[Deleted]

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
e-eye2.0
captain of 100
Posts: 454

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by e-eye2.0 »

moving2zion wrote: November 14th, 2017, 10:45 pm They will become a side comment like the other splinter groups.
I think they already have. Other than here who has really heard of this movement. You have a handful of members that know of them and then when it comes to the mission to preach the gospel to all the world not going so well, even with all the media outlets.

drtanner
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1850

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by drtanner »

jdt wrote: November 15th, 2017, 10:57 am
drtanner wrote: November 15th, 2017, 9:37 am Not sure how anyone could read what he had written about the temple and then how he attempts to justify it and not clearly see the truth. This is beyond crystal clear.
Were his "attempts to justify" incorrect? Were his descriptions of the temple during Hannah's time and during Christ's time not correct? Do they not demonstrate situations of dubious priesthood leaders while faithful people having meaningful experiences at the temple?
Being allowed to go and “pray in faith” is a little different than performing ordinances and seeing anscestors. Crystal clear what is going on.

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by jdt »

drtanner wrote: November 15th, 2017, 12:37 pm
jdt wrote: November 15th, 2017, 10:57 am
drtanner wrote: November 15th, 2017, 9:37 am Not sure how anyone could read what he had written about the temple and then how he attempts to justify it and not clearly see the truth. This is beyond crystal clear.
Were his "attempts to justify" incorrect? Were his descriptions of the temple during Hannah's time and during Christ's time not correct? Do they not demonstrate situations of dubious priesthood leaders while faithful people having meaningful experiences at the temple?
Being allowed to go and “pray in faith” is a little different than performing ordinances and seeing anscestors. Crystal clear what is going on.
How about seeing an angel who says your son, born to your post-menopausal wife, will be the one to prepare the way for the Lord?

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by jdt »

drtanner wrote: November 15th, 2017, 12:37 pm
jdt wrote: November 15th, 2017, 10:57 am
drtanner wrote: November 15th, 2017, 9:37 am Not sure how anyone could read what he had written about the temple and then how he attempts to justify it and not clearly see the truth. This is beyond crystal clear.
Were his "attempts to justify" incorrect? Were his descriptions of the temple during Hannah's time and during Christ's time not correct? Do they not demonstrate situations of dubious priesthood leaders while faithful people having meaningful experiences at the temple?
Being allowed to go and “pray in faith” is a little different than performing ordinances and seeing anscestors. Crystal clear what is going on.
The heart of the problem is this: many LDS like to make leaps in logic. On my mission, I was taught by my mission president (and have heard it taught many times since), to have investigators gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon, that then proves the Priesthood was restored through Joseph, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints today is the true and only church. Is that a logical progression? Does it work when a Catholic says the New Testament is God's word, therefore Peter was the first Pope, and the Roman Catholic Church is the true and only church today?
President Hinckley taught a similar false dichotomy with the idea that the Church is either all true or the greatest scam ever perpetuated (paraphrased). Does this mean that if you feel the Spirit directing in you in your calling that President Monson is the Lord's true prophet on the earth today? To me, it does not. It just means that the Lord is helping you serve.
This situation is a microcosm of it. In your own mind, does Denver seeing his ancestors and their desire for ordinances effectively prove the President Monson is the Prophet (assuming Denver's account is true)? This is why we are having this conversation. I don't think it should prove anything one way or the other with regards to President Monson, any more than Gabriel's visit to Zacharias validated the Sanhedrin of the time, and so on.
I also think this accounts for much of anxiety Latter-Day Saints feel towards the Remnant. Many interpret (perhaps not consciously) a position that President Monson is not the Lord's Prophet as by extension a claim that everything, every member of the Church does is vile wickedness, or a great scam. I do not interpret it that way at all. Latter-Day Saints do many great things and continue to enjoy the companionship of the Holy Ghost. I do not doubt that people still have good and meaningful experiences in the Temple to this day.

drtanner
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1850

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by drtanner »

jdt wrote: November 15th, 2017, 12:47 pm
drtanner wrote: November 15th, 2017, 12:37 pm
jdt wrote: November 15th, 2017, 10:57 am
drtanner wrote: November 15th, 2017, 9:37 am Not sure how anyone could read what he had written about the temple and then how he attempts to justify it and not clearly see the truth. This is beyond crystal clear.
Were his "attempts to justify" incorrect? Were his descriptions of the temple during Hannah's time and during Christ's time not correct? Do they not demonstrate situations of dubious priesthood leaders while faithful people having meaningful experiences at the temple?
Being allowed to go and “pray in faith” is a little different than performing ordinances and seeing anscestors. Crystal clear what is going on.
How about seeing an angel who says your son, born to your post-menopausal wife, will be the one to prepare the way for the Lord?
I would never use that experience to illustrate that I had ancestors request ordinances in the temple but yet all the leadeship was in apostasy and expect people to take me seriously.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

jdt wrote: November 15th, 2017, 8:52 am
For context here are some more quotes on the matter from his blog:
To the one asking how to reconcile my ancestors contacting me while I did ordinances in the Jordan River Temple for them and the possibility we were rejected, I would respond as follows: Rejection of the church is not rejection of the individual. IF (and I have always left that tentative and for each person to decide for themselves) there has been a rejection, that does not mean anything other than the organized efforts were unacceptable. Each individual is accountable for their own conduct. There was a Temple rebuilt by Herod, presided over by wicked men who would kill the Lord, and yet He called it His “Father’s house.” In that Temple a publican came in and offered a great offering, and was rejected. A widow, however, entered and gave but a farthing, and she was accepted. The difference was not the building, nor the act of paying, but the intent of the individual. In the same Temple there can be acceptable work and unacceptable work proceeding simultaneously.
Well, righteous Hannah went up to the Tabernacle, and Hannah in faith was praying at the Tabernacle. And to give you an idea of the lowly state of the Tabernacle in that day, drunkenness was so common place there that when Eli saw her praying, her lips were moving but there were
no words coming out, he assumed she was like the rest of them. She was just another drunk. He was a little upset at the drunken woman at the Tabernacle and so he complained to her. Eli in verse 14 of 1 Samuel said: "And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken? put away thy
wine from thee." And Hannah says, No I'm not. I've come here to pray. In verse 17, Eli answered and said, "Go in peace and the God of Israel grant thee thy petition that thou hast asked of him."
A faithless, wicked, insubordinate priest who will be slain by the hand of God with his sons and his grandson, on this day is enabled by the worthiness of Hannah, to give to Hannah through her faith a blessing from God. This is a true principal. It is the worthiness of the recipient that drives blessings. Nothing is withheld from those with faith. Even a wicked High Priest can confer a blessing upon the worthy.
This is because in the ordinances the power of God is manifest. Not because of some white shirt wearing, dark suit clad, institutional chap with a certificate given to him by the institution and common consent allowing him to perform an ordinance. It is not that at all. But it will be in every case because you come in faith to God believing, and you wrestle a blessing from God, through the means He has allowed for it to be bestowed: by your faith. You can have God take note of your diligence, and your faith.
I want to suggest that, if you go to a patriarch in the Church, in faith believing, that God is able through any inspired man giving a blessing, by the power of the Holy Ghost without regard to priesthood. Remember priesthood is animated by the power of the Holy Ghost. Bring that with you. Anything done by the power of the Holy Ghost comes from God.
In large measure your faith matters far more than you think it does. I know a great deal more than I knew at the time I went to the Jordan River temple to perform vicarious work for deceased ancestors for the first time. However I have related an incident in one of the little vignettes in
The Second Comforter. I went to the temple in faith believing on that day. I met eleven of my ancestors who were redeemed because of my faith. They could use any condition in which they can find the rites, any tattered ruins left, they could use so long as there was faith on the earth to
act in their behalf.
Keep in mind John wrested the keys from the Jews, who would within a generation kill both John and Jesus. Holding keys does not seem to be do be an endorsement of the holder.
And section 137 also plays a part in this as well. Are authoritative ordinances for the dead required or not, or sometimes? If sometimes, then when?
There are a couple of big difference I see between Denver Snuffer's experience with his ancestors and the stories he cited later. In his first example he was doing work for the dead. The other two were for the living. Does it make a difference? Absolutely. If you go to the temple in faith, seeking a blessing for yourself, then you need faith. And, if you have that, it can be granted to you.

With his ancestors, though, the work was for the dead. We know the keys were active because his ancestors basically told him so from beyond the grave. In fact, I don't see what the other two cases have to do with keys at all. The first case was about making an offering, and the other about seeking a blessing. I didn't see any ordinances taking place at all. Did I miss something?

Also, I don't know how else to put it except that this following quote is full of false doctrine.
I went to the temple in faith believing on that day. I met eleven of my ancestors who were redeemed because of my faith. They could use any condition in which they can find the rites, any tattered ruins left, they could use so long as there was faith on the earth to act in their behalf.
Denver Snuffer's faith did not redeem his ancestors. That's false doctrine. Your faith cannot redeem anyone else. Those ancestors were redeemed through their own faith on the Lord Jesus Christ. He may have done the work, he may have provided the body, but those men chose to be worthy of it. It was their own faith and repentance that allowed the baptism and other work to be efficacious.

Now compare the other quote about tattered rites with Joseph Smith's own words from D&C 128.
9 It may seem to some to be a very bold doctrine that we talk of—a power which records or binds on earth and binds in heaven. Nevertheless, in all ages of the world, whenever the Lord has given a dispensation of the priesthood to any man by actual revelation, or any set of men, this power has always been given. Hence, whatsoever those men did in authority [with the keys], in the name of the Lord, and did it truly and faithfully, and kept a proper and faithful record of the same, it became a law on earth and in heaven, and could not be annulled, according to the decrees of the great Jehovah. This is a faithful saying. Who can hear it?
Keys are what allow the ordinances to bind on earth and in heaven. His ancestors had to have faith and repent to be redeemed, but the ordinances would not have worked for them without the keys.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

jdt wrote: November 15th, 2017, 8:52 am And section 137 also plays a part in this as well. Are authoritative ordinances for the dead required or not, or sometimes? If sometimes, then when?
I'm glad that you brought up section 137. It gave me a chance to deepen my understanding of that section. In there, he sees several people in the celestial kingdom, including his mother, father, and Alvin.
5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;
That means that he wasn't seeing a current vision, because in 1836 the resurrection hadn't happened yet. His father, mother, and Alvin would be in the spirit world. So it must be a vision of the future. And we believe that before the work is finished, everyone will have all of their ordinances completed. They might choose not to accept them, but the temple work all needs to be completed. So authoritative ordinances are required for the dead every time. Note that he says "shall" be heirs, not "are" heirs already. The only exception I can think of are children who die before accountability. In the scripture it simply says they "are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven". So the only temple work we do for them is sealing to parents.
7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by jdt »

silk wrote: November 15th, 2017, 2:22 pm There are a couple of big difference I see between Denver Snuffer's experience with his ancestors and the stories he cited later. In his first example he was doing work for the dead. The other two were for the living. Does it make a difference? Absolutely. If you go to the temple in faith, seeking a blessing for yourself, then you need faith. And, if you have that, it can be granted to you.

