiate your positions is of very weak quality.

Besides, you're grasping. You don't even need to try to defend the idea of a leader testing you to see if you will unite your will to his will. This is what cults do. This is very, very dangerous. I warn you. You should thank me. You should concede the point.

Somehow you say the Remnant cult does this, and I would be happy to concur and concede if your allegation had any truth to it. Where do you see this cult-like behavior? I have seen this behavior time and again. I got a great story to share that just happened, but it's pretty personal. Maybe I'll share it later. But there is not only evidence of this teaching being adhered to (doing the will of the leader), but it's in writing and being actively taught from the pulpit, even just over 30 hours ago!

You said,

There's nothing wrong in the LDS religion with being united with our church leaders.

You said it correctly when you said, we "understand clearly the necessity of being guided by the holy ghost to know when our leaders are inspired and speak the Lord's will and our need to follow counsel."

YOU say it correctly. Yes, it's fine with YOUR clarification, but that clarification is not given hardly ever. It wasn't given by Elder Koch. You are bailing him out. Why not throw him under the bus instead of bailing him out?

It's okay, Sister AI2, to throw evil teachings under the bus. It's your duty to do that. And NOT to defend them.

Elder Koch was NOT inspired BY GOD to say those two sentences I quoted above. He is teaching us to unite our wills to the Brethren's will. Currently there is a big push in my stake to get all the bishops to "align themselves" with the stake president. The SP says generally stake presidents are well aligned with the Brethren, but the problem (according to SLC) is that the lower-level bishops aren't as aligned. That's a problem. You catch that? Not aligned WITH THE BRETHREN.

This is wrongheaded. Do you not see that? Come on. Sisters are supposed to have a keen spiritual sense.

My wife sees right through these teachings. She just shakes her head. She knows we should align ourselves with Christ's will and not the will of the flesh (men). Cursed is he that puts his trust in the arm of flesh.

You are normally pretty good at answering my questions in blue, point by point. Here's your chance. True or False to these questions:

1) Our leaders should test us to see if we will be united with them? True or False?

2) Our leaders should view correcting us as a test to see if we will be united with them? True or False?

3) We individuals in the church should aspire, to pass the test, to be united with any church leader not named Jesus Christ? True or False?

4) We individuals in the church should consider it a virtue to be united with any church leader not named Jesus Christ? True or False?

Elder Koch did NOT qualify his statement as 2 Nephi 28:31 does, or as you did. He flat out said we must unify ourselves with our leaders. He's playing on the assumption most members will make that "the Brethren are unified with Christ." That is a not a safe assumption. That is something we should NEVER, EVER EVER EVER assume.

Sadly, Elder Eyring (as if the talks were choreographed) said that we lack faith if we call into question questionable things our leaders may do. Just trust that they're called of God and what they do is according to His will. Very, very dangerous, I say to you. You SHOULD agree. You know better.

At the end you act like I'm not one of you. I am an active Mormon. I've told you my devotion to the Church and listed all the leadership callings I've had, having served in leadership almost my entire time in the Church. Why? Because I love the truth and love service, and I suppose, if you believe Elder Eyring, because the Lord called me to serve. So please don't try to say I'm an outsider. I'm an insider and care about you. I care about the truth. I care about my brothers and sisters. It's because of people like you that I ever heard the message of the Restoration.

What I've done is point out some heresies taught in GC this weekend, and I wasn't even looking -- they jumped out. There should be ZERO heresies taught, but there were many. I wish it wasn't so. There needs to be an outcry but it seems that plenty of people here are content to let them slide with teaching us to trust in them, and indeed if we don't trust them, and don't unite with them, then we aren't true Mormons, we aren't faithful, we aren't worthy enough. I think we should beware of such teachings.

[underdog]

Snuffer is a moron and his followers, if they believe he has the keys to the kingdom because he once served as a high councilman, are also morons. The council has authority as a council. Snuffster was released from the council long before he was even exed. He was released. Get it? Someone aught to clue him in.

He didn't say that. He said that he once served in the high council and he was not guilty of unrighteous dominion, as those quorums exercised UD upon him in 2013 - 2014. Got it?

People who commit UD, lose their priesthood. Period. So the brethren have lost theirs.

Denver testifies he got his priesthood first from man when the AP was conferred upon him, and then later by the voice and hand of God, when he received by oath and covenant by the voice of God the patriarchal priesthood.

So if you want to lawyer it, he has the priesthood.

And if you want to lawyer it, he will LOSE that priesthood if he abuses it.

[Thomas]

Snuffer is a moron and his followers, if they believe he has the keys to the kingdom because he once served as a high councilman, are also morons. The council has authority as a council. Snuffster was released from the council long before he was even exed. He was released. Get it? Someone aught to clue him in.

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.

The point is its not about rank. It is about conforming to will of heaven. you cannot continue to defy God and keep the keys. You have to be a good steward of those keys. You have to use them in accordance of the will of God.

