Denver Snuffer's Remnant scripture project and covenant

[Jesef]

That would fall under the "he's a liar" option.

[underdog]

3 options:

Denver is truly sent by God.
He deliberately deceives. Is of the devil.
He is deceived like Korihor was. He's had visions. But they are Satanic counterfeits. He innocently believes he is serving God but really serves the devil.

It sure would be nice if there was a sure fire way to ABSOLUTELY know beyond a shadow of a doubt, if he has been raised up by God or the devil, wouldn't it?!

I mean IF we could know perfectly if he was a true or false messenger, that would make life so much easier, wouldn't it?!

Turns out that we ARE provided a means to discern if he is truly sent or not:

15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may cknow good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil...

Turns out that knowing the truth of anything isn't a mystery after all!!

Is it hard to know that it's daytime when the sun is up in the sky? Is it hard to know it is night time when it's pitch black? Should be a piece of cake, even "as the daylight is from the dark night"!

I say I'm 100% sure, as it's day time when the sun is out, that Denver's teachings "inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ." There is no question about it.

The real question is how do good people here on this forum assert with a straight face that his teachings "persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God"?

Which specific teachings "persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God"?

[Jesef]

So do President Monson & his Brethren today. So does Joel Osteen. So does Buddha (if you interpret Christ = Love). Doesn't make Denver's claims literally & legitimately true (nor the others' claims). Follow your Holy Ghost, underdog.

[Seek the Truth]

We don't have to create hypotheticals. The following is what happened.

Denver desired to be a bishop.
He was passed over as a bishop.
It irritated him so much he apostatized.
His original desire to have a following compelled him to create the false narrative currently being perpetuated.

Nothing more or less than this.

[Jesef]

Grandiose delusions don't necessarily have to come "from Satan" - that's a very demonic worldview - like all ailments, physical and mental, are caused by "evil spirits", etc.

[Seek the Truth]

The real question is how do good people here on this forum assert with a straight face that his teachings "persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God"?

Which specific teachings "persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God"?

For starters his teaching to reject keys given by Christ. To reject those keys is to reject Christ.

[drtanner]

Turns out that knowing the truth of anything isn't a mystery after all!!

Is it hard to know that it's daytime when the sun is up in the sky? Is it hard to know it is night time when it's pitch black? Should be a piece of cake, even "as the daylight is from the dark night"!

I say I'm 100% sure, as it's day time when the sun is out, that Denver's teachings "inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ." There is no question about it.

The real question is how do good people here on this forum assert with a straight face that his teachings "persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God"?

Which specific teachings "persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God"?

Where is the evil in persuading men and women from the church of Jesus Christ?
-Baptism with authority
-The gift of the Holy Ghost
-Temple covenants
- Sealing power to bind families
- Living Prophets


All of these things combined with our faithfulness work together with the gospel for our salvation. Of course you being a member already know this so why would Heavenly Father let us have so much back and forth with something this important? I don't believe he does. So why the struggle to know? This exchange from War and Peace about knowing God between a man (Pierre) who meets a Mason and changes his life may have some principles that may be the reason some do not know and struggle to know.

He paused and sighed, evidently trying to calm himself.

"If He were not," he said quietly, "you and I would not be speaking of Him, my dear sir. Of what, of whom, are we speaking? Whom hast thou denied?" he suddenly asked with exulting austerity and authority in his voice. "Who invented Him, if He did not exist? Whence came thy conception of the existence of such an incomprehensible Being? didst thou, and why did the whole world, conceive the idea of the existence of such an incomprehensible Being, a Being all-powerful, eternal, and infinite in all His attributes?..."

He stopped and remained silent for a long time.

Pierre could not and did not wish to break this silence.