With his ancestors, though, the work was for the dead. We know the keys were active because his ancestors basically told him so from beyond the grave. In fact, I don't see what the other two cases have to do with keys at all. The first case was about making an offering, and the other about seeking a blessing. I didn't see any ordinances taking place at all. Did I miss something?

Also, I don't know how else to put it except that this following quote is full of false doctrine.
I went to the temple in faith believing on that day. I met eleven of my ancestors who were redeemed because of my faith. They could use any condition in which they can find the rites, any tattered ruins left, they could use so long as there was faith on the earth to act in their behalf.
Denver Snuffer's faith did not redeem his ancestors. That's false doctrine. Your faith cannot redeem anyone else. Those ancestors were redeemed through their own faith on the Lord Jesus Christ. He may have done the work, he may have provided the body, but those men chose to be worthy of it. It was their own faith and repentance that allowed the baptism and other work to be efficacious.

Now compare the other quote about tattered rites with Joseph Smith's own words from D&C 128.
9 It may seem to some to be a very bold doctrine that we talk of—a power which records or binds on earth and binds in heaven. Nevertheless, in all ages of the world, whenever the Lord has given a dispensation of the priesthood to any man by actual revelation, or any set of men, this power has always been given. Hence, whatsoever those men did in authority [with the keys], in the name of the Lord, and did it truly and faithfully, and kept a proper and faithful record of the same, it became a law on earth and in heaven, and could not be annulled, according to the decrees of the great Jehovah. This is a faithful saying. Who can hear it?
Keys are what allow the ordinances to bind on earth and in heaven. His ancestors had to have faith and repent to be redeemed, but the ordinances would not have worked for them without the keys.
Another interesting question came to my mind, as I thought about it more: It seems implicit that we are trusting Denver's ancestors that they are asking for the right thing. If these were mortals asking for baptism, we probably would not read to much into the request (mortals make mistakes about was is needed for salvation all the time). Do the dead have a better understanding? How different is their experience from ours? Honestly I don't know the answer, but it is an interesting thought. So to answer your question does the fact that they were dead vs living make a difference, well only if the dead are more knowledgeable or trustworthy than the living.

As for false doctrine, how would you classify this statement:
D&C128:22 Brethren, shall we not go on in so great a cause? Go forward and not backward. Courage, brethren; and on, on to the victory! Let your hearts rejoice, and be exceedingly glad. Let the earth break forth into singing. Let the dead speak forth anthems of eternal praise to the King Immanuel, who hath ordained, before the world was, that which would enable us to redeem them out of their prison; for the prisoners shall go free.
This statement seems to intimate that the Lord does enable people to redeem the dead from their prison (though it does not say whether this is by faith or some other means). Denver's statement seems similar to this one to me. True, it is likely not a phrase I would use personally. But it does seem validated from scripture.

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by jdt »

silk wrote: November 15th, 2017, 3:58 pm
jdt wrote: November 15th, 2017, 8:52 am And section 137 also plays a part in this as well. Are authoritative ordinances for the dead required or not, or sometimes? If sometimes, then when?
I'm glad that you brought up section 137. It gave me a chance to deepen my understanding of that section. In there, he sees several people in the celestial kingdom, including his mother, father, and Alvin.
5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;
That means that he wasn't seeing a current vision, because in 1836 the resurrection hadn't happened yet. His father, mother, and Alvin would be in the spirit world. So it must be a vision of the future. And we believe that before the work is finished, everyone will have all of their ordinances completed. They might choose not to accept them, but the temple work all needs to be completed. So authoritative ordinances are required for the dead every time. Note that he says "shall" be heirs, not "are" heirs already. The only exception I can think of are children who die before accountability. In the scripture it simply says they "are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven". So the only temple work we do for them is sealing to parents.
7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.
He also saw his father and mother who were both still alive at the time. So yes, I think it must have been a vision of the future (unless the transcript should really be his "Father and Mother", but then again he sees the "Father and Son" in verse 3). But it is odd that Joseph used the past tense in verse 6:
6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.

e-eye2.0
captain of 100
Posts: 454

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by e-eye2.0 »

jdt wrote: November 16th, 2017, 10:18 am
silk wrote: November 15th, 2017, 3:58 pm
jdt wrote: November 15th, 2017, 8:52 am And section 137 also plays a part in this as well. Are authoritative ordinances for the dead required or not, or sometimes? If sometimes, then when?
I'm glad that you brought up section 137. It gave me a chance to deepen my understanding of that section. In there, he sees several people in the celestial kingdom, including his mother, father, and Alvin.
5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;
That means that he wasn't seeing a current vision, because in 1836 the resurrection hadn't happened yet. His father, mother, and Alvin would be in the spirit world. So it must be a vision of the future. And we believe that before the work is finished, everyone will have all of their ordinances completed. They might choose not to accept them, but the temple work all needs to be completed. So authoritative ordinances are required for the dead every time. Note that he says "shall" be heirs, not "are" heirs already. The only exception I can think of are children who die before accountability. In the scripture it simply says they "are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven". So the only temple work we do for them is sealing to parents.

7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.
He also saw his father and mother who were both still alive at the time. So yes, I think it must have been a vision of the future (unless the transcript should really be his "Father and Mother", but then again he sees the "Father and Son" in verse 3). But it is odd that Joseph used the past tense in verse 6:
6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.
Every time I see you post and I read your name jdt, I yell out in my mind jtp! - Sorry, you would only get that if you watched The Goldberg's.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

jdt wrote: November 15th, 2017, 8:06 am Yes, this has been a fairly busy week and I thought it was somewhat rhetorical. But I am still interested in the conversation.
I think your post was pretty good. It does beg a couple of questions to my mind:
How are keys transmitted?
Can a man give another man keys?
Is there such a thing as keys to be Bishop? Can they be transmitted/transferred? (More expansively, what keys do exist?)
Is there a way to falsifiably determine if a person holds keys or not? If so what is it?
Assuming the answer is that man can give keys to another man, how extensively can this be done? For example, did Alma the Elder offer an authoritative baptism in the wilderness? Did he have keys, where did he get them? Was he able to give them to the priests and teachers he ordained in the wilderness?
I've been working on answers to these questions, but some of them are not as easy as I thought they would be. Since you've also done studied keys, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on them as well. I think having someone else to discuss the answers with would be very helpful. I'll be starting on them in a day or so, but it might take me a while to get through them.

Just wanted to let you know that I'm not ignoring them, and I haven't forgotten them.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

jdt wrote: November 16th, 2017, 9:52 am
Another interesting question came to my mind, as I thought about it more: It seems implicit that we are trusting Denver's ancestors that they are asking for the right thing. If these were mortals asking for baptism, we probably would not read to much into the request (mortals make mistakes about was is needed for salvation all the time). Do the dead have a better understanding? How different is their experience from ours? Honestly I don't know the answer, but it is an interesting thought. So to answer your question does the fact that they were dead vs living make a difference, well only if the dead are more knowledgeable or trustworthy than the living.

As for false doctrine, how would you classify this statement:
D&C128:22 Brethren, shall we not go on in so great a cause? Go forward and not backward. Courage, brethren; and on, on to the victory! Let your hearts rejoice, and be exceedingly glad. Let the earth break forth into singing. Let the dead speak forth anthems of eternal praise to the King Immanuel, who hath ordained, before the world was, that which would enable us to redeem them out of their prison; for the prisoners shall go free.
This statement seems to intimate that the Lord does enable people to redeem the dead from their prison (though it does not say whether this is by faith or some other means). Denver's statement seems similar to this one to me. True, it is likely not a phrase I would use personally. But it does seem validated from scripture.
I'll be the first to admit that I over-reacted to Denver's statement. After reading the scripture you provided, I see that I was thinking of this definition: "to atone for", and he was likely using this one: "to free from what distresses or harms". So while another human could not atone for an ancestor (that, of course, requires the Savior), he could free the ancestors from prison by taking their names to the temple and performing ordinances that use keys. So my apologies. That was badly done on my part.

As to your question/thought about the spirit world, I think that takes us into supposition. I enjoy going there, actually, because it means I don't have to do a lot of research. So here are my thoughts. We know that the gospel is preached in the spirit world, and my guess is that they talk about keys a lot more than we do. Why is that? Well, they can't offer baptism to a convert; only vicarious baptism by someone on earth. So the convert is going to be very concerned as to how someone getting baptized on earth could have any effect on them at all. That brings them to keys, and the fact that the ordinances can bind beyond death. I assume that the Holy Ghost would still testify of truth there as well.

Then, of course, don't forget that they have people there like Joseph Smith Jr. After the investigator is ready to get baptized, maybe the missionaries take him/her to a big conference where Joseph Smith Jr. talks about his experience with keys -- how he got them, how he passed them on, and what they mean for people in the spirit world. Then he might talk about the path of the keys from his time to the present -- with people like Brigham Young and even Gordon B. Hinckley to add their testimonies. They would all testify that the keys are active and that ordinances in the temple are binding. At that point, the people would probably get really excited, kind of like Denver Snuffer's ancestors were.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

jdt,

While looking for answers to your questions, I happened upon the story of Hiram Page. Could you please help me to understand how you reconcile this to the Remnant beliefs?

From 1:109-110 in History of the Church
Brother Hiram Page had in his possession a certain stone, by which he had obtained certain "revelations" concerning the upbuilding of Zion, the order of the Church, etc., all of which was entirely at variance with the order of God's house, as laid down in the New Testament, as well as in our late revelations.
Since the Whitmer family and Oliver Cowdery were believing what was said, Joseph inquired of the Lord and received D&C 28.
11 And again, thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him;

12 For, behold, these things have not been appointed unto him, neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants.

Just to clarify, the church covenants are found in D&C 20.

So, one way that Satan tried to attack the church was by sending false revelations that the church should be ordered differently than in D&C 20. Why would he do that? I think it's because two of D&C 20's concerns are priesthood organization and ordinances, both of which require keys.

