[Deleted]

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

It seems that this introduces tiers of members, then.

The lowest tier are those who have been baptized, but only share the belief of the Doctrine of Christ.

The next tier up are those who have been baptized and believe in the Book of Mormon and the teachings of Denver Snuffer. To these people are offered the opportunity to accept the covenant. This lets them have a voice in the government, so to speak. (Meaning that they are the ones who get to have a say in policies such as the "Guide and Standard".) Those who are not of the covenant may not give input or vote.

Then there's apparently the third tier of people who are the leaders. These are the ones who are receiving revelation, offering covenants, speaking at the conferences, etc.

Is that how you see it too?

If you don't know who's part of the Remnant group, how are you to build Zion together? And if there's a full range of beliefs regarding core doctrines, how will you build Zion together?

Thomas
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4622

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by Thomas »

silk wrote: October 28th, 2017, 7:24 pm It seems that this introduces tiers of members, then.

The lowest tier are those who have been baptized, but only share the belief of the Doctrine of Christ.

The next tier up are those who have been baptized and believe in the Book of Mormon and the teachings of Denver Snuffer. To these people are offered the opportunity to accept the covenant. This lets them have a voice in the government, so to speak. (Meaning that they are the ones who get to have a say in policies such as the "Guide and Standard".) Those who are not of the covenant may not give input or vote.

Then there's apparently the third tier of people who are the leaders. These are the ones who are receiving revelation, offering covenants, speaking at the conferences, etc.

Is that how you see it too?

If you don't know who's part of the Remnant group, how are you to build Zion together? And if there's a full range of beliefs regarding core doctrines, how will you build Zion together?
No, there are no tiers. The idea of Zion is not conformity but tolerance and acceptance of diversity. That is how peace is achieved by letting others believe as they like or do what they like as long as it doesn't harm others. Zion cannot be achieved by forcing others to conform to your ideals.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

So, moral relativity instead of eternal truths then? As long as it doesn't hurt anyone?
Thomas -- That is how peace is achieved by letting others believe as they like or do what they like as long as it doesn't harm others.
That might be how peace is achieved, but it's not how Zion is achieved. Certainly there can be diversity about some things, but to build Zion, it must be built upon Celestial Principles. There is no other way. Doctrine and Covenants 105 is very clear on that:
5 And Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself.
People decide they don't want to live the law of chastity? Or consecration? Or righteousness? Or be of one heart and mind? Or take care of the poor among them? They don't want to be pure in heart? Zion cannot be built among those people. It is not compatible with celestial principles.

I disagree about there being no tiers. While they might not be officially delineated, there are things non-covenant members can't do, and things the covenant members (who are not leaders) can't. Let's take the "Guide and Standard" as an example.

A leader received revelation that it must be "adopted by the mutual agreement of my people.” Says who? What if a covenant member says that it doesn't have to be by mutual agreement? It doesn't matter, because the accepted leader has already stated otherwise. And since the people acknowledge the leaders, they abide by their words.

Next, about writing and voting on the document. Why am I not allowed to have input or a vote? Or why can't a non-covenant member? Because the remnant blog (written by accepted leaders) teaches that those who have accepted the covenant are the only ones who can mutually agree on it.
Next, notice that it must be adopted by the mutual agreement of “my people.” Prior to the covenant, the Lord did not claim a people, and therefore the requirement to write and adopt a statement could not be fully met. Considering the Lord’s careful distinctions about who He regards as His, and His warning about invoking His name, it makes sense that we cannot claim to have completed this work before receiving the covenant. As was discussed at Saturday’s conference session, this work is not yet complete. Rather than be led by a man or a committee, it must be done by those He has called His own.
So, definitely tiers.
Highest -- receiving revelation and making binding statements on the people who agree to follow those leaders.
Middle -- covenant members who feel claimed as the Lord's people, and thus have the duty/privilege to write/vote on the document.
Lowest -- non-covenant members who don't have any kind of a say, even if they have been baptized.

Thomas
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4622

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by Thomas »

Of course Zion is built on the principles of the Celestial Kingdom. You cant force people to live them though. They must choose to do it. The people of Zion will be gathered by supernatural means. Man will not judge who is in it or who is not. The movement has adopted the scriptures to guide themselves but there is no mechanism for enforcing it. People will either live it or they will not. Those who live it will be gathered. Those who do not will not be gathered.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

Dear Thomas,

Let me just say that this thread has been a great blessing in my life, and I think I understand you a little better now. My understanding is that you chose the Remnant path because you believed it would give you the best chance to become a Zion person. That is a noble goal, and I honor you for that desire.

I think by now our discussion has made it clear that the Remnant path will never create a unified, Zion people. You've been open in admitting such. Does it have the power to help a person become Zion-like? Or even a small group of them? I don't know, and you will have to decide for yourself once you've weighed the evidence. One main reason why it will never succeed as a whole, though, became very clear to me last night. The Remnant group lacks an important principle, a principle that is replete in the scriptures.

Stewardship -- having people in authority.