"He exists, but to understand Him is hard," the Mason began again, looking not at Pierre but straight before him, and turning the leaves of his book with his old hands which from excitement he could not keep still. "If it were a man whose existence thou didst doubt I could bring him to thee, could take him by the hand and show him to thee. But how can I, an insignificant mortal, show His omnipotence, His infinity, and all His mercy to one who is blind, or who shuts his eyes that he may not see or understand Him and may not see or understand his own vileness and sinfulness?" He paused again. "Who art thou? Thou dreamest that thou art wise because thou couldst utter those blasphemous words," he went on, with a somber and scornful smile. "And thou art more foolish and unreasonable than a little child, who, playing with the parts of a skillfully made watch, dares to say that, as he does not understand its use, he does not believe in the master who made it. To know Him is hard.... For ages, from our forefather Adam to our own day, we labor to attain that knowledge and are still infinitely far from our aim; but in our lack of understanding we see only our weakness and His greatness...."

Pierre listened with swelling heart, gazing into the Mason's face with shining eyes, not interrupting or questioning him, but believing with his whole soul what the stranger said. Whether he accepted the wise reasoning contained in the Mason's words, or believed as a child believes, in the speaker's tone of conviction and earnestness, or the tremor of the speaker's voice—which sometimes almost broke—or those brilliant aged eyes grown old in this conviction, or the calm firmness and certainty of his vocation, which radiated from his whole being (and which struck Pierre especially by contrast with his own dejection and hopelessness)—at any rate, Pierre longed with his whole soul to believe and he did believe, and felt a joyful sense of comfort, regeneration, and return to life.

"He is not to be apprehended by reason, but by life," said the Mason.

"I do not understand," said Pierre, feeling with dismay doubts reawakening. He was afraid of any want of clearness, any weakness, in the Mason's arguments; he dreaded not to be able to believe in him. "I don't understand," he said, "how it is that the mind of man cannot attain the knowledge of which you speak."

The Mason smiled with his gentle fatherly smile.

"The highest wisdom and truth are like the purest liquid we may wish to imbibe," he said. "Can I receive that pure liquid into an impure vessel and judge of its purity? Only by the inner purification of myself can I retain in some degree of purity the liquid I receive."

"Yes, yes, that is so," said Pierre joyfully.

"The highest wisdom is not founded on reason alone, not on those worldly sciences of physics, history, chemistry, and the like, into which intellectual knowledge is divided. The highest wisdom is one. The highest wisdom has but one science—the science of the whole—the science explaining the whole creation and man's place in it. To receive that science it is necessary to purify and renew one's inner self, and so before one can know, it is necessary to believe and to perfect one's self. And to attain this end, we have the light called conscience that God has implanted in our souls."

[underdog]

We don't have to create hypotheticals. The following is what happened.

Denver desired to be a bishop.
He was passed over as a bishop.
It irritated him so much he apostatized.
His original desire to have a following compelled him to create the false narrative currently being perpetuated.

Nothing more or less than this.

Thanks for explaining things in a non hypothetical, factual way using no conjecture at all. Everything is clear now.

[underdog]

Turns out that knowing the truth of anything isn't a mystery after all!!

Is it hard to know that it's daytime when the sun is up in the sky? Is it hard to know it is night time when it's pitch black? Should be a piece of cake, even "as the daylight is from the dark night"!

I say I'm 100% sure, as it's day time when the sun is out, that Denver's teachings "inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ." There is no question about it.

The real question is how do good people here on this forum assert with a straight face that his teachings "persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God"?

Which specific teachings "persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God"?

Where is the evil in persuading men and women from the church of Jesus Christ?
-Baptism with authority
-The gift of the Holy Ghost
-Temple covenants
- Sealing power to bind families
- Living Prophets


All of these things combined with our faithfulness work together with the gospel for our salvation. Of course you being a member already know this so why would Heavenly Father let us have so much back and forth with something this important? I don't believe he does. So why the struggle to know? This exchange from War and Peace about knowing God between a man (Pierre) who meets a Mason and changes his life may have some principles that may be the reason some do not know and struggle to know.

He paused and sighed, evidently trying to calm himself.

"If He were not," he said quietly, "you and I would not be speaking of Him, my dear sir. Of what, of whom, are we speaking? Whom hast thou denied?" he suddenly asked with exulting austerity and authority in his voice. "Who invented Him, if He did not exist? Whence came thy conception of the existence of such an incomprehensible Being? didst thou, and why did the whole world, conceive the idea of the existence of such an incomprehensible Being, a Being all-powerful, eternal, and infinite in all His attributes?..."