Using D&C 20 as a standard, let's look at just two things that priests in the Aaronic Priesthood are authorized to do:
46 The priest’s duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, and administer the sacrament,
Now let's look at the Remnant's ordination policy:
There are people coming from different faiths to associate with fellowships, including RLDS or Community of Christ, fundamentalist groups, and other splinter “Mormon” denominations. Some of these have been previously ordained within their affiliations. These, like men who are Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran or other Christian faiths will need to be sustained and ordained. They should understand something about priesthood before being sustained. Once sustained, when ordaining someone to serve in these fellowships ordain no one to an office, only confer priesthood. Let everyone be equal. Keep lines of authority. It will reckon through the one who confers the priesthood. But power can only come from Christ. First time ordinations (after April 2014) should be done within a fellowship. All who are ordained in these communities should keep a record of the line of authority and pass it down. Be prepared to defend those lines of authority using the records kept.” (Preserving the Restoration, pgs. 512 – 513)
Do you see the problem? No one is ordained to any office in the priesthood. I don't understand it. If equality was the intention, why not just ordain everyone to the office of a priest?

The problem is that without the office of a priest, how can anyone baptize or administer the sacrament?

Please help me to understand this. I'm really confused.

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by jdt »

silk wrote: November 16th, 2017, 4:27 pm
jdt wrote: November 15th, 2017, 8:06 am Yes, this has been a fairly busy week and I thought it was somewhat rhetorical. But I am still interested in the conversation.
I think your post was pretty good. It does beg a couple of questions to my mind:
How are keys transmitted?
Can a man give another man keys?
Is there such a thing as keys to be Bishop? Can they be transmitted/transferred? (More expansively, what keys do exist?)
Is there a way to falsifiably determine if a person holds keys or not? If so what is it?
Assuming the answer is that man can give keys to another man, how extensively can this be done? For example, did Alma the Elder offer an authoritative baptism in the wilderness? Did he have keys, where did he get them? Was he able to give them to the priests and teachers he ordained in the wilderness?
I've been working on answers to these questions, but some of them are not as easy as I thought they would be. Since you've also done studied keys, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on them as well. I think having someone else to discuss the answers with would be very helpful. I'll be starting on them in a day or so, but it might take me a while to get through them.

Just wanted to let you know that I'm not ignoring them, and I haven't forgotten them.
These are not trivial questions (as you know).
Let me speak in generalities first: there are times when it is mentioned that keys are given, like the Mount of Transfiguration and Kirtland Temple (these instances it is usually from an angel to a person). Then there is the wording of D&C 13 that seems to imply that the keys merely belong to the priesthood itself and not something that is held by a select few. In turn in D&C 107 says the Bishopric holds the keys to the Aaronic Priesthood. But then this begs the question, were Joseph and Oliver ever a Bishop? If not did they hold the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood? Continuing on, there are many references to people simply holding them and with no mention of when or where they got them (this is probably the most common). So where does that leaves us?
As for transmission from man to man, at least in regards to administering a Church, we see a good example in the Book of Mormon with Alma Sr handing over the reigns to Alma the younger. But Alma the Elder is an interesting case. He formed a Church of believers in the wilderness and performed baptisms (valid ones I believe) there. But then when he gets to Zarahemla, King Mosiah basically gives him permission to create Churches there. I really do not quite know what to make of this dynamic. If Alma held keys to ordain priests in the wilderness, why get the power from Mosiah?
It was no accident I picked Bishop as the office to discuss. It is interesting because it seems that a lineal descendant of Aaron simply hold those keys by virtue of his lineage. He apparently does not need to obtain them or hold the office via ordination.
Part of the problem is that the scriptural accounts don't use the same terminology that Joseph used (he used keys and legal administrator), whereas these terms are entirely missing from the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, in general each dispensation seems to use its own organizational structure. This makes things really difficult to see clear patterns. Take Nephi of 3rd Nephi, he was a prophet before Christ's visit right? He led the church right? Surely he baptized people as part of that right? Why did Christ then re-ordain and instruct them to be baptized as part of his visit?
The falsifiability is a important point to me. I don't think this is something anyone can just claim. There has to be some sort evidence or fruit. But what is it? Take the descendant of Aaron and the Bishopric. How do we know? Just revelation? That does not sit right to me. I think there was a quote in the Teachings where Joseph basically said that by publishing the revelations that they show that the keys are again on the earth. I kind of like that. But this changes the nature of the search from looking for a person who claims keys to instead someone through whom revelation is given.

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by jdt »

silk wrote: November 16th, 2017, 5:20 pm jdt,

While looking for answers to your questions, I happened upon the story of Hiram Page. Could you please help me to understand how you reconcile this to the Remnant beliefs?

From 1:109-110 in History of the Church
Brother Hiram Page had in his possession a certain stone, by which he had obtained certain "revelations" concerning the upbuilding of Zion, the order of the Church, etc., all of which was entirely at variance with the order of God's house, as laid down in the New Testament, as well as in our late revelations.
Since the Whitmer family and Oliver Cowdery were believing what was said, Joseph inquired of the Lord and received D&C 28.
11 And again, thou shalt take thy brother, Hiram Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him;

12 For, behold, these things have not been appointed unto him, neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants.

Just to clarify, the church covenants are found in D&C 20.

So, one way that Satan tried to attack the church was by sending false revelations that the church should be ordered differently than in D&C 20. Why would he do that? I think it's because two of D&C 20's concerns are priesthood organization and ordinances, both of which require keys.

Using D&C 20 as a standard, let's look at just two things that priests in the Aaronic Priesthood are authorized to do:
46 The priest’s duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, and administer the sacrament,
Now let's look at the Remnant's ordination policy:
There are people coming from different faiths to associate with fellowships, including RLDS or Community of Christ, fundamentalist groups, and other splinter “Mormon” denominations. Some of these have been previously ordained within their affiliations. These, like men who are Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran or other Christian faiths will need to be sustained and ordained. They should understand something about priesthood before being sustained. Once sustained, when ordaining someone to serve in these fellowships ordain no one to an office, only confer priesthood. Let everyone be equal. Keep lines of authority. It will reckon through the one who confers the priesthood. But power can only come from Christ. First time ordinations (after April 2014) should be done within a fellowship. All who are ordained in these communities should keep a record of the line of authority and pass it down. Be prepared to defend those lines of authority using the records kept.” (Preserving the Restoration, pgs. 512 – 513)
Do you see the problem? No one is ordained to any office in the priesthood. I don't understand it. If equality was the intention, why not just ordain everyone to the office of a priest?

The problem is that without the office of a priest, how can anyone baptize or administer the sacrament?

Please help me to understand this. I'm really confused.
I see the model of ordaining to the priesthood and not an office ratified in Church History:
69 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.
70 He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter; and he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards he should baptize me.
71 Accordingly we went and were baptized. I baptized him first, and afterwards he baptized me—after which I laid my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic Priesthood, and afterwards he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same Priesthood—for so we were commanded.
This is also curious because they performed the baptism first before the ordination. Perhaps since they were ordaining each other, they needed to be baptized so they could be filled with the Holy Ghost first?
And keep in mind section 20 was not the be-all end-all in Joseph's day. They added the offices of High Priest and Apostle (in 1830 an Apostle was a person who was a witness of Christ, hence the bit about Apostle being an elder) afterwards. Section 20 was largely based on the Book of Mormon office model, but that omitted deacons. I agree wholeheartedly that changing the organization is not something to be done lightly. But one of the great follies of the gentiles is an over-reliance on claimed titles and offices (and keys). It seems like wisdom to me to avoid that folly like the plague and do away with these things as much as possible. Let the message you share be the evidence of your authority.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

jdt wrote: November 16th, 2017, 7:36 pm I see the model of ordaining to the priesthood and not an office ratified in Church History:
69 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.
70 He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter; and he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards he should baptize me.
71 Accordingly we went and were baptized. I baptized him first, and afterwards he baptized me—after which I laid my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic Priesthood, and afterwards he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same Priesthood—for so we were commanded.
This is also curious because they performed the baptism first before the ordination. Perhaps since they were ordaining each other, they needed to be baptized so they could be filled with the Holy Ghost first?
And keep in mind section 20 was not the be-all end-all in Joseph's day. They added the offices of High Priest and Apostle (in 1830 an Apostle was a person who was a witness of Christ, hence the bit about Apostle being an elder) afterwards. Section 20 was largely based on the Book of Mormon office model, but that omitted deacons. I agree wholeheartedly that changing the organization is not something to be done lightly. But one of the great follies of the gentiles is an over-reliance on claimed titles and offices (and keys). It seems like wisdom to me to avoid that folly like the plague and do away with these things as much as possible. Let the message you share be the evidence of your authority.
Are you just quoting Denver Snuffer? Do you really say things like this in your real life?
But one of the great follies of the gentiles is an over-reliance on claimed titles and offices (and keys). It seems like wisdom to me to avoid that folly like the plague and do away with these things as much as possible. Let the message you share be the evidence of your authority.
I think it's interesting that Denver Snuffer says it's "wisdom in me", but he doesn't claim any revelation for doing it. Does he explain the revelation he received elsewhere to allow him to dismantle the church organization?
Let the message you share be the evidence of your authority.
This seems like good advice at first glance. But what if your message is that you have authority to offering binding baptism because you have priesthood keys? (That's supposed to be a joke, in case it doesn't come through.)

I can look up what Denver Snuffer thinks, but I'd really like to know what you think and believe. And why. Have you really seen an over-reliance on claimed titles and offices (and keys)? I would love some examples that you have personally experienced.

I don't think you can do away with them (the offices and keys, anyway), without falling into apostasy. Did you read my thread on "Faith vs. Works vs. Restoration"? You need both principles and ordinances. When Jesus was on the earth, when he came to the Nephites, and when he brought in this dispensation, he formed a church specifically. Unless you think that God set them up to fail, maybe a church is important. Remember -- Hiram Page received revelation to change the organization and was rebuked for it because it was from Satan.

I'm not sure I see Joseph/Oliver's initial experience as a model; I see it as the exception. I think it had something to do with the introduction of the dispensation as you also intimated. Have you read History of the Church Volume 1? I highly recommend it. Joseph/Oliver's initial time is the only time I have seen priesthood without offices. In Chapter 7 it talks about them receiving the Melchizedek Priesthood, and the Lord said that Joseph
should ordain Oliver to be an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ; and that he also should ordain me to the same office; and then to ordain others, as it should be made known unto us from time to time. We were, however, commanded to defer this our ordination until such times as it should be practicable to have our brethren, who had been and who should be baptized, assembled together, when we must have their sanction to our thus proceeding to ordain each other....
In this case, they were to be ordained to an office, but it was delayed until they had organized the church (and received the sanction of the others). Maybe the office has to be within the church as well as within the priesthood? That might explain it. This is Joseph at the organization:
I then laid my hands upon Oliver Cowdery, and ordained him an Elder of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" after which he ordained me also to the office of an Elder of said Church.
.....
We now proceeded to call out and ordain some others of the brethren to different offices of the Priesthood, according as the Spirit manifested unto us....
I'm going to give you some counsel, jdt, and I hope you will take it in the spirit in which I intend it -- which is in the spirit of love and concern.