This principle was jettisoned by design, of course, because of its potential for unrighteous dominion. No one has stewardship over anyone else. Everyone is to be equal, with no one between the Lord and himself. But in doing so, you lost the good with the bad. Is there anything good about stewardship? Absolutely. The scriptures are full of it. In fact, many stories we have of righteous leaders are about stewardship.

I want to make a distinction here between a steward and a messenger/prophet. A messenger has teachings to give, but he never has responsibility over a people. The steward, on the other hand, has the responsibility. Sometimes the messenger is also the steward, such as with Moses and Enoch. But sometimes not. I have often heard Denver Snuffer compared to Abinadi or Samuel the Lamanite. In his appointed role, that might be an acceptable comparison. They were messengers who never had stewardship over a people, and I see that with Denver as well; he does not want responsibility for the people -- he only wants to present his truths. The missing element with Denver, however, is the steward. Alma the Elder was the steward for the people after Abinadi. And after hearing Samuel the Lamanite's words, the people went to Nephi for baptism, because he was the steward. This is the pattern of the Lord -- not just a message, but also a steward to lead God's people. The roles might be vested in different people, but they are always present.

Why a steward? Why is it important to have a person called of God to be in authority? Let's look at some of the reasons.
1. Stewards are called to keep the saving doctrines pure -- allowing people to be of one heart/mind in terms of what really matters.
2. They can receive revelation for those in their charge -- as a whole as well as individuals.
3. They can exercise God's power in behalf of the group like Moses or Enoch -- parting the Red Sea or causing mountains and rivers to change for their benefit. Do you think if Moses and Enoch weren't righteous stewards of their groups that they would have been given those powers?
4. Without people in authority, there is no preaching of the gospel or administering in the ordinances. Article of Faith 5 clearly teaches that:
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.
Compare the Remnant movement with the early Doctrine and Covenants. It seems like every other chapter was Joseph Smith receiving revelation for someone else, often telling him to go preach the gospel.
5. But the most important reason I see is that a steward has a responsibility to go after the one who strays. Let's look at the example of Alma the Younger. He was the chief judge, but also the high priest over the church. Seeing that his people were straying from the truth, he gave up his job and started traveling to them. He went to Zarahemla, Melek, and Ammonihah. Later he undertook a mission to reclaim the Zoramites, because he loved the people and because it was his responsibility to do so. Stewards are the shepherds -- the ones with the duty to leave the 99 and go after the one.

I had a bunch of examples, but I think I will forebear. As you read the scriptures, though, I encourage you to ponder and pray about the importance of stewardship in bringing about Zion.

User avatar
LukeAir2008
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2985
Location: Highland

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by LukeAir2008 »

Just been looking back at my old private messages and in 2013 I got a board warning from Jules for referring to the Prophet Denver Snuffer as the Profit Snuffer.

Yeh it’s true...

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

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by shadow »

5tev3 wrote: October 4th, 2017, 7:27 pm
SpeedRacer wrote: October 4th, 2017, 4:02 pm The LDSFF and Remnant cross again. No PTHG forum?
I think the OP raises an intriguing question. It's funny to me sometimes how vitriolic we are against fundamentalist and these so-called remnant groups yet maintain respect for other Christian groups, Jews, and even Muslims to a degree. The fundamentalists and remnant groups have more in common with us than anyone else. We all believe in the Book of Mormon, honor the contributions and doctrines taught by Joseph Smith and value the restoration.

We may have significant key differences but they are minor in comparison to what we may have with the rest of the religious world. I would wager that we might in some cases get along more with a fundamentalist or remnant person that some active Latter-day Saints that embrace extreme political persuasions or are more pharisaical in in their religious practice.

I've always appreciated the way the LDS church and the Community of Christ have worked together. We have a shared heritage and I like seeing both groups getting along well. Ideally, we'd get along with everyone but I don't see why we shouldn't get along best with those that are most similar to us than different.
The whole foundation of snufferism is that the LDS Church is apostate. Snuffster even bashed the church at his Texas lecture, before he lectured not to bash other religions. He won the spiritual Darwin award. It's obvious to see that we really don't have much in common with the Snuffer remnant. So who's vitriolic against whom?

The spiritual Darwin award goes to Denver and his followers.

Thomas
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4622

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by Thomas »

silk wrote: October 29th, 2017, 10:32 am Dear Thomas,

Let me just say that this thread has been a great blessing in my life, and I think I understand you a little better now. My understanding is that you chose the Remnant path because you believed it would give you the best chance to become a Zion person. That is a noble goal, and I honor you for that desire.

I think by now our discussion has made it clear that the Remnant path will never create a unified, Zion people. You've been open in admitting such. Does it have the power to help a person become Zion-like? Or even a small group of them? I don't know, and you will have to decide for yourself once you've weighed the evidence. One main reason why it will never succeed as a whole, though, became very clear to me last night. The Remnant group lacks an important principle, a principle that is replete in the scriptures.

Stewardship -- having people in authority.

This principle was jettisoned by design, of course, because of its potential for unrighteous dominion. No one has stewardship over anyone else. Everyone is to be equal, with no one between the Lord and himself. But in doing so, you lost the good with the bad. Is there anything good about stewardship? Absolutely. The scriptures are full of it. In fact, many stories we have of righteous leaders are about stewardship.

I want to make a distinction here between a steward and a messenger/prophet. A messenger has teachings to give, but he never has responsibility over a people. The steward, on the other hand, has the responsibility. Sometimes the messenger is also the steward, such as with Moses and Enoch. But sometimes not. I have often heard Denver Snuffer compared to Abinadi or Samuel the Lamanite. In his appointed role, that might be an acceptable comparison. They were messengers who never had stewardship over a people, and I see that with Denver as well; he does not want responsibility for the people -- he only wants to present his truths. The missing element with Denver, however, is the steward. Alma the Elder was the steward for the people after Abinadi. And after hearing Samuel the Lamanite's words, the people went to Nephi for baptism, because he was the steward. This is the pattern of the Lord -- not just a message, but also a steward to lead God's people. The roles might be vested in different people, but they are always present.

Why a steward? Why is it important to have a person called of God to be in authority? Let's look at some of the reasons.
1. Stewards are called to keep the saving doctrines pure -- allowing people to be of one heart/mind in terms of what really matters.
2. They can receive revelation for those in their charge -- as a whole as well as individuals.
3. They can exercise God's power in behalf of the group like Moses or Enoch -- parting the Red Sea or causing mountains and rivers to change for their benefit. Do you think if Moses and Enoch weren't righteous stewards of their groups that they would have been given those powers?
4. Without people in authority, there is no preaching of the gospel or administering in the ordinances. Article of Faith 5 clearly teaches that:
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.
Compare the Remnant movement with the early Doctrine and Covenants. It seems like every other chapter was Joseph Smith receiving revelation for someone else, often telling him to go preach the gospel.
5. But the most important reason I see is that a steward has a responsibility to go after the one who strays. Let's look at the example of Alma the Younger. He was the chief judge, but also the high priest over the church. Seeing that his people were straying from the truth, he gave up his job and started traveling to them. He went to Zarahemla, Melek, and Ammonihah. Later he undertook a mission to reclaim the Zoramites, because he loved the people and because it was his responsibility to do so. Stewards are the shepherds -- the ones with the duty to leave the 99 and go after the one.

I had a bunch of examples, but I think I will forebear. As you read the scriptures, though, I encourage you to ponder and pray about the importance of stewardship in bringing about Zion.
Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate that you have taken some time to study this out. It seems there is so much knee jerk reaction without pondering and prayer.

I agree with your assessment about the examples in the scriptures. However, none of them brought Zion. So to bring Zion, something different must be done. Having one in authority over everyone else would prevent Zion. There will be no need for such a person because everyone will know the Lord. Everyone knows the Lord so they have no need of a steward other than Christ.

We have very little scriptural information on Zion and how it is built. When Enoch and his people built Zion, God took it from off the earth. There had to be some reason God did this. My opinion and many others share it is because the timing of Zion for the world was not come yet. People have to come down here and experience a telestial existence. We need it to learn and be tested. If Zion was not taken from the earth, it would have spread to all the earth. Everyone would have either been converted or would have died fighting against it. There is a time foretold when Zion will spread to all the earth. That will be millennial rein of Christ. Things will not be as they were for the last 6,000 years. A different way of doing things will prevail.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

I agree in part about Zion. I've always felt that they had "beaten mortality", so to speak, so the challenge was gone. I find it interesting that even after Zion was gone, Enoch saw angels bearing testimony to individuals "and they were caught up by the powers of heaven into Zion." (Moses 7:27) So, in essence, what you say is true. There was a division. You were either a Zion individual or not, and all of the righteous were brought up to join Zion. The only exceptions were the righteous descendants left on the earth so Noah could build the ark and save at least a small portion of humanity.

I disagree, however, in terms of stewardship being superfluous in Zion. We don't know a lot about Enoch, but I did notice a couple of interesting scriptures from Moses 7.
16 And from that time forth there were wars and bloodshed among them; but the Lord came and dwelt with his people, and they dwelt in righteousness.
So the Lord was dwelling with his people, and they were blessed in all things and did flourish.
18 And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.
Probably the most famous scripture about Zion we have -- one heart, one mind, dwelt in righteousness, no poor among them. Zion was well and truly established, just the way it should be.
19 And Enoch continued his preaching in righteousness unto the people of God. And it came to pass in his days, that he built a city that was called the City of Holiness, even Zion.
Wait a second ... what did I just read? Enoch continued his preaching in righteousness? What is all that about? They were Zion, and the Lord was dwelling with them! Why in the world was Enoch still acting as a steward? Why weren't they just learning directly from the Lord?

According to the scriptures, it seems that some organization was still present, even with the Lord dwelling there. Amazing, isn't it?

As for how to get to Zion, I recommend the temple endowment as a good place to start. Not to say too much in a public forum, but it tells us quite plainly how to progress from a lower level of living to the highest. It also tells us how to bind Satan so he has no power over us. If every person would truly live the covenants s/he made in the temple, we would already be at Zion. As a memorable conversation once went, "Do the commandments need to be re-written?" "No, they need to be re-read."

From D&C 84:
19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.
20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.
21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;
22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.
I believe that we've already been given more light and knowledge than we live up to. If we live up to those things we have already received, we will become the people that the Lord needs us to become.

Thomas
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4622

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by Thomas »

Silk wrote:
Wait a second ... what did I just read? Enoch continued his preaching in righteousness? What is all that about? They were Zion, and the Lord was dwelling with them! Why in the world was Enoch still acting as a steward? Why weren't they just learning directly from the Lord?
So, isn't that exactly what Denver Snuffer has been doing? There has to be some teaching and coaxing people along. I guess where it goes off track is when someone says, you need not speak with Lord yourself because we have a prophet that does that job. I would imagine that when Enoch was preaching, he was teaching people how to know the Lord.

I agree the endowment has a lot to teach us but I think it goes over the heads of many.

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

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by AI2.0 »

SpeedRacer wrote: October 4th, 2017, 4:02 pm The LDSFF and Remnant cross again. No PTHG forum?

Do you mean the special private forum where Remnant people used to be protected from having anyone challenge their non-LDS beliefs on a Pro-LDS forum?

As far as I know, that's gone. If you want a safe place where you don't have to read criticisms of Snuffer and Remnant beliefs, you'll find it on the Remnant forums. I'm pretty sure Remnant followers who post here understand that this is the situation now. They don't get special treatment, but posters are still required to follow board guidelines.

jwbohrer
Hi, I'm new.
Posts: 9

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by jwbohrer »

Thomas wrote: October 28th, 2017, 7:31 pm
silk wrote: October 28th, 2017, 7:24 pm It seems that this introduces tiers of members, then.

The lowest tier are those who have been baptized, but only share the belief of the Doctrine of Christ.

The next tier up are those who have been baptized and believe in the Book of Mormon and the teachings of Denver Snuffer. To these people are offered the opportunity to accept the covenant. This lets them have a voice in the government, so to speak. (Meaning that they are the ones who get to have a say in policies such as the "Guide and Standard".) Those who are not of the covenant may not give input or vote.

Then there's apparently the third tier of people who are the leaders. These are the ones who are receiving revelation, offering covenants, speaking at the conferences, etc.

Is that how you see it too?

If you don't know who's part of the Remnant group, how are you to build Zion together? And if there's a full range of beliefs regarding core doctrines, how will you build Zion together?
No, there are no tiers. The idea of Zion is not conformity but tolerance and acceptance of diversity. That is how peace is achieved by letting others believe as they like or do what they like as long as it doesn't harm others. Zion cannot be achieved by forcing others to conform to your ideals.
So, if it were in scripture form, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law", or, "Do what you will, so long as it harms none"?

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

Thomas wrote: October 29th, 2017, 8:48 pm
Silk wrote:
Wait a second ... what did I just read? Enoch continued his preaching in righteousness? What is all that about? They were Zion, and the Lord was dwelling with them! Why in the world was Enoch still acting as a steward? Why weren't they just learning directly from the Lord?
So, isn't that exactly what Denver Snuffer has been doing? There has to be some teaching and coaxing people along. I guess where it goes off track is when someone says, you need not speak with Lord yourself because we have a prophet that does that job. I would imagine that when Enoch was preaching, he was teaching people how to know the Lord.

I agree the endowment has a lot to teach us but I think it goes over the heads of many.
I think you missed the point, and I apologize if I wasn't clear enough. From you (and other Remnant followers), I've heard this basic premise.

"Even though we have many examples of righteous leaders/stewards in the scriptures, we only have one example of Zion coming in the days of Enoch, and that record is scanty. So if we want to bring Zion, we must try other methods, new methods, untried methods (non-scriptural) in our attempt. That's why we're not following the pattern the Lord set in either the New Testament, Book of Mormon, or Doctrine and Covenants. Instead, we're eliminating all church organization, priesthood offices, and stewardship."

That's my basic understanding, anyway. As I've said before, it's difficult to get a consistent answer; it seems to depend mostly on who you ask.

But then I pointed out a clearly scriptural example of how Enoch was a clear steward to Zion -- not just bringing the people to Zion, but acting in that capacity even after the Lord was dwelling among them! And yet you still seem to think that his example is not enough, and that it isn't a key in bringing about Zion.

Either that, or you are agreeing with me that Denver Snuffer is acting in the capacity of a steward. Did I just miss that? Sorry if I did.

I don't have time to get into how I view Denver Snuffer in the context of our discussion, but I will get there.
Last edited by silk on October 30th, 2017, 1:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

Thomas, before I go further, I would like to ask you a simple yes/no question. I'm not attempting to trick you, and you don't have to answer, but it would be very useful to my understanding.

To make sure I'm clear, in this context I will define "stewardship" as a position of authority over you, and also responsibility to you.

So here is the question. Are you within Denver Snuffer's stewardship?

Thomas
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4622

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by Thomas »

silk wrote: October 30th, 2017, 1:48 pm Thomas, before I go further, I would like to ask you a simple yes/no question. I'm not attempting to trick you, and you don't have to answer, but it would be very useful to my understanding.

To make sure I'm clear, in this context I will define "stewardship" as a position of authority over you, and also responsibility to you.

So here is the question. Are you within Denver Snuffer's stewardship?
Even though you defined what you think stewardship means, we may have different definitions of what authority means. I believe Denver Snuffer has authority in the manner that I will let him describe:
Likewise, the word “dominion” in the understanding of the gentile can convey the
impression of a prison warden exercising control over captives. I think the word “dominion” should
be understood instead to convey the idea of a gardener who is responsible for making the garden
thrive, grow and bear fruit. To be clear, the three greatest examples of wielding “dominion” in the
correct manner as we should understand it are, first: Christ, who is probably without any peer,
unquestionably the greatest example of one holding the greatest dominion, and who also likewise
showed the greatest example of how to wield dominion. He beseeched people to believe. He pled
with them for their own good. He knelt to serve them. He denied that He had a kingdom of this
world. (John 18:36) He tried to prepare people for a better one. But He was more intelligent than
they all and He was the greatest of them all. (Abr. 3:19) Unquestionably holding the greatest
dominion and He wore it as a light thing. His yoke was easy. (Matt. 11:30)

In this world, Adam, after Christ held the greatest dominion. (Gen. 1:26-28) But Adam
taught and pled and instructed (Moses 5:12) but did not abridge the agency of his children, even
when one of his sons killed another of his sons. Adam did not execute Cain. Cain was sent away.
Adam held dominion, but he exercised it like our Lord, pleading for the best interest of others
Adam invited and solicited all to obey God, hoping for their best interests.
The third great example of holding dominion in a godly way was Moses. He is called in
scripture “meek above all men which were upon the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3) and yet gentiles
depict him as a bully and a strongman. Moses saw no reason to be jealous when others were out
prophesying. “Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his
spirit upon them.” (Num. 11:26-29) Moses, like Adam and Christ, is an example of how the word
“dominion” should be understood.
All three were gardeners responsible for trying to make their garden thrive, grow and bear
fruit. In reality, those who have held the greatest dominion given by God have invariably lived lives
of meekness and service. They were the opposite of what gentiles regard as a strongman. They were
the opposite of a dictator or boss. They were more like loving grandfathers, gentle gardeners, and
encouraging friends—trying to get the best from those who would allow them to teach.( Denver Snuffer. St George conference, March, 2017)
I believe Denver has authority to teach and serve. To act as gardener but not as a warden. So yes, he does have some responsibility.

I don't think anyone has authority to command obedience or command respect, deference and homage. He who would be the greatest in God's kingdom will bend the lowest to serve.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

So that was a yes? You consider yourself within Denver Snuffer's stewardship?

Thomas
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4622

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by Thomas »

I doubt that I am in the way your probably thinking. In whatever capacity that I am under his stewardship, the whole rest of the world would be as well, including you.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

I doubt that I am in the way your probably thinking. In whatever capacity that I am under his stewardship, the whole rest of the world would be as well, including you.
That made me laugh, Thomas. I guess that's my fault for trying to get a yes/no answer to something that was obviously a more complicated question than I had anticipated. I apologize for that. Maybe I'll come back to it later when we understand each other better. For now, though I'll take it as a 'no'.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

Thomas wrote: October 30th, 2017, 5:27 pm
silk wrote: October 30th, 2017, 1:48 pm Thomas, before I go further, I would like to ask you a simple yes/no question. I'm not attempting to trick you, and you don't have to answer, but it would be very useful to my understanding.

To make sure I'm clear, in this context I will define "stewardship" as a position of authority over you, and also responsibility to you.

So here is the question. Are you within Denver Snuffer's stewardship?
Even though you defined what you think stewardship means, we may have different definitions of what authority means. I believe Denver Snuffer has authority in the manner that I will let him describe:
Likewise, the word “dominion” in the understanding of the gentile can convey the
impression of a prison warden exercising control over captives. I think the word “dominion” should
be understood instead to convey the idea of a gardener who is responsible for making the garden
thrive, grow and bear fruit. To be clear, the three greatest examples of wielding “dominion” in the
correct manner as we should understand it are, first: Christ, who is probably without any peer,
unquestionably the greatest example of one holding the greatest dominion, and who also likewise
showed the greatest example of how to wield dominion. He beseeched people to believe. He pled
with them for their own good. He knelt to serve them. He denied that He had a kingdom of this
world. (John 18:36) He tried to prepare people for a better one. But He was more intelligent than
they all and He was the greatest of them all. (Abr. 3:19) Unquestionably holding the greatest
dominion and He wore it as a light thing. His yoke was easy. (Matt. 11:30)

In this world, Adam, after Christ held the greatest dominion. (Gen. 1:26-28) But Adam
taught and pled and instructed (Moses 5:12) but did not abridge the agency of his children, even
when one of his sons killed another of his sons. Adam did not execute Cain. Cain was sent away.
Adam held dominion, but he exercised it like our Lord, pleading for the best interest of others
Adam invited and solicited all to obey God, hoping for their best interests.
The third great example of holding dominion in a godly way was Moses. He is called in
scripture “meek above all men which were upon the face of the earth” (Num. 12:3) and yet gentiles
depict him as a bully and a strongman. Moses saw no reason to be jealous when others were out
prophesying. “Would that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his
spirit upon them.” (Num. 11:26-29) Moses, like Adam and Christ, is an example of how the word
“dominion” should be understood.
All three were gardeners responsible for trying to make their garden thrive, grow and bear
fruit. In reality, those who have held the greatest dominion given by God have invariably lived lives
of meekness and service. They were the opposite of what gentiles regard as a strongman. They were
the opposite of a dictator or boss. They were more like loving grandfathers, gentle gardeners, and
encouraging friends—trying to get the best from those who would allow them to teach.( Denver Snuffer. St George conference, March, 2017)
I believe Denver has authority to teach and serve. To act as gardener but not as a warden. So yes, he does have some responsibility.

I don't think anyone has authority to command obedience or command respect, deference and homage. He who would be the greatest in God's kingdom will bend the lowest to serve.
I was trying to write out my thoughts on Denver Snuffer, but I found myself hitting a wall of sorts. I think it's because I don't understand enough about your view of him to tailor my words. So if you don't mind, I would like to ask you another question (although multiple-choice this time). It may be just as productive as my last one, but if so, the fault is mine. I completely understand that you don't want to be misunderstood, and hence use specific wording and definition of terms. If our positions were reversed and I was the one writing on a Remnant forum, I would most likely be just as careful.

Hopefully as we go further into this topic, some of the definitions will iron themselves out. At least, that's my intention. Since your responses are never quite what I expect, it can't really be planned. (For example, I would really like to go off on a semi-tangent and talk about the Moses example given above, but I am postponing it for the time being.)

Here's the question:
How do you see Denver Snuffer in his role in the Remnant movement?
A. As a prophet with an important message, but not as the current steward over the Lord's work. (This would be like Samuel the Lamanite, who gave an amazing message to the Nephites, yet the steward over the church was Nephi.)
B. As the head of a new dispensation.
C. As the current steward over the Lord's work, but still in the dispensation of the fullness of times.
D. In some other role that I'll have to explain because those are the only three options that silk has heard about.

I know you might cringe over the word "steward", but, as I said, what I'm really talking about should become more clear later on (if we ever get there). Please know that I have no interest in making you an "offender for a word". I'm just trying to understand, and to be understood.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

Thomas,
If you can't/don't want to give an answer, that's fine. I can take all three in turn. Feel free to chime in whenever you have something to say.

First, though, I would like to thank you for your words on authority. I have noticed that your comments are often concise, yet they lead me to much scripture study, pondering, prayer, and pacing. I'm grateful for it, and I thank you for helping me along this path of knowledge. In response to your words, I've spent many hours thinking -- What do I really mean when I say "authority"? Or "responsibility" for that matter?

What it's helped me to realize is that, in terms of the priesthood, stewardship and keys always go together. Meaning that a priesthood stewardship always has keys, and there are no keys without stewardship. So before we go on, I'd like to address keys a bit.

According to my understanding, keys serve at least three main purposes.

1. They are like their earthly counterpart -- they "open doors" and allow access to what is inside. D&C 13 teaches us:
1 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;....
In other words, through the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood, we can access ministering angels, the gospel of repentance, and baptism by immersion for the remission of sins.

2. They connect earthly to eternity. This is the familiar binding/loosening power as taught in Matthew 16:
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
3. Going along with #2, they allow us to make covenants and participate in saving ordinances, which are then honored in the next life. From D&C 132, probably the most legalistic verse in the entire scriptures:
7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.
That means that the person who holds the keys gives permission for us to receive an ordinance, then does it or allows someone else to do it. A good example of this is baptism. Let's say I'm a priest in the Aaronic Priesthood and have a daughter who is eight years old. Will the ordinance count if I just take her out to the nearby stream and baptize her? No; it needs permission from the key holder in order for that ordinance to be acknowledged beyond this life.

So how do I see stewardship now? What is the authority a steward has over me, and the responsibility he has to me? It's all about the keys. We learn in the D&C that keys belong to certain offices/callings, not to people. Some examples:
D&C 81:2 Unto whom I have given the keys of the kingdom, which belong always unto the Presidency of the High Priesthood:
D&C 107:15 The bishopric is the presidency of this [Aaronic] priesthood, and holds the keys or authority of the same.
Men who are in those callings are thus given the keys for that office, and that is the authority they have over us. They have a responsibility to God as to how they use those keys, and they also have a responsibility to those in their stewardship (to teach us and make available saving ordinances based on our readiness and worthiness). And you are absolutely right -- those in authority have no right to bully anyone or threaten them or withhold ordinances just because they can. That would be unrighteous dominion. But they do have an obligation to God to discharge their duties to the best of their abilities, including judgment.

D&C 107:
74 Thus shall he [the bishop] be a judge, even a common judge among the inhabitants of Zion, or in a stake of Zion, or in any branch of the church where he shall be set apart unto this ministry, until the borders of Zion are enlarged and it becomes necessary to have other bishops or judges in Zion or elsewhere.

78 Again, verily, I say unto you, the most important business of the church, and the most difficult cases of the church, inasmuch as there is not satisfaction upon the decision of the bishop or judges, it shall be handed over and carried up unto the council of the church, before the Presidency of the High Priesthood.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

Here's the question:
How do you see Denver Snuffer in his role in the Remnant movement?
A. As a prophet with an important message, but not as the current steward over the Lord's work. (This would be like Samuel the Lamanite, who gave an amazing message to the Nephites, yet the steward over the church was Nephi.)
B. As the head of a new dispensation.
C. As the current steward over the Lord's work, but still in the dispensation of the fullness of times.
D. In some other role that I'll have to explain because those are the only three options that silk has heard about.
So with my new understanding of stewardship as it relates to keys, I can now ask my question a little differently.

How do you see Denver Snuffer in his role in the Remnant movement?
A. As a prophet with an important message, but not as the one holding the keys over the Lord's work. (This would be like Samuel the Lamanite, who gave an amazing message to the Nephites, yet the key-holder over the church was Nephi.)
B. As the head of a new dispensation, with its own set of keys.
C. As the one currently holding the keys of the Lord's work, but still in the dispensation of the fullness of times.
D. In some other role that I'll have to explain because those are the only three options that silk has heard about.

Thomas
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4622

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by Thomas »

Sorry about the delay in responding. I haven't had time to check the forum for a few days.

I think the simple answer is that I see Denver as a modern day John the Baptist.

If offices equate keys, lets all bow to the Pope. We seem to want to tell God the way things should be. It is one thing to be given keys and another to retain them.

So another example would be Alma. Alma left the church structure and received keys for baptism directly from heaven. the old order od things were no longer accepted by God.

As far as the abcd options, I am not really sure but I see him as a steward over Lord's work and again use the example of John the Baptist. The Jews had keys to baptism and other ordnances and lost them. They did not acknowledge the loss or understand they lost them.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

I appreciate your answer, Thomas. Thanks for the dialogue; it feels a bit uncomfortable talking to myself. However, you don't need to apologize for being away from the forum. I'm glad to know that you have a life outside of this!

Seeing Denver Snuffer as a type of John the Baptist corresponds with my choice C (just in case you were wondering) -- Denver Snuffer would currently have keys, but still in the dispensation of the fullness of times. And I agree that it's the only way that the Remnant movement can have legitimacy. With Choice A, the Remnant baptism would have no power, since there would be no keys behind it. And with Choice B, there would be new keys for a new dispensation, and thus no need for wresting of keys (which, according to my understanding, he implies has happened).

Speaking of John the Baptist, I am looking forward to discussing him (and Popes). But first, I wanted to address your comment on Alma briefly.
Alma left the church structure and received keys for baptism directly from heaven. the old order od things were no longer accepted by God.
I disagree that Alma "left the church structure"; it was just fine in the main area of the Nephites (under King Benjamin and King Mosiah). Even in the land of Nephi, Zeniff's people had initially been righteous; it was only after King Noah took over that corruption set in. In Mosiah 11:
5 For he [Noah] put down all the priests that had been consecrated by his father, and consecrated new ones in their stead, such as were lifted up in the pride of their hearts.
When Alma's people came back to the main body of the Nephites, Mosiah was still in charge, and he was righteous. From Mosiah 26, we find that Mosiah was the one who authorized Alma to be over the church:
8 Now king Mosiah had given Alma the authority over the church.
So people were still righteousness; just not under King Noah. However, I agree that it's hard to tell where Alma's keys came from. (The only time I can find the word "keys" in the Book of Mormon is in reference to Laban's treasury.) After Alma repented, did someone contact him, like a former priest of Zeniff or someone related to Amaleki (Omni 1:30)? Was Alma a new dispensation head, with keys directly from heaven? Is there another option? I'm not sure. But, either way, I agree that he had authority, and that he was setting up a stewardship.

That said, I'm puzzled that you referred to Alma, because what he built was nothing like the Remnant movement. I read the Book of Mormon account of Alma the Elder and recorded 11 things that were similar, and 26 that were different (with a few more than I wasn't sure about). I won't list them all, but here are some of them:

Same
-- Alma taught everyone who would listen, he offered the covenant of baptism, he encouraged no contention, he taught that all teachers should be men of God, he preached faith and repentance, everyone was to labor, everyone was to love their neighbors, they fasted and prayed for a united purpose

Different
-- Alma ordained priests to teach every fifty people, they gathered together weekly so the priests could teach them, he taught that having kings would be fine if they could always be righteous men, he was the high priest over the church, anyone who taught/preached was consecrated by him, everything about church discipline from Mosiah 26 (requiring confession/forsaking, or blotting them out of the church), he conferred the office of high priest on his son and gave him charge concerning the affairs of the church (so succession of keys)

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

Thomas wrote: November 1st, 2017, 8:54 pm If offices equate keys, lets all bow to the Pope. We seem to want to tell God the way things should be. It is one thing to be given keys and another to retain them.
I wanted to acknowledge your comment about the Pope. I never said that "offices equate keys", but that "keys belong to certain offices/callings". What is the difference? Imagine a locked door with a keyhole of a specific shape and size. To me, that is the office. The actual key that fits into the keyhole are the Keys. The office of a bishop doesn't ever hold the keys of the kingdom, so that set of Keys would never fit in that keyhole.

What that means is that you can have the office without the Keys (like the Pope), but there are only certain Keys that will actually match the office. Keys must be given by one who holds them (or to whom they've been delegated). (Given that, I'll talk about my understanding of how that relates to John the Baptist later.)
D&C 81:2 Unto whom I have given the keys of the kingdom, which belong always unto the Presidency of the High Priesthood:
D&C 107:15 The bishopric is the presidency of this [Aaronic] priesthood, and holds the keys or authority of the same.
I think there are three main reasons keys belong to an office/calling instead of a person. The first is about succession -- once a person died, all of the keys would be gone. For obvious reasons, that would be a huge problem. The second is about preventing unrighteous dominion. With the keys guaranteed to a person, it would be easy to slip into commanding people. Knowing that they can be removed and supplanted at any time is a check against that kind of pride and abuse. Last is about directing reverence and appreciation to God instead of to a particular person. If one week Steven Jones is the bishop and the next week it's Rob Taylor, but the keys remain the same, it's pretty obvious that it's the power of God we are witnessing, and not that of an individual.

silk
captain of 50
Posts: 84

Re: Your best predictions on the Remnant Sects

Post by silk »

Thomas wrote: November 1st, 2017, 8:54 pm I think the simple answer is that I see Denver as a modern day John the Baptist. I see him as a steward over Lord's work and again use the example of John the Baptist. The Jews had keys to baptism and other ordnances and lost them. They did not acknowledge the loss or understand they lost them.
I've noticed that Denver Snuffer is very much interested in patterns. From what I understand, he believes the LDS church followed the path of Moses and his people, except with Joseph Smith as the leader. In D&C 84:
25 Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also;
26 And the lesser priesthood continued, which priesthood holdeth the key of the ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel;
Just for the sake of this discussion, let's assume that Denver Snuffer is right about the Melchizedek Priesthood being lost after Joseph Smith died. That leaves the world with only the Aaronic Priesthood, and the keys of the same.

After Moses, the lesser priesthood continued until John the Baptist wrested the keys from the Jews. He did this in preparation for the Savior's coming, and also because he needed the keys so he could legally baptize the Savior. If the Remnant movement baptism is to have any binding power, Denver Snuffer needs those keys also.

So how did John the Baptist get the keys of the Aaronic Priesthood? He was obviously outside the accepted power structure.
D&C 107:15 The bishopric is the presidency of this [Aaronic] priesthood, and holds the keys or authority of the same.
So he would need to be a bishop. 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.
Besides the scriptural requirements, as far as I can tell, Denver Snuffer has never claimed that he holds any keys. In his "Preserving the Restoration" talk, after he discusses John's wresting of keys, he tell his own excommunication story. But he never says that he now has keys. His canonized version, accepted at the General Conference, is under "An End of Authority" in "Pearls of Great Price". It also doesn't claim that he has keys.
At that moment, the Lord ended all claims of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to claim it is led by the priesthood. They have not practiced what He requires. The Lord has brought about His purposes. This has been in His heart all along.

That's where I would have expected it to be. Something like, "The keys of the priesthood have now been given to me." But it's not there, nor anything similar to it. In that document he also claims the end of authority was April 5th, but he wasn't even aware of it until May 1st! If he'd been given keys when the LDS church lost its authority, he would have known about it immediately. Getting keys isn't just something that you realize has happened to you; they are specifically given to a person.

And I believe that Denver Snuffer is too honest and honorable of a man to claim to holds keys that he actually doesn't.

Let's say you spent many years in the LDS church, but you aren't a member anymore. You believe in the Restoration and the Book of Mormon, and you want to start a religious organization. But you don't have any keys, so you have no stewardship. What would your organization look like? I believe it would look a lot like the Remnant movement. I encourage you to go back and read through things Denver Snuffer has written since 2014. Look at his blog posts, talks, and documents with the understanding that he has no keys. Doing this for me has helped me to understand many things, including the lack of priesthood offices and the method of baptism.

Post Reply