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.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).
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.
What do we learn about bishoprics in D&C 68?D&C 107:15 The bishopric is the presidency of this [Aaronic] priesthood, and holds the keys or authority of the same.
In verse 20 it also mentions that he also has to be ordained.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.
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:
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.