[e-eye2.0]

I have wondered at times why Satan has chosen to tempt men and play the role he does. I have wondered why he doesn't instead tell his followers to back off and leave man alone knowing that we need to be tested and tried here on earth and he might actual have more success in foiling Gods plan by doing nothing at all. I think it's Satan's pride that sucks him into the plan of salvation and fulfilling his roll. Here we have advocates blindly working Satans cause and creating opposition in all things - I also don't think they can help it. They can't leave it alone so they stay here kicking and screaming all along playing their part of the plan of salvation which is in opposition Heavenly Father. - what do we get out of it other than being annoyed? Opportunity for strengthened testimony. So here we go, back and forth - it's so obvious Snuffer is a false prophet to Latter Day Saints yet few do fall for it for many different reasons and the battle for souls continues.

I will say Mark if we did ignore the Snuffer movement - other than random posts here and there rom them trying to cause contention you would hear very little.

[Seek the Truth]

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.

The point is its not about rank. It is about conforming to will of heaven. you cannot continue to defy God and keep the keys. You have to be a good steward of those keys. You have to use them in accordance of the will of God.

These are your fleshly reasonings. I go with the words of Christ and Joseph Smith.

[lemuel]

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.)

[shadow]

Snuffer is a moron and his followers, if they believe he has the keys to the kingdom because he once served as a high councilman, are also morons. The council has authority as a council. Snuffster was released from the council long before he was even exed. He was released. Get it? Someone aught to clue him in.

He didn't say that. He said that he once served in the high council and he was not guilty of unrighteous dominion, as those quorums exercised UD upon him in 2013 - 2014. Got it?

People who commit UD, lose their priesthood. Period. So the brethren have lost theirs.

Denver testifies he got his priesthood first from man when the AP was conferred upon him, and then later by the voice and hand of God, when he received by oath and covenant by the voice of God the patriarchal priesthood.

So if you want to lawyer it, he has the priesthood.

And if you want to lawyer it, he will LOSE that priesthood if he abuses it.

First, it's important to note that no unrighteous dominion was exercised against Denver Snuffer. none whatsoever. In fact, Denver mentions plenty of times that President Hunt worked with him for over a year to get him to stop teaching the false notion that the church and it's leaders were apostate.

Secondly, just so you get it from his own words-

"God in His wisdom saw fit before I was excommunicated from the LDS Church to call me into a
quorum equal in authority with the First Presidency, the Quorum of the 12, and the 70. Unlike
these others who dismissed me from the church, I did not exercise control, dominion and
authority over others. The priesthood I hold cannot be regarded as having come to an end, if I
was excommunicated without just cause. "Amen" to the priesthood or the authority of those that
exercise unrighteous dominion. So if you want to lawyer this, I can tell you, I hold the keys of
the kingdom." -Snuff

His context is that since he once served in a quorum he somehow retained the authority the quorum held. He said it right there^^.

Also note, again, that he claims he was ex'd without just cause, however, as I've pointed out to you before, Joseph Smith said if you refuse to attend your court like Snuffer did then your excommunication is valid and just simply because you chose to not attend. Of course, Snufferites refuse much of what Joseph taught or simply can't understand it so it's no wonder that this simple thing is waaay over your head and it boggles your mind why I bring it up. It turns out that Snuffer lost the Priesthood. That's a fact. Those who refuse this fact also by default refuse to acknowledge Joseph's teachings. It's gotta be tough being a Snuffer and claiming to be a follower of Joseph Smith. The mental gymnastics one has to take can't be healthy long term. Like when Thomas says the church is apostate because the top leaders get a stipend but somehow in his brain he's either justified or forgot that Joseph Smith caused leaders from Prophet (himself) to Bishops to get paid by the church, even allowing Patriarchs (his own father) to charge for Patriarchal Blessings. That's probably waaay over your head too. Like Thomas, you won't be able to process it. See, if the church is apostate because they pay leaders a stipend, then Joseph Smith was also apostate. If people who refuse to attend their courts are justly excommunicated as Joseph taught, then Snuffer's excommunication was also valid because he refused to attend his court. QED, you don't believe Joseph Smith. Maybe ask your son to help you think it through.

[Thomas]

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]

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.

[underdog]

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.

The point is its not about rank. It is about conforming to will of heaven. you cannot continue to defy God and keep the keys. You have to be a good steward of those keys. You have to use them in accordance of the will of God.

These are your fleshly reasonings. I go with the words of Christ and Joseph Smith.

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;

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!"

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."

The very nature of that argument is ABUSE.

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?

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. 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.

• 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.
  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.

• 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.

Then, with Denver, there is crickets (silence from critics) as far as any abuse of authority . There are not only zero facts, but there's even a lack of allegations. 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.

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 partial list above is damning, is it not? The only argument is, "to what degree of apostasy has the Church slid?" 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.

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.