Don't substitute what Denver Snuffer says for your own answers. I really appreciate your study/results/questions on keys because I can see that you have put a lot of time and thought into it. At other times, I see the results of you going to Denver Snuffer's writing, slapping something together, and then putting it as your own answer. Those are very clearly not from you. Did you really think about Hiram Page? Did you read from the scriptures and think about it? And, most importantly -- have you ever really entertained the thought that Denver Snuffer might be wrong about anything?

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by jdt »

Comments inline
silk wrote: November 16th, 2017, 8:56 pm
jdt wrote: November 16th, 2017, 7:36 pm I see the model of ordaining to the priesthood and not an office ratified in Church History:
69 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.
70 He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter; and he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards he should baptize me.
71 Accordingly we went and were baptized. I baptized him first, and afterwards he baptized me—after which I laid my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic Priesthood, and afterwards he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same Priesthood—for so we were commanded.
This is also curious because they performed the baptism first before the ordination. Perhaps since they were ordaining each other, they needed to be baptized so they could be filled with the Holy Ghost first?
And keep in mind section 20 was not the be-all end-all in Joseph's day. They added the offices of High Priest and Apostle (in 1830 an Apostle was a person who was a witness of Christ, hence the bit about Apostle being an elder) afterwards. Section 20 was largely based on the Book of Mormon office model, but that omitted deacons. I agree wholeheartedly that changing the organization is not something to be done lightly. But one of the great follies of the gentiles is an over-reliance on claimed titles and offices (and keys). It seems like wisdom to me to avoid that folly like the plague and do away with these things as much as possible. Let the message you share be the evidence of your authority.
Are you just quoting Denver Snuffer? No this is all me Do you really say things like this in your real life? LOL. Sometimes if I wax poetic
But one of the great follies of the gentiles is an over-reliance on claimed titles and offices (and keys). It seems like wisdom to me to avoid that folly like the plague and do away with these things as much as possible. Let the message you share be the evidence of your authority.
I think it's interesting that Denver Snuffer says it's "wisdom in me", but he doesn't claim any revelation for doing it. Does he explain the revelation he received elsewhere to allow him to dismantle the church organization? Not that I know.
Let the message you share be the evidence of your authority.
This seems like good advice at first glance. But what if your message is that you have authority to offering binding baptism because you have priesthood keys? (That's supposed to be a joke, in case it doesn't come through.)

I can look up what Denver Snuffer thinks, but I'd really like to know what you think and believe. And why. Have you really seen an over-reliance on claimed titles and offices (and keys)? I would love some examples that you have personally experienced.
Let me strike straight to the heart, then give some examples. This is the third time I have issued this challenge on LDSFF (and once to my old stake president) and no one has yet attempted an answer. I claim plainly that all power and influence in the LDS church is maintained by virtue of priesthood, priesthood office and priesthood keys, in direct violation of section 121. Use this hypothetical situation where you take all the words from President Monson while he has been the President of the Church (you can add in the time he was apostle too if you wish), and let them be spoken by a ward physical facilities rep in some corner of the world. Does anyone care? Does anyone say wow these words really touched my heart and post quotes from the talk to facebook? Does anyone say how prophetic they are and how greatful they are to have a PFR who speaks the mind of God (and so on with the other things that people do with President Monson's words? And also do the flip side, take the sacrament meeting talk from your local PFR (assume he is not too eccentric) and have President Monson merely read those words in conference. Would people know the difference in message? I think the answer is that the message is largely irrelevant in the LDS church and the only thing that matters is priesthood of the speaker. Person has the right office, the message is of God, the speaker does not have the right office and the message is basically meaningless. I plainly state this model is not of God.
Now for examples, first from church history:
Take this quote that continues to be published in manuals and spoke in local as well as general meetings:
I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home. … Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.’

This is completely indefensible from a scriptural standpoint or one of common sense for that matter.
How this rolls forth to today:
My mission president spoke about obedience, and read all kinds of scriptures about it, but it was not obedience to the Lord or the Gospel or to eternal law, but rather to his arbitrary rules and guidelines. Not to the follow the Spirit, but to do things he said (like his own personal modified first discussion).
There was a member of my old ward who repeatedly said "I love to hear people speak who hold keys". Need a message from the Lord, nope, have the Spirit, not necessary, having an office is all that matters. And even if people don't say this, this idea permeates the entire church and is encouraged from the top, not discouraged.
Are people given topics from the scriptures to speak about in sacrament meeting? Nope, here is a general conference talk to speak about. I find it odd that there are topics at all. The speakers at general conference are expected to obtain the Spirit and speak as It directs. Why are rank and file members not trusted in the same regard? (Answer because the "thinking is done" by the time information gets to them)
On this same note: you get this odd name dropping effect where a church leader will quote a higher church leader who in turn is quoting someone else (i.e. a general relief society president saying something like "Elder Oaks in general conference said 'In 1928 Hugh B Brown said "..." ' ". rather than "In 1928 Hugh B Brown said '..' ". Why the need for the middle man?
And at the core of it (maybe your ward is different), ask the question: in any given meeting, what is the focus of it? Keep a tally, Jesus and the Gospel vs Priesthood leaders and keys. Who wins?
By extension ask yourself this question, which will get a person into disciplinary trouble faster: saying that you have serious doubts that Jesus was the Son of God, he seems like a nice guy with good advice but I don't think he has any more special connection to heaven than say Buddha, or saying that you have serious doubts that President Monson holds any keys and is a Prophet, he seems like a nice guy with good advice but I don't think he has any more special a connection to heaven than say a baptist minister.
When my wife and I told our Bishop we were leaving the Church: we discussed the word of wisdom, how Section 89 point-blank says that mild-barley drinks(beer) are for man. Heber J Grant effectively overrode Joseph's revelation and said no, we are going to abstain from all alcohol and ignore the bit about not by commandment. Did he receive a revelation to do so? We have no evidence of it, he likely just used his power as President of the Church to make a policy change. The Bishop's opinion was that the revelation or not really did not matter, he was the President and essentially can make any change he wants. Don't get me wrong, alcohol has done an immeasurable amount of harm to mankind. But I am looking for messengers from my Father, not those who inject their own advice as teachings from God.


I don't think you can do away with them (the offices and keys, anyway), without falling into apostasy. Did you read my thread on "Faith vs. Works vs. Restoration"? You need both principles and ordinances. To be clear, I have not said that legal administrators, keys,
and ordinances are not important or that I would do away with them. They are important. I ask the question: how could someone have known John wrested the keys, kingdom and glory from the Jews (going back again to falsifiability)? How would someone know if Denver wrested the keys from the LDS Church (or didn't for that matter)? What could you objectively offer as evidence in either case? For me, the only objective difference is the message they teach. So I refocus more on message and take a lesser emphasis on keys (they are important, but far less observable).
When Jesus was on the earth, when he came to the Nephites, and when he brought in this dispensation, he formed a church specifically. Unless you think that God set them up to fail, maybe a church is important. I believe that the success or failure is dependent upon the people and their repentance. In the Nephite case it was a great success. That cannot be discounted. Remember -- Hiram Page received revelation to change the organization and was rebuked for it because it was from Satan.Yes, but does this extend to every change in organization?
Of course not. As pointed out earlier, Joseph added High Priests and Apostles after Section 20. Was that of Satan? It appears that the organization can be quite dynamic. At first, Joseph seemed to focus quite a bit on a strict hierarchy with the first presidency at the top. Then by Section 107 makes the Apostles, Seventy, and High Council equal in authority with the First Presidency. He adds the Presiding Patriarch role with his father filling the role, then his brother. His father sat in the seat of highest honor at the Kirtland Temple dedication. And then finally by section 121, he reveals that we ought not be maintaining any power or influence by virtue of the Priesthood, only by persuation, long suffering, gentleness, and so on,
things that are available to every person in the world member or not, man or woman. This shows quite a bit decentralization even during Joseph's life. It has since been undone (yet another change) and the LDS church is back to a highly hierarchical model. Hiram Page is a great caution in the domain of making changes to organization, but ultimately each change has to weighed on its own merits.


I'm not sure I see Joseph/Oliver's initial experience as a model; I see it as the exception. I think it had something to do with the introduction of the dispensation as you also intimated. Have you read History of the Church Volume 1? I highly recommend it. Joseph/Oliver's initial time is the only time I have seen priesthood without offices. In Chapter 7 it talks about them receiving the Melchizedek Priesthood, and the Lord said that Joseph
should ordain Oliver to be an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ; and that he also should ordain me to the same office; and then to ordain others, as it should be made known unto us from time to time. We were, however, commanded to defer this our ordination until such times as it should be practicable to have our brethren, who had been and who should be baptized, assembled together, when we must have their sanction to our thus proceeding to ordain each other....
In this case, they were to be ordained to an office, but it was delayed until they had organized the church (and received the sanction of the others). Maybe the office has to be within the church as well as within the priesthood? That might explain it. This is my guess too. But it seems then that the offices are more a function of the Church rather than inherent to the Priesthood. This is Joseph at the organization:
I then laid my hands upon Oliver Cowdery, and ordained him an Elder of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" after which he ordained me also to the office of an Elder of said Church.
.....
We now proceeded to call out and ordain some others of the brethren to different offices of the Priesthood, according as the Spirit manifested unto us....
I'm going to give you some counsel, jdt, and I hope you will take it in the spirit in which I intend it -- which is in the spirit of love and concern.

Don't substitute what Denver Snuffer says for your own answers. I really appreciate your study/results/questions on keys because I can see that you have put a lot of time and thought into it. At other times, I see the results of you going to Denver Snuffer's writing, slapping something together, and then putting it as your own answer. Those are very clearly not from you. Did you really think about Hiram Page? Did you read from the scriptures and think about it? And, most importantly -- have you ever really entertained the thought that Denver Snuffer might be wrong about anything?This cannot be stated often enough. And I thank you for it. One of my main beefs with LDS mormonism, is the "never question the prophet" rule. But that is where I came from and I need to guard against still doing that with Denver. And I basically stated this is one of the greatest issues we (gentiles) have today, and I include myself in that. So getting reminded of this early and often is a very good thing.
To be fair, I don't know what you know. So when you posted the bit about the Jordan River Temple from the Second Comforter, I was aware he had since discussed it more, but did not know if you were aware of that or not, so I just provide that information for reference. Furthermore, I don't have all the answers either. On a great many subjects, I know very little, on some I have opinions, and on others I feel pretty comfortable with the conclusions I have come too. Sometimes I am finicky when it comes to the ones I know little about. If I am in a particular mood, I will write a lot.
If not, I don't write much. Hard to believe from our interactions, but I really don't write much on forums. It is just not my thing. I like reading,
but not posting. Hence I just hang back and answer any questions people ask the movement or try and correct what I find to be false information others make about it.