He stopped and remained silent for a long time.

Pierre could not and did not wish to break this silence.

"He exists, but to understand Him is hard," the Mason began again, looking not at Pierre but straight before him, and turning the leaves of his book with his old hands which from excitement he could not keep still. "If it were a man whose existence thou didst doubt I could bring him to thee, could take him by the hand and show him to thee. But how can I, an insignificant mortal, show His omnipotence, His infinity, and all His mercy to one who is blind, or who shuts his eyes that he may not see or understand Him and may not see or understand his own vileness and sinfulness?" He paused again. "Who art thou? Thou dreamest that thou art wise because thou couldst utter those blasphemous words," he went on, with a somber and scornful smile. "And thou art more foolish and unreasonable than a little child, who, playing with the parts of a skillfully made watch, dares to say that, as he does not understand its use, he does not believe in the master who made it. To know Him is hard.... For ages, from our forefather Adam to our own day, we labor to attain that knowledge and are still infinitely far from our aim; but in our lack of understanding we see only our weakness and His greatness...."

Pierre listened with swelling heart, gazing into the Mason's face with shining eyes, not interrupting or questioning him, but believing with his whole soul what the stranger said. Whether he accepted the wise reasoning contained in the Mason's words, or believed as a child believes, in the speaker's tone of conviction and earnestness, or the tremor of the speaker's voice—which sometimes almost broke—or those brilliant aged eyes grown old in this conviction, or the calm firmness and certainty of his vocation, which radiated from his whole being (and which struck Pierre especially by contrast with his own dejection and hopelessness)—at any rate, Pierre longed with his whole soul to believe and he did believe, and felt a joyful sense of comfort, regeneration, and return to life.

"He is not to be apprehended by reason, but by life," said the Mason.

"I do not understand," said Pierre, feeling with dismay doubts reawakening. He was afraid of any want of clearness, any weakness, in the Mason's arguments; he dreaded not to be able to believe in him. "I don't understand," he said, "how it is that the mind of man cannot attain the knowledge of which you speak."

The Mason smiled with his gentle fatherly smile.

"The highest wisdom and truth are like the purest liquid we may wish to imbibe," he said. "Can I receive that pure liquid into an impure vessel and judge of its purity? Only by the inner purification of myself can I retain in some degree of purity the liquid I receive."

"Yes, yes, that is so," said Pierre joyfully.

"The highest wisdom is not founded on reason alone, not on those worldly sciences of physics, history, chemistry, and the like, into which intellectual knowledge is divided. The highest wisdom is one. The highest wisdom has but one science—the science of the whole—the science explaining the whole creation and man's place in it. To receive that science it is necessary to purify and renew one's inner self, and so before one can know, it is necessary to believe and to perfect one's self. And to attain this end, we have the light called conscience that God has implanted in our souls."

Thank you, Dr. Tanner, for your most thoughtful and elegant response.

Your lesson learned from that book reminds me of:

Now I would that ye should remember that God has said that the inward vessel shall be cleansed first, and then shall the outer vessel be cleansed also.
Alma 60:23

You ask this: "Why would Heavenly Father let us have so much back and forth with something this important?"

Do you think your sentiment was expressed in the premortal world when Heavenly Father's plan and Lucifer's plan were debated openly?

Perhaps many people in the ranks of the third of the hosts of heaven wondered similarly? Perhaps many who ended up keeping their first estate marveled at Heavenly Father allowing such back and forth?

Maybe many wished He would just "let us know so we wouldn't have to doubt what to do"?

Jesef is the voice for these people. "Just manifest Thy power in the manner I expect so I will know the truth, Father in Heaven! "

It is clearer now to me that there is a very strong undercurrent in the Church having these characteristics:

1) We want to be instructed clearly what to do so as to minimize risk of choosing the wrong.
2) We can't accept if the correct path is not manifested by God according to what WE feel is a proper divine manifestation.
3) We are sincerely perplexed that God honors the free will of all sides so that genuine confusion is allowed to remain among His children.