User avatar
kittycat51
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1793
Location: Looking for Zion

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by kittycat51 »

lemuel wrote: November 7th, 2017, 2:05 pm
Alma was baptizing Helam long before he met Mosiah. He had authority even though it came from wicked king Noah.
No. Not King Noah

Mosiah 18:13 And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God,

18 And it came to pass that Alma, having authority from God, ordained priests;

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

jdt wrote: November 17th, 2017, 10:37 am Comments inline
silk wrote: November 16th, 2017, 8:56 pm
jdt wrote: November 16th, 2017, 7:36 pm I see the model of ordaining to the priesthood and not an office ratified in Church History:
69 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.
70 He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter; and he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards he should baptize me.
71 Accordingly we went and were baptized. I baptized him first, and afterwards he baptized me—after which I laid my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic Priesthood, and afterwards he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same Priesthood—for so we were commanded.
This is also curious because they performed the baptism first before the ordination. Perhaps since they were ordaining each other, they needed to be baptized so they could be filled with the Holy Ghost first?
And keep in mind section 20 was not the be-all end-all in Joseph's day. They added the offices of High Priest and Apostle (in 1830 an Apostle was a person who was a witness of Christ, hence the bit about Apostle being an elder) afterwards. Section 20 was largely based on the Book of Mormon office model, but that omitted deacons. I agree wholeheartedly that changing the organization is not something to be done lightly. But one of the great follies of the gentiles is an over-reliance on claimed titles and offices (and keys). It seems like wisdom to me to avoid that folly like the plague and do away with these things as much as possible. Let the message you share be the evidence of your authority.
Are you just quoting Denver Snuffer? No this is all me Do you really say things like this in your real life? LOL. Sometimes if I wax poetic
But one of the great follies of the gentiles is an over-reliance on claimed titles and offices (and keys). It seems like wisdom to me to avoid that folly like the plague and do away with these things as much as possible. Let the message you share be the evidence of your authority.
I think it's interesting that Denver Snuffer says it's "wisdom in me", but he doesn't claim any revelation for doing it. Does he explain the revelation he received elsewhere to allow him to dismantle the church organization? Not that I know.
Let the message you share be the evidence of your authority.
This seems like good advice at first glance. But what if your message is that you have authority to offering binding baptism because you have priesthood keys? (That's supposed to be a joke, in case it doesn't come through.)

I can look up what Denver Snuffer thinks, but I'd really like to know what you think and believe. And why. Have you really seen an over-reliance on claimed titles and offices (and keys)? I would love some examples that you have personally experienced.
Let me strike straight to the heart, then give some examples. This is the third time I have issued this challenge on LDSFF (and once to my old stake president) and no one has yet attempted an answer. I claim plainly that all power and influence in the LDS church is maintained by virtue of priesthood, priesthood office and priesthood keys, in direct violation of section 121. Use this hypothetical situation where you take all the words from President Monson while he has been the President of the Church (you can add in the time he was apostle too if you wish), and let them be spoken by a ward physical facilities rep in some corner of the world. Does anyone care? Does anyone say wow these words really touched my heart and post quotes from the talk to facebook? Does anyone say how prophetic they are and how greatful they are to have a PFR who speaks the mind of God (and so on with the other things that people do with President Monson's words? And also do the flip side, take the sacrament meeting talk from your local PFR (assume he is not too eccentric) and have President Monson merely read those words in conference. Would people know the difference in message? I think the answer is that the message is largely irrelevant in the LDS church and the only thing that matters is priesthood of the speaker. Person has the right office, the message is of God, the speaker does not have the right office and the message is basically meaningless. I plainly state this model is not of God.
Now for examples, first from church history:
Take this quote that continues to be published in manuals and spoke in local as well as general meetings:
I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home. … Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.’

This is completely indefensible from a scriptural standpoint or one of common sense for that matter.
How this rolls forth to today:
My mission president spoke about obedience, and read all kinds of scriptures about it, but it was not obedience to the Lord or the Gospel or to eternal law, but rather to his arbitrary rules and guidelines. Not to the follow the Spirit, but to do things he said (like his own personal modified first discussion).
There was a member of my old ward who repeatedly said "I love to hear people speak who hold keys". Need a message from the Lord, nope, have the Spirit, not necessary, having an office is all that matters. And even if people don't say this, this idea permeates the entire church and is encouraged from the top, not discouraged.
Are people given topics from the scriptures to speak about in sacrament meeting? Nope, here is a general conference talk to speak about. I find it odd that there are topics at all. The speakers at general conference are expected to obtain the Spirit and speak as It directs. Why are rank and file members not trusted in the same regard? (Answer because the "thinking is done" by the time information gets to them)
On this same note: you get this odd name dropping effect where a church leader will quote a higher church leader who in turn is quoting someone else (i.e. a general relief society president saying something like "Elder Oaks in general conference said 'In 1928 Hugh B Brown said "..." ' ". rather than "In 1928 Hugh B Brown said '..' ". Why the need for the middle man?
And at the core of it (maybe your ward is different), ask the question: in any given meeting, what is the focus of it? Keep a tally, Jesus and the Gospel vs Priesthood leaders and keys. Who wins?
By extension ask yourself this question, which will get a person into disciplinary trouble faster: saying that you have serious doubts that Jesus was the Son of God, he seems like a nice guy with good advice but I don't think he has any more special connection to heaven than say Buddha, or saying that you have serious doubts that President Monson holds any keys and is a Prophet, he seems like a nice guy with good advice but I don't think he has any more special a connection to heaven than say a baptist minister.
When my wife and I told our Bishop we were leaving the Church: we discussed the word of wisdom, how Section 89 point-blank says that mild-barley drinks(beer) are for man. Heber J Grant effectively overrode Joseph's revelation and said no, we are going to abstain from all alcohol and ignore the bit about not by commandment. Did he receive a revelation to do so? We have no evidence of it, he likely just used his power as President of the Church to make a policy change. The Bishop's opinion was that the revelation or not really did not matter, he was the President and essentially can make any change he wants. Don't get me wrong, alcohol has done an immeasurable amount of harm to mankind. But I am looking for messengers from my Father, not those who inject their own advice as teachings from God.


I don't think you can do away with them (the offices and keys, anyway), without falling into apostasy. Did you read my thread on "Faith vs. Works vs. Restoration"? You need both principles and ordinances. To be clear, I have not said that legal administrators, keys,
and ordinances are not important or that I would do away with them. They are important. I ask the question: how could someone have known John wrested the keys, kingdom and glory from the Jews (going back again to falsifiability)? How would someone know if Denver wrested the keys from the LDS Church (or didn't for that matter)? What could you objectively offer as evidence in either case? For me, the only objective difference is the message they teach. So I refocus more on message and take a lesser emphasis on keys (they are important, but far less observable).
When Jesus was on the earth, when he came to the Nephites, and when he brought in this dispensation, he formed a church specifically. Unless you think that God set them up to fail, maybe a church is important. I believe that the success or failure is dependent upon the people and their repentance. In the Nephite case it was a great success. That cannot be discounted. Remember -- Hiram Page received revelation to change the organization and was rebuked for it because it was from Satan.Yes, but does this extend to every change in organization?
Of course not. As pointed out earlier, Joseph added High Priests and Apostles after Section 20. Was that of Satan? It appears that the organization can be quite dynamic. At first, Joseph seemed to focus quite a bit on a strict hierarchy with the first presidency at the top. Then by Section 107 makes the Apostles, Seventy, and High Council equal in authority with the First Presidency. He adds the Presiding Patriarch role with his father filling the role, then his brother. His father sat in the seat of highest honor at the Kirtland Temple dedication. And then finally by section 121, he reveals that we ought not be maintaining any power or influence by virtue of the Priesthood, only by persuation, long suffering, gentleness, and so on,
things that are available to every person in the world member or not, man or woman. This shows quite a bit decentralization even during Joseph's life. It has since been undone (yet another change) and the LDS church is back to a highly hierarchical model. Hiram Page is a great caution in the domain of making changes to organization, but ultimately each change has to weighed on its own merits.


I'm not sure I see Joseph/Oliver's initial experience as a model; I see it as the exception. I think it had something to do with the introduction of the dispensation as you also intimated. Have you read History of the Church Volume 1? I highly recommend it. Joseph/Oliver's initial time is the only time I have seen priesthood without offices. In Chapter 7 it talks about them receiving the Melchizedek Priesthood, and the Lord said that Joseph
should ordain Oliver to be an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ; and that he also should ordain me to the same office; and then to ordain others, as it should be made known unto us from time to time. We were, however, commanded to defer this our ordination until such times as it should be practicable to have our brethren, who had been and who should be baptized, assembled together, when we must have their sanction to our thus proceeding to ordain each other....
In this case, they were to be ordained to an office, but it was delayed until they had organized the church (and received the sanction of the others). Maybe the office has to be within the church as well as within the priesthood? That might explain it. This is my guess too. But it seems then that the offices are more a function of the Church rather than inherent to the Priesthood. This is Joseph at the organization:
I then laid my hands upon Oliver Cowdery, and ordained him an Elder of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" after which he ordained me also to the office of an Elder of said Church.
.....
We now proceeded to call out and ordain some others of the brethren to different offices of the Priesthood, according as the Spirit manifested unto us....
I'm going to give you some counsel, jdt, and I hope you will take it in the spirit in which I intend it -- which is in the spirit of love and concern.

Don't substitute what Denver Snuffer says for your own answers. I really appreciate your study/results/questions on keys because I can see that you have put a lot of time and thought into it. At other times, I see the results of you going to Denver Snuffer's writing, slapping something together, and then putting it as your own answer. Those are very clearly not from you. Did you really think about Hiram Page? Did you read from the scriptures and think about it? And, most importantly -- have you ever really entertained the thought that Denver Snuffer might be wrong about anything?This cannot be stated often enough. And I thank you for it. One of my main beefs with LDS mormonism, is the "never question the prophet" rule. But that is where I came from and I need to guard against still doing that with Denver. And I basically stated this is one of the greatest issues we (gentiles) have today, and I include myself in that. So getting reminded of this early and often is a very good thing.
To be fair, I don't know what you know. So when you posted the bit about the Jordan River Temple from the Second Comforter, I was aware he had since discussed it more, but did not know if you were aware of that or not, so I just provide that information for reference. Furthermore, I don't have all the answers either. On a great many subjects, I know very little, on some I have opinions, and on others I feel pretty comfortable with the conclusions I have come too. Sometimes I am finicky when it comes to the ones I know little about. If I am in a particular mood, I will write a lot.
If not, I don't write much. Hard to believe from our interactions, but I really don't write much on forums. It is just not my thing. I like reading,
but not posting. Hence I just hang back and answer any questions people ask the movement or try and correct what I find to be false information others make about it.
I appreciate your comments, more than I can say. They help me to understand much more where you're coming from. I can tell that we've had very different experiences in church. Maybe that comes from my growing up far away from Utah.

You know what? I realized that we're being a bit silly about all of this. It occurred to me this morning that we're both acting like Denver Snuffer is dead. We're acting like he's not on earth to answer our questions.

We're asking about authoritative keys, right? Those are the ones needed to administer the ordinances. And Article of 5 states:
5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
In D&C 27 it seems to imply that Joseph Smith received the keys of the kingdom when he was ordained an apostle:
12 And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them;

13 Unto whom I have committed the keys of my kingdom, and a dispensation of the gospel for the last times; and for the fulness of times, in the which I will gather together in one all things, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth;
And D&C 84 talks about John being ordained by an angel, which might be where he got his. (Although I hope there were good witnesses, because it sounds like he was 8 days old at the time.)
28 For he was baptized while he was yet in his childhood, and was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all power.
So if we accept that receiving keys of administration comes from laying on of hands, then solving this problem should be fairly easy.

Call/Email Denver Snuffer and ask him. Being an attorney, I'm sure he has a listed number and email, and you would only have to ask a few questions. Here's what I would ask (although you might have better ideas):

1. Did you wrest the keys from the LDS church?
2. If so, how did you get them?
3. If so, and they left the church in April, why didn't you realize it until May 1st?
4. How do we gain access to those keys when we baptize or ordain in our fellowships?

That's all it would take. Then you would have your answer as to whether Denver Snuffer believes that he has them, and we wouldn't be going around in circles.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

jdt wrote: November 17th, 2017, 10:37 am
Let me strike straight to the heart, then give some examples. This is the third time I have issued this challenge on LDSFF (and once to my old stake president) and no one has yet attempted an answer. I claim plainly that all power and influence in the LDS church is maintained by virtue of priesthood, priesthood office and priesthood keys, in direct violation of section 121. Use this hypothetical situation where you take all the words from President Monson while he has been the President of the Church (you can add in the time he was apostle too if you wish), and let them be spoken by a ward physical facilities rep in some corner of the world. Does anyone care? Does anyone say wow these words really touched my heart and post quotes from the talk to facebook? Does anyone say how prophetic they are and how greatful they are to have a PFR who speaks the mind of God (and so on with the other things that people do with President Monson's words? And also do the flip side, take the sacrament meeting talk from your local PFR (assume he is not too eccentric) and have President Monson merely read those words in conference. Would people know the difference in message? I think the answer is that the message is largely irrelevant in the LDS church and the only thing that matters is priesthood of the speaker. Person has the right office, the message is of God, the speaker does not have the right office and the message is basically meaningless. I plainly state this model is not of God.
Now for examples, first from church history:
Take this quote that continues to be published in manuals and spoke in local as well as general meetings:
I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home. … Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.’
This is completely indefensible from a scriptural standpoint or one of common sense for that matter.
How this rolls forth to today:
My mission president spoke about obedience, and read all kinds of scriptures about it, but it was not obedience to the Lord or the Gospel or to eternal law, but rather to his arbitrary rules and guidelines. Not to the follow the Spirit, but to do things he said (like his own personal modified first discussion).
There was a member of my old ward who repeatedly said "I love to hear people speak who hold keys". Need a message from the Lord, nope, have the Spirit, not necessary, having an office is all that matters. And even if people don't say this, this idea permeates the entire church and is encouraged from the top, not discouraged.
Are people given topics from the scriptures to speak about in sacrament meeting? Nope, here is a general conference talk to speak about. I find it odd that there are topics at all. The speakers at general conference are expected to obtain the Spirit and speak as It directs. Why are rank and file members not trusted in the same regard? (Answer because the "thinking is done" by the time information gets to them)
On this same note: you get this odd name dropping effect where a church leader will quote a higher church leader who in turn is quoting someone else (i.e. a general relief society president saying something like "Elder Oaks in general conference said 'In 1928 Hugh B Brown said "..." ' ". rather than "In 1928 Hugh B Brown said '..' ". Why the need for the middle man?
And at the core of it (maybe your ward is different), ask the question: in any given meeting, what is the focus of it? Keep a tally, Jesus and the Gospel vs Priesthood leaders and keys. Who wins?
By extension ask yourself this question, which will get a person into disciplinary trouble faster: saying that you have serious doubts that Jesus was the Son of God, he seems like a nice guy with good advice but I don't think he has any more special connection to heaven than say Buddha, or saying that you have serious doubts that President Monson holds any keys and is a Prophet, he seems like a nice guy with good advice but I don't think he has any more special a connection to heaven than say a baptist minister.
When my wife and I told our Bishop we were leaving the Church: we discussed the word of wisdom, how Section 89 point-blank says that mild-barley drinks(beer) are for man. Heber J Grant effectively overrode Joseph's revelation and said no, we are going to abstain from all alcohol and ignore the bit about not by commandment. Did he receive a revelation to do so? We have no evidence of it, he likely just used his power as President of the Church to make a policy change. The Bishop's opinion was that the revelation or not really did not matter, he was the President and essentially can make any change he wants. Don't get me wrong, alcohol has done an immeasurable amount of harm to mankind. But I am looking for messengers from my Father, not those who inject their own advice as teachings from God.
There was a lot in your comments, so I'm going to take it bit by bit. I hope that doesn't cause more confusion.

First of all, let me just say that I sense anger and frustration in your comments, but also sadness and maybe even betrayal. (If I'm reading into those feelings, I apologize. That's just what came through to me, but I might be projecting.) I'm sorry that you've been through so much negativity, and that it weighs you down you even now. I doubt that anything I say has the power to take that away; I only hope and pray that nothing will add to the bitterness you already feel. Please accept my comments knowing that at the outset.

First I'd like to talk about church. Then I hope to get around to obedience and leadership (eventually).

As I already stated, your experience in the church has been vastly different from mine. I'm actually somewhat bewildered by many of the charges you bring, because they are nothing that I have dealt with. For example, in our ward when someone is asked to speak, they are not given a topic. They are told to speak on whatever they choose. If the person asks for guidance, only then a topic is issued. So that sounds like a cultural thing, and not church-wide. However, I can understand assigning a topic from the leadership's point of view. Often when I do a Family Home Evening lesson I will choose a topic specifically because it's something that our family needs to work on. I can see them doing the same thing -- seeing a need, praying about who should speak on it, and then assigning the talk.

I think you would have really liked my home teacher growing up. He was a straightforward person. He would always say -- "Stop quoting other people. Tell me what you know."

Maybe I shouldn't admit this, but most of my favorite talks were not given in General Conference. In fact, my all-time favorite talk was given by a college student in our ward who had just returned from a semester abroad in Jerusalem. She said that through her experience, she had realized that she was a sinner, and because of that needed Jesus Christ's atonement. It struck me like a lightning bolt from heaven. I was a young teen at the time, and I knew at that moment that I also was a sinner and needed Jesus Christ in my life. In fact, I think returned missionary talks are among those I look forward to the most. I feel the Spirit so strongly when they testify as to how the gospel of Jesus Christ changes lives.

I also think you would have liked my father. Every morning he would pray for our family to have the Spirit to be with us. I didn't understand why that was so important until I was much older, but I think about it often now.
And at the core of it (maybe your ward is different), ask the question: in any given meeting, what is the focus of it? Keep a tally, Jesus and the Gospel vs Priesthood leaders and keys. Who wins?
Yes, my ward is very different from yours if Priesthood leaders and keys are the focus of your meetings.

I wanted to address the name-dropping thing really quickly. If you look at it objectively, it probably goes something like this. Someone is reading a talk/lesson, and they like the quote, so they use it. That's all. There are many cases in the scriptures where people quote others. There's tons of Isaiah in there, as well as words from other prophets. In 2 Nephi 3 you have Nephi quoting Lehi who was quoting Joseph (who was sold into Egypt).

The first questions in the temple recommend interview are about Jesus Christ. So if you don't have a testimony of Him, the interview will stop and you will be referred to your bishop immediately. Not having a testimony of a current prophet is secondary to your testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ.

My time is up. I'll have to continue this later.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

jdt wrote: November 17th, 2017, 10:37 am I ask the question: how could someone have known John wrested the keys, kingdom and glory from the Jews (going back again to falsifiability)? How would someone know if Denver wrested the keys from the LDS Church (or didn't for that matter)? What could you objectively offer as evidence in either case? For me, the only objective difference is the message they teach. So I refocus more on message and take a lesser emphasis on keys (they are important, but far less observable).
This is a good question. I talked about it with Thomas at one point, but I'll go through it again. Since you've already researched keys, you know the information already -- I'll just put it into context.

I'll agree that most of the Jews missed it completely. But then again, they missed a whole new dispensation coming in, so their powers of observation were noticeably lacking.

In our day John the Baptist would be a presiding bishop, because it holds the keys of the Aaronic priesthood.
D&C 107:15 The bishopric is the presidency of this [Aaronic] priesthood, and holds the keys or authority of the same.
What do we learn about bishoprics in D&C 68?
16 And if they be literal descendants of Aaron they have a legal right to the bishopric, if they are the firstborn among the sons of Aaron;
...
18 No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this priesthood, except he be a literal descendant and the firstborn of Aaron.
In verse 20 it also mentions that he also has to be ordained.

So did John the Baptist fulfill the requirements? Yes. Only Aaron and his sons could hold the office of a priest, and his father was a priest. And he was the firstborn. Also, he was ordained to it. D&C 84:
28 For he was baptized while he was yet in his childhood, and was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all power.
So then, does Denver Snuffer have a legal right to the bishopric, to hold the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood? The answer is no. He doesn't. I don't know if he's a firstborn, but as far as I can tell he's never claimed to be a literal descendant of Aaron. And, in this dispensation, even if he happened to fulfill all of the other requirements, the ordaining is very specifically spelled out.
D&C 68:20 And a literal descendant of Aaron, also, must be designated by this Presidency, and found worthy, and anointed, and ordained under the hands of this Presidency, otherwise they are not legally authorized to officiate in their priesthood.
Finally, I'm really starting to wonder whether Denver Snuffer even believes that the keys are real. You've already read the quote on him not believing they were essential for salvation because of their absence from the Book of Mormon. Here's another one that seems to pit keys against revelation as determining church leadership. (As you know, I believe both are essential.) It's about the succession of the church after Joseph Smith died.
The argument was between Sidney (who claimed revelation) and Brigham Young (who claimed to have “keys”). As a result, the debate required the church to choose between Sidney’s claims based on revelation and accept Brigham Young’s administrative “keys” as the source. Brigham Young’s leadership theory (that anyone could lead if prayed for by the membership) would have allowed the church to have both if Sidney were sustained. But Brigham Young’s insistence on having control in his quorum forced a vote by the Nauvoo Saints. The vote resulted in abandoning revelation in favor of administrative “keys” –a choice which has affected church history ever since.
Whenever I read something from him about administrative keys, there's a very negative feel to it. In this case, it seems like he would have preferred that Sidney were the new leader. But if the keys had been abandoned, then we would have returned to apostasy.

gardener4life
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1690

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by gardener4life »

Traits of Korihor;

Korihor denied the current prophets and apostles. He taught that the prophets of old didn't connect with the current prophet's teachings. He denied the divinity of current doctrine and in the process of receiving revelation to current leaders. He taught for his own gain and to gain his own followers. He sought to go out and convert people to 'his doctrine' against the current church authorities. He frequently thought up and used elaborately clever illusions, which came from the devil to try to get people to deny Christ and the modern priesthood lineage of his day. He taught to trust in the flesh and might of self first, and having contention to win by pushing others down not necessarily physically, but mentally.

Why is the story of Korihor in the book of Mormon? Doesn't it sound familiar? Can you see how the traits Korihor exhibits resemble certain people today, maybe even that try to mask themselves in this site?

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by jdt »

silk wrote: November 18th, 2017, 11:58 am There was a lot in your comments, so I'm going to take it bit by bit. I hope that doesn't cause more confusion.

First of all, let me just say that I sense anger and frustration in your comments, but also sadness and maybe even betrayal. (If I'm reading into those feelings, I apologize. That's just what came through to me, but I might be projecting.) I'm sorry that you've been through so much negativity, and that it weighs you down you even now. I doubt that anything I say has the power to take that away; I only hope and pray that nothing will add to the bitterness you already feel. Please accept my comments knowing that at the outset.

First I'd like to talk about church. Then I hope to get around to obedience and leadership (eventually).

As I already stated, your experience in the church has been vastly different from mine. I'm actually somewhat bewildered by many of the charges you bring, because they are nothing that I have dealt with. For example, in our ward when someone is asked to speak, they are not given a topic. They are told to speak on whatever they choose. If the person asks for guidance, only then a topic is issued. So that sounds like a cultural thing, and not church-wide. However, I can understand assigning a topic from the leadership's point of view. Often when I do a Family Home Evening lesson I will choose a topic specifically because it's something that our family needs to work on. I can see them doing the same thing -- seeing a need, praying about who should speak on it, and then assigning the talk.

I think you would have really liked my home teacher growing up. He was a straightforward person. He would always say -- "Stop quoting other people. Tell me what you know."

Maybe I shouldn't admit this, but most of my favorite talks were not given in General Conference. In fact, my all-time favorite talk was given by a college student in our ward who had just returned from a semester abroad in Jerusalem. She said that through her experience, she had realized that she was a sinner, and because of that needed Jesus Christ's atonement. It struck me like a lightning bolt from heaven. I was a young teen at the time, and I knew at that moment that I also was a sinner and needed Jesus Christ in my life. In fact, I think returned missionary talks are among those I look forward to the most. I feel the Spirit so strongly when they testify as to how the gospel of Jesus Christ changes lives.

I also think you would have liked my father. Every morning he would pray for our family to have the Spirit to be with us. I didn't understand why that was so important until I was much older, but I think about it often now.
And at the core of it (maybe your ward is different), ask the question: in any given meeting, what is the focus of it? Keep a tally, Jesus and the Gospel vs Priesthood leaders and keys. Who wins?
Yes, my ward is very different from yours if Priesthood leaders and keys are the focus of your meetings.

I wanted to address the name-dropping thing really quickly. If you look at it objectively, it probably goes something like this. Someone is reading a talk/lesson, and they like the quote, so they use it. That's all. There are many cases in the scriptures where people quote others. There's tons of Isaiah in there, as well as words from other prophets. In 2 Nephi 3 you have Nephi quoting Lehi who was quoting Joseph (who was sold into Egypt).

The first questions in the temple recommend interview are about Jesus Christ. So if you don't have a testimony of Him, the interview will stop and you will be referred to your bishop immediately. Not having a testimony of a current prophet is secondary to your testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ.

My time is up. I'll have to continue this later.
Writing by forum is a difficult form of communication. And I am not a very good writer to boot (maybe that is why I rarely post). Feelings are particularly difficult to convey. And often feelings exist in the moment you write. Let me try to add some more of my life's story.
I was a convert to Mormonism at 16. I grew up a semi-active catholic and when I heard the missionaries teach, my mind was instantly opened. I could not get enough of the teachings. I could see the ways that things fit together. And it was beautiful. I felt an immediate desire to repent. I was baptized (just me, my family has never been interested). I served a mission at 19. I loved teaching the Gospel. I got to see a little bit of the more "corporate side" of the church with the emphasis on numbers and goals and a good deal of "brown-nosers" getting called into leadership positions, but it was still a very positive experience. When I came home I observed that almost universally anyone who did not serve an LDS mission was worse off than when I left (drugs, alcohol, illegitimate children, you name it). Mormonism has undoubtedly saved me from much debauchery. And I still had a strong thirst and excitement for the Gospel. I got married in the temple at 23. But around the age of 27 (it was a somewhat slow process), church became a boring chore. I have a pretty good memory, and what was an informative lesson in Sunday School 4 years back, was simply a repeat the second time through with nothing new. I could literally remember the same questions being asked 4 years earlier. Sacrament meetings were quite dry, (especially when the transition in ward to having both adult speakers give talks on the same general conference address, which I had heard weeks/months back). Priesthood meetings were probably the most boring of all (the teachings of the Presidents idea was good in principle, but in implementation they basically decided what they wanted the topics to be and quote mined to find the supporting material. This lead to a lot of disjointed quotes cobbled together with a theme of pay your tithing, obey the word of wisdom and so on). What was a seemingly bottomless well of revelation from years back was all of the sudden very dry. I was still fully active, but not fully inspired.
Then in 2013, I came across LDSFF which included many discussion about Denver's message as well as other deeper conversations. And I instantly felt that this was what was missing. This was the call for higher things that I was not getting at church. And it made all the difference. The Gospel was delicious again. My desire to repent and study was back. I had questions pushing my understanding.
Now as I learned more and more, studying church history and the scriptures, I could see more and more shall we say difficulties with the LDS narrative. But I never came from a position of anger or resentment. It was more of a sense of it did a great many good things in my life, but is not complete. This is not true for many in the remnant but is my background.
So now we reach a difficult moment. Is the Church like Sanhedrin of Christ's day? Certainly not, they do not kill anyone or anything like unto it. Are they like Priests of Noah? Same thing, they outright killed Abinadi, it is not like that at all. But at the same time, are there significant issues? To me that is unquestioningly true. And I could live with that. We are all mortal. I don't expect perfect leaders, but I expect ones that are honest in their limitations. If you have what you think is good advice, give it, but make it clear this is advice. Don't put the stamp of this is from the Lord when it is not (I find this the true definition of taking the Lord's name in vain). You have a hard time receiving clear revelation from the Lord, hey so do I! Let's figure out how to overcome this fallen world together.

One more note: our local meetings may be very different, but we all went to the same general meetings. And there is a lot of priesthood key/brethren worship that permeates those meetings. You could still do the count the mentions of the brethren vs the Lord game in general conference (yes not all meetings are the same).

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by jdt »

silk wrote: November 18th, 2017, 8:10 pm
jdt wrote: November 17th, 2017, 10:37 am I ask the question: how could someone have known John wrested the keys, kingdom and glory from the Jews (going back again to falsifiability)? How would someone know if Denver wrested the keys from the LDS Church (or didn't for that matter)? What could you objectively offer as evidence in either case? For me, the only objective difference is the message they teach. So I refocus more on message and take a lesser emphasis on keys (they are important, but far less observable).
This is a good question. I talked about it with Thomas at one point, but I'll go through it again. Since you've already researched keys, you know the information already -- I'll just put it into context.

I'll agree that most of the Jews missed it completely. But then again, they missed a whole new dispensation coming in, so their powers of observation were noticeably lacking.

In our day John the Baptist would be a presiding bishop, because it holds the keys of the Aaronic priesthood.
D&C 107:15 The bishopric is the presidency of this [Aaronic] priesthood, and holds the keys or authority of the same.
What do we learn about bishoprics in D&C 68?
16 And if they be literal descendants of Aaron they have a legal right to the bishopric, if they are the firstborn among the sons of Aaron;
...
18 No man has a legal right to this office, to hold the keys of this priesthood, except he be a literal descendant and the firstborn of Aaron.
In verse 20 it also mentions that he also has to be ordained.

So did John the Baptist fulfill the requirements? Yes. Only Aaron and his sons could hold the office of a priest, and his father was a priest. And he was the firstborn. Also, he was ordained to it. D&C 84:
28 For he was baptized while he was yet in his childhood, and was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old unto this power, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all power.
So then, does Denver Snuffer have a legal right to the bishopric, to hold the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood? The answer is no. He doesn't. I don't know if he's a firstborn, but as far as I can tell he's never claimed to be a literal descendant of Aaron. And, in this dispensation, even if he happened to fulfill all of the other requirements, the ordaining is very specifically spelled out.
D&C 68:20 And a literal descendant of Aaron, also, must be designated by this Presidency, and found worthy, and anointed, and ordained under the hands of this Presidency, otherwise they are not legally authorized to officiate in their priesthood.
Finally, I'm really starting to wonder whether Denver Snuffer even believes that the keys are real. You've already read the quote on him not believing they were essential for salvation because of their absence from the Book of Mormon. Here's another one that seems to pit keys against revelation as determining church leadership. (As you know, I believe both are essential.) It's about the succession of the church after Joseph Smith died.
The argument was between Sidney (who claimed revelation) and Brigham Young (who claimed to have “keys”). As a result, the debate required the church to choose between Sidney’s claims based on revelation and accept Brigham Young’s administrative “keys” as the source. Brigham Young’s leadership theory (that anyone could lead if prayed for by the membership) would have allowed the church to have both if Sidney were sustained. But Brigham Young’s insistence on having control in his quorum forced a vote by the Nauvoo Saints. The vote resulted in abandoning revelation in favor of administrative “keys” –a choice which has affected church history ever since.
Whenever I read something from him about administrative keys, there's a very negative feel to it. In this case, it seems like he would have preferred that Sidney were the new leader. But if the keys had been abandoned, then we would have returned to apostasy.
My interpretation of the model you present with John the Baptist is that the keys were his by virtue of his lineage. It appears he did not need to wrest the keys from the Jews, because they were simply his by right. Neither Zachariah nor John were ever the High Priest. I don't see how this answers the statement about wresting (taking by force) the keys, the kingdom, and the glory.
Also I would be interested in your ideas on what a wresting of the keys would look like from an internal perspective, instead of saying why or how Denver did/could not have wrested the keys because of this or that, switch up the context and show me from a positive position how the LDS church still has the keys and did not lose them in April of 2014. This is kind of a 2 fold question, because in some ways you have to answer the question what it would look like if the keys were indeed lost, and then show the evidence that this has not happened. I realize this is a tough question and one likely uncomfortable for many to contemplate.
As for who Denver would follow in the succession crisis: I don't want to put words in his mouth, but as you have quoted earlier, he has stated that fellowships should only acknowledges priesthood ordination prior to 2014 from the LDS church and not any organization Sidney setup, David Whitmer setup, Joseph III, nor any fundamentalist off-shoot of the LDS church. It seems he acknowledges the Priesthood only descended through the LDS church.
One more thing to consider: during Christ's life, some doubted His claims. They reasoned that He could not be the Messiah, since He was from Nazareth (the propechies never said anything good coming from Nazareth!). Christ did not correct them and say He was born in Bethlehem and thus fulfilled the prophecies. In my opinion, He shouldn't have to. His message was so glorious it stood for itself. How do you think the Lord will respond to someone in the day of judgment who claims "Oh Lord if you just would have told me you were born in Bethlehem, I would have believed!"?
So if Denver did produce a genealogy showing decent from Aaron, would you then accept that he has keys and accept a new baptism and the covenant? I am projecting, but I say that those who do not accept the message he has shared to date would not be convinced by any claim of priesthood keys or lineage. People use that disprove his message, not as evidence to accept. If you want to ask him your questions above, feel free, but it would not surprise me if simply does not answer. I try to respect his personal life and time, and have never contacted him. Since I already believe his message has proven his authority and commission from heaven many times over, I am not going to ask him those questions. Obviously you can feel free to reach out to him about that or any other subject.
Peace be with you.

drtanner
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1850

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by drtanner »

jdt wrote: November 19th, 2017, 9:34 am
silk wrote: November 18th, 2017, 11:58 am There was a lot in your comments, so I'm going to take it bit by bit. I hope that doesn't cause more confusion.

First of all, let me just say that I sense anger and frustration in your comments, but also sadness and maybe even betrayal. (If I'm reading into those feelings, I apologize. That's just what came through to me, but I might be projecting.) I'm sorry that you've been through so much negativity, and that it weighs you down you even now. I doubt that anything I say has the power to take that away; I only hope and pray that nothing will add to the bitterness you already feel. Please accept my comments knowing that at the outset.

First I'd like to talk about church. Then I hope to get around to obedience and leadership (eventually).

As I already stated, your experience in the church has been vastly different from mine. I'm actually somewhat bewildered by many of the charges you bring, because they are nothing that I have dealt with. For example, in our ward when someone is asked to speak, they are not given a topic. They are told to speak on whatever they choose. If the person asks for guidance, only then a topic is issued. So that sounds like a cultural thing, and not church-wide. However, I can understand assigning a topic from the leadership's point of view. Often when I do a Family Home Evening lesson I will choose a topic specifically because it's something that our family needs to work on. I can see them doing the same thing -- seeing a need, praying about who should speak on it, and then assigning the talk.

I think you would have really liked my home teacher growing up. He was a straightforward person. He would always say -- "Stop quoting other people. Tell me what you know."

Maybe I shouldn't admit this, but most of my favorite talks were not given in General Conference. In fact, my all-time favorite talk was given by a college student in our ward who had just returned from a semester abroad in Jerusalem. She said that through her experience, she had realized that she was a sinner, and because of that needed Jesus Christ's atonement. It struck me like a lightning bolt from heaven. I was a young teen at the time, and I knew at that moment that I also was a sinner and needed Jesus Christ in my life. In fact, I think returned missionary talks are among those I look forward to the most. I feel the Spirit so strongly when they testify as to how the gospel of Jesus Christ changes lives.

I also think you would have liked my father. Every morning he would pray for our family to have the Spirit to be with us. I didn't understand why that was so important until I was much older, but I think about it often now.
And at the core of it (maybe your ward is different), ask the question: in any given meeting, what is the focus of it? Keep a tally, Jesus and the Gospel vs Priesthood leaders and keys. Who wins?
Yes, my ward is very different from yours if Priesthood leaders and keys are the focus of your meetings.

I wanted to address the name-dropping thing really quickly. If you look at it objectively, it probably goes something like this. Someone is reading a talk/lesson, and they like the quote, so they use it. That's all. There are many cases in the scriptures where people quote others. There's tons of Isaiah in there, as well as words from other prophets. In 2 Nephi 3 you have Nephi quoting Lehi who was quoting Joseph (who was sold into Egypt).

The first questions in the temple recommend interview are about Jesus Christ. So if you don't have a testimony of Him, the interview will stop and you will be referred to your bishop immediately. Not having a testimony of a current prophet is secondary to your testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ.

My time is up. I'll have to continue this later.
Writing by forum is a difficult form of communication. And I am not a very good writer to boot (maybe that is why I rarely post). Feelings are particularly difficult to convey. And often feelings exist in the moment you write. Let me try to add some more of my life's story.
I was a convert to Mormonism at 16. I grew up a semi-active catholic and when I heard the missionaries teach, my mind was instantly opened. I could not get enough of the teachings. I could see the ways that things fit together. And it was beautiful. I felt an immediate desire to repent. I was baptized (just me, my family has never been interested). I served a mission at 19. I loved teaching the Gospel. I got to see a little bit of the more "corporate side" of the church with the emphasis on numbers and goals and a good deal of "brown-nosers" getting called into leadership positions, but it was still a very positive experience. When I came home I observed that almost universally anyone who did not serve an LDS mission was worse off than when I left (drugs, alcohol, illegitimate children, you name it). Mormonism has undoubtedly saved me from much debauchery. And I still had a strong thirst and excitement for the Gospel. I got married in the temple at 23. But around the age of 27 (it was a somewhat slow process), church became a boring chore. I have a pretty good memory, and what was an informative lesson in Sunday School 4 years back, was simply a repeat the second time through with nothing new. I could literally remember the same questions being asked 4 years earlier. Sacrament meetings were quite dry, (especially when the transition in ward to having both adult speakers give talks on the same general conference address, which I had heard weeks/months back). Priesthood meetings were probably the most boring of all (the teachings of the Presidents idea was good in principle, but in implementation they basically decided what they wanted the topics to be and quote mined to find the supporting material. This lead to a lot of disjointed quotes cobbled together with a theme of pay your tithing, obey the word of wisdom and so on). What was a seemingly bottomless well of revelation from years back was all of the sudden very dry. I was still fully active, but not fully inspired.
Then in 2013, I came across LDSFF which included many discussion about Denver's message as well as other deeper conversations. And I instantly felt that this was what was missing. This was the call for higher things that I was not getting at church. And it made all the difference. The Gospel was delicious again. My desire to repent and study was back. I had questions pushing my understanding.
Now as I learned more and more, studying church history and the scriptures, I could see more and more shall we say difficulties with the LDS narrative. But I never came from a position of anger or resentment. It was more of a sense of it did a great many good things in my life, but is not complete. This is not true for many in the remnant but is my background.
So now we reach a difficult moment. Is the Church like Sanhedrin of Christ's day? Certainly not, they do not kill anyone or anything like unto it. Are they like Priests of Noah? Same thing, they outright killed Abinadi, it is not like that at all. But at the same time, are there significant issues? To me that is unquestioningly true. And I could live with that. We are all mortal. I don't expect perfect leaders, but I expect ones that are honest in their limitations. If you have what you think is good advice, give it, but make it clear this is advice. Don't put the stamp of this is from the Lord when it is not (I find this the true definition of taking the Lord's name in vain). You have a hard time receiving clear revelation from the Lord, hey so do I! Let's figure out how to overcome this fallen world together.

One more note: our local meetings may be very different, but we all went to the same general meetings. And there is a lot of priesthood key/brethren worship that permeates those meetings. You could still do the count the mentions of the brethren vs the Lord game in general conference (yes not all meetings are the same).
Thank you for sharing your story jdt, it helped to shed some light on where you are coming from and what it is you are looking for. My experience in the church has been similar but different. I also noticed the repetition but have never felt bored or as if I had hit a wall in my progression or studies. I can imagine the frustration when you feel as if progression has halted, and can see why it may have caused you to look for something more. I heard a humorous phrase a while back about the church, “the best kept secret in the church is the gospel.” And in reality it isn’t that it is kept secret but my experience has been that we are not very good at sharing how the gospel is changing and transforming our life. If you go back and look at the content in the lessons it really is amazing but if those teaching or participating are not experiencing the fruits of the gospel that in turn shines through in their passions, participation, and spirit during the lesson that is not the fault of the church. That is the fault of everyone in that room either not experiencing the things that would create the “fire” that would light a “fire” in others or not appropriately sharing what they are experiencing. I can also tell you I have been in meetings, lessons, and heard talks where this has taken place and the result is nothing short a miracle and has caused in me an feeling so overwhelming to turn to God with full purpose of heart, to repent, and to strive with all the energy I have to serve others. The gospel really isn’t so “deep” in terms of what we are expected to know/do In my opinion. It is as deep as loving god and others and trying to do these two things with all of our hearts. From what I have seen talking about calling and election, or rending the veil, or many other “mysteries” causes the finantical to surface and pushes many further away from the reality of these blessings rather than simply focusing on the two great commandments with faith like a child that all things are possible with God recognizing that all of these blessings are available because his church is on the earth.

Post Reply