In other words, summing all three up, there is a strong undercurrent (instilled over many decades) where we WANT to outsource the responsibility rightfully devolving upon ourselves to our leaders.

Having Brethren to lead and guide us fulfills all 3 in that we can know clearly the path (because my leader says so), not worry about hearing God's voice for ourselves (because I can hear my leader's voice), and our perplexity at God not intervening is completely removed because our leader explains everything.

When all along, the answers to our questions are available in the Scriptures, through which God speaks to us. It truly is an "open book test." We don't need to look to see what another fellow test-taker (the Brethren) says; all we have to do is consult the Scriptures.

I can see the Lord telling us face to face some day: "I know you THOUGHT your tradition or certain belief was true, but did that tradition / belief conform to Scripture? "

For example, "the Lord will not permit the president to lead the church astray. " The Lord may ask us, "Where did you ever get the notion that I would control or force any man to do my will? Any leader or any man or group of men are free to choose. If you want to believe you're safe and secure in your salvation by following them, then that is your right! I will always honor what you want. Did I not say you were gods, agents who can create, who can choose your destiny? You are free to choose."

[underdog]

Grandiose delusions don't necessarily have to come "from Satan" - that's a very demonic worldview - like all ailments, physical and mental, are caused by "evil spirits", etc.

Are you saying there's a 4th option to explain Denver Snuffer's testimony?

Denver is truly sent by God.
He deliberately deceives. Is of the devil.
He is deceived like Korihor was. He's had visions. But they are Satanic counterfeits. He innocently believes he is serving God but really serves the devil.

4th:

His delusions, if not coming from Satan or Christ, originate from his own head and the delusions themselves are neither good nor evil?

Not sure what you're saying.

If you're trying to play it lukewarm, I can see the reason why you'd try that. It's because the neutral person wants to avoid the accountability of their judgments. "You decide what you want. Follow your own Holy Ghost. I'll follow mine."

I sincerely ask, are you asserting that if he has grandiose delusions, that those are not coming from Satan?

Do others here on this forum think that there is another option, as Jesef argues? That it's not as simple as light/dark or good/evil or liberty/tyranny or positive/negative or Christ/Satan?

We're not talking about somebody getting sick and dying. Physical ailments often have cause and effect. You have poor nutrition and so you get sick. Etc.

The question is about ideas and teachings.

You see, if you marginalize one of the two camps, or try to diminish the reality of the forces of evil, then I believe you're essentially saying (referring to 2 Nephi 28), "there is no god today." For there is no devil. You also tend to not want to go down this path of reasoning because then you are forced to declare that one is of Christ and one is of Satan.

I believe the Denver Snuffer is either of the devil or of Christ. Please don't try to water down the salvation-impacting magnitude of the issue. Please do not deny that God is a God of truth, and that Satan is His enemy, and a liar and deceiver from the beginning.

If Denver is of the devil, then there MUST be signs (specific teachings of his, or actions of his) that point to him being inspired of the devil. There MUST be symptoms of apostasy from Jesus Christ. There MUST be error. If all he teaches is material that leads one to Christ and into conformance with the Scriptures, then the scales of judgment are tilted massively in favor of him being a true prophet. He's not some run of the mill scholar or even a world class scholar or historian. Scholars and historians don't claim to be speaking for Jesus Christ and having face-to-face interviews with Jesus Christ.

Let's not water down or try to soften the rhetoric. He's of God or of Satan. I understand you might hesitate to say he's of the devil IF he were just some random scholar making assertions, but Denver presents himself as the "voice of God" delivering an authorized message. He's God's legal administrator. He's God's servant. He is God's agent, His representative. As such, he deserves our attention. He therefore is truly "sent" by God, or has been raised up by the very depths of hell to deceive us all.

If I'm wrong and Jesef is right, please make the case, but I don't see any option outside of Christ/ Satan. Please step up and provide the evidence he is of Satan. Right now, the prevailing wisdom from Jesef and Dr. Tanner is basically, "God would unmistakably tell us if Denver was of God. God wouldn't sit on the sidelines and not manifest His will by the power of the Holy Ghost." When many testify to the opposite of this. I think the safest course is to follow the wisdom of Moroni 7's test so we know with perfection what is of God and what is of the devil.

If 99% of Denver's stuff is in harmony with Christ, then we all OUGHT TO admit this. And throw the 1% under the microscope and condemn it.

If 90% of what the Church teaches is of Christ, then we OUGHT to admit this, and throw the apostate 10% under the microscope and condemn those specific teachings or practices, instead of pretending like "all is well in Zion" while the ship is on a collision course with an iceberg.

I'm willing to take whatever evidence you want to present and place it under the microscope. I really liked AI2's attempt. It's in MY benefit to know if something is amiss. You are helping me by declaring teachings of Denver that are apostate. And, believe it or not, by NOT declaring anything, you make the case he is truly sent! Ironically, your non-responsiveness GREATLY strengthens the case that he is truly "sent" by God. Through the years when declaring the truth of Mormonism, I went through the same process. I challenged non Mormon Christians to prove all things. Their non-responsiveness or their telling statements like "A Bible A Bible we need no more Bible", helped solidify my faith and testimony that I was on the true path.

I do not see any TBM's here who are willing to acknowledge evidence that reeks of apostasy in the Church (if there are, then honorably come out and say it). As Mormons, we all OUGHT TO scrutinize what is being taught from the pulpit. Is it scripture or philosophy of men, because we know the two will be and ARE mingled together.

Perhaps this is what Jesef is saying, and I would agree with this: a man may not be totally of Satan or of Christ. We all sin. I would expect the devil and God to be in each of us, or manifested through us. The third option is that we, as sentient beings, are of both minds at times. That's why I like to put attention on specific teachings. But I stand by my statement that Denver is special because of the power and clarity of his message. He is sent by God or the devil. There is no 'in between', lukewarm explanation. Me on the other hand, I've not been "sent" (nor do I declare it), and I may be of the devil on occasion, but I hope to be of Christ most of the time.

One of the reasons I was open to Denver's testimony was because of the temple teaching that, like Adam, we should be looking for true messengers from the Father, and that we should reject the philosophies of men mingled with Scripture.

[shadow]

Grandiose delusions don't necessarily have to come "from Satan" - that's a very demonic worldview - like all ailments, physical and mental, are caused by "evil spirits", etc.

Are you saying there's a 4th option to explain Denver Snuffer's testimony?

Denver is truly sent by God.
He deliberately deceives. Is of the devil.
He is deceived like Korihor was. He's had visions. But they are Satanic counterfeits. He innocently believes he is serving God but really serves the devil.

4th:

His delusions, if not coming from Satan or Christ, originate from his own head and the delusions themselves are neither good nor evil?

Not sure what you're saying.

If you're trying to play it lukewarm, I can see the reason why you'd try that. It's because the neutral person wants to avoid the accountability of their judgments. "You decide what you want. Follow your own Holy Ghost. I'll follow mine."

I sincerely ask, are you asserting that if he has grandiose delusions, that those are not coming from Satan?

Do others here on this forum think that there is another option, as Jesef argues? That it's not as simple as light/dark or good/evil or liberty/tyranny or positive/negative or Christ/Satan?

We're not talking about somebody getting sick and dying. Physical ailments often have cause and effect. You have poor nutrition and so you get sick. Etc.

The question is about ideas and teachings.

You see, if you marginalize one of the two camps, or try to diminish the reality of the forces of evil, then I believe you're essentially saying (referring to 2 Nephi 28), "there is no god today." For there is no devil. You also tend to not want to go down this path of reasoning because then you are forced to declare that one is of Christ and one is of Satan.

I believe the Denver Snuffer is either of the devil or of Christ. Please don't try to water down the salvation-impacting magnitude of the issue. Please do not deny that God is a God of truth, and that Satan is His enemy, and a liar and deceiver from the beginning.

If Denver is of the devil, then there MUST be signs (specific teachings of his, or actions of his) that point to him being inspired of the devil. There MUST be symptoms of apostasy from Jesus Christ. There MUST be error. If all he teaches is material that leads one to Christ and into conformance with the Scriptures, then the scales of judgment are tilted massively in favor of him being a true prophet. He's not some run of the mill scholar or even a world class scholar or historian. Scholars and historians don't claim to be speaking for Jesus Christ and having face-to-face interviews with Jesus Christ.

Let's not water down or try to soften the rhetoric. He's of God or of Satan. I understand you might hesitate to say he's of the devil IF he were just some random scholar making assertions, but Denver presents himself as the "voice of God" delivering an authorized message. He's God's legal administrator. He's God's servant. He is God's agent, His representative. As such, he deserves our attention. He therefore is truly "sent" by God, or has been raised up by the very depths of hell to deceive us all.

If I'm wrong and Jesef is right, please make the case, but I don't see any option outside of Christ/ Satan. Please step up and provide the evidence he is of Satan. Right now, the prevailing wisdom from Jesef and Dr. Tanner is basically, "God would unmistakably tell us if Denver was of God. God wouldn't sit on the sidelines and not manifest His will by the power of the Holy Ghost." When many testify to the opposite of this. I think the safest course is to follow the wisdom of Moroni 7's test so we know with perfection what is of God and what is of the devil.

If 99% of Denver's stuff is in harmony with Christ, then we all OUGHT TO admit this. And throw the 1% under the microscope and condemn it.

If 90% of what the Church teaches is of Christ, then we OUGHT to admit this, and throw the apostate 10% under the microscope and condemn those specific teachings or practices, instead of pretending like "all is well in Zion" while the ship is on a collision course with an iceberg.

I'm willing to take whatever evidence you want to present and place it under the microscope. I really liked AI2's attempt. It's in MY benefit to know if something is amiss. You are helping me by declaring teachings of Denver that are apostate. And, believe it or not, by NOT declaring anything, you make the case he is truly sent! Ironically, your non-responsiveness GREATLY strengthens the case that he is truly "sent" by God. Through the years when declaring the truth of Mormonism, I went through the same process. I challenged non Mormon Christians to prove all things. Their non-responsiveness or their telling statements like "A Bible A Bible we need no more Bible", helped solidify my faith and testimony that I was on the true path.

I do not see any TBM's here who are willing to acknowledge evidence that reeks of apostasy in the Church (if there are, then honorably come out and say it). As Mormons, we all OUGHT TO scrutinize what is being taught from the pulpit. Is it scripture or philosophy of men, because we know the two will be and ARE mingled together.

Perhaps this is what Jesef is saying, and I would agree with this: a man may not be totally of Satan or of Christ. We all sin. I would expect the devil and God to be in each of us, or manifested through us. The third option is that we, as sentient beings, are of both minds at times. That's why I like to put attention on specific teachings. But I stand by my statement that Denver is special because of the power and clarity of his message. He is sent by God or the devil. There is no 'in between', lukewarm explanation. Me on the other hand, I've not been "sent" (nor do I declare it), and I may be of the devil on occasion, but I hope to be of Christ most of the time.

One of the reasons I was open to Denver's testimony was because of the temple teaching that, like Adam, we should be looking for true messengers from the Father, and that we should reject the philosophies of men mingled with Scripture.

You see what you want to see and you refuse to see what you don't want to see. This thread is over 20 pages now and nobody has moved an inch. The case has been made against Snuffer. Nobody has made a valid case against the LDS church. Mark my post and quote it in another 20 pages and it'll still be true.
Snufferism is 0% in harmony with Christ. If the foundation is false then the whole structure that sits on it is unsafe and will 100% fail. Guaranteed!

This is just a part where Snuffer and his followers fail, which should be obvious to everybody, especially those who claim that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet-

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.
6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

[underdog]

Shadow,

When you come with something that is non circular and fresh and not based on your false premise (and then reasoning backwards, as if that makes any sense), then I'll respond. Otherwise, you'll get crickets from me. It's a waste of time for you to repeat yourself, and for me to respond.

I'm looking for serious discussion and not a repeat of your traditions.

AI2 had a response that showed research and thoughtfulness, quoting references, etc. Your responses are always based in your assumptions of what is true. Opinions and assertions can't be brought forth as evidence. Need something that at least appears to be factual.

[EmmaLee]

I like this quote from Terrill Givens.

"The church is a place to worship, to serve others, to learn to get along with people we might not choose as neighbors or family, and to find kinship with a large and timeless community of disciples. It is a workshop for the soul. But ultimately, we are responsible for our own life of discipleship, for finding spiritual nourishment in our own sacred spaces. At the same time, we are part of the body of Christ- and we can influence the collective only if we are part of it. As an outspoken President once noted, " It Is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena."

I really like that. Can you tell me which of his books/talks that's from? I'd like to read the whole thing. Thanks.

This is also a good talk on that topic: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... h?lang=eng by By Elder D. Todd Christofferson.

An excerpt:

In the Church we not only learn divine doctrine; we also experience its application. As the body of Christ, the members of the Church minister to one another in the reality of day-to-day life. All of us are imperfect; we may offend and be offended. We often test one another with our personal idiosyncrasies. In the body of Christ, we have to go beyond concepts and exalted words and have a real “hands-on” experience as we learn to “live together in love.”

What he's describing is not something I see much of in life (at church, here on the forum, or otherwise), but no doubt is something we should all be working on. I honestly can't tell the difference between members of the Church and non-members anymore (with very few and far between exceptions). What he says sounds nice, but in the end, I believe he (and most people these days, it seems) and I have a different understanding of what "love" is.

It's weird, Mark, that you wouldn't share the source of the Givens quote when I kindly asked you to. I looked around online for it, but never could find it. Oh well. In my searching, I found that I like a lot of what he says, so I bought a few of his books (used, of course), and look forward to reading them.

It's equally weird, underdog, that you would share a quote from one of the top 15 leaders of a Church you consider to be in apostasy. But I understand some people have the opinion that 'truth is truth no matter who/where it comes from' - and to an extent, I agree. Probably in the end, when all actual truth is revealed, we'll all find that we didn't know near as much as we thought we did.

[Mark]

I like this quote from Terrill Givens.

"The church is a place to worship, to serve others, to learn to get along with people we might not choose as neighbors or family, and to find kinship with a large and timeless community of disciples. It is a workshop for the soul. But ultimately, we are responsible for our own life of discipleship, for finding spiritual nourishment in our own sacred spaces. At the same time, we are part of the body of Christ- and we can influence the collective only if we are part of it. As an outspoken President once noted, " It Is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena."

I really like that. Can you tell me which of his books/talks that's from? I'd like to read the whole thing. Thanks.

This is also a good talk on that topic: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... h?lang=eng by By Elder D. Todd Christofferson.

An excerpt:

In the Church we not only learn divine doctrine; we also experience its application. As the body of Christ, the members of the Church minister to one another in the reality of day-to-day life. All of us are imperfect; we may offend and be offended. We often test one another with our personal idiosyncrasies. In the body of Christ, we have to go beyond concepts and exalted words and have a real “hands-on” experience as we learn to “live together in love.”

What he's describing is not something I see much of in life (at church, here on the forum, or otherwise), but no doubt is something we should all be working on. I honestly can't tell the difference between members of the Church and non-members anymore (with very few and far between exceptions). What he says sounds nice, but in the end, I believe he (and most people these days, it seems) and I have a different understanding of what "love" is.

It's weird, Mark, that you wouldn't share the source of the Givens quote when I kindly asked you to. I looked around online for it, but never could find it. Oh well. In my searching, I found that I like a lot of what he says, so I bought a few of his books (used, of course), and look forward to reading them.

It's equally weird, underdog, that you would share a quote from one of the top 15 leaders of a Church you consider to be in apostasy. But I understand some people have the opinion that 'truth is truth no matter who/where it comes from' - and to an extent, I agree. Probably in the end, when all actual truth is revealed, we'll all find that we didn't know near as much as we thought we did.

Sorry I've been busy golfing the past few days. it was from his book The Crucible of Doubt; Reflections on the Quest for Faith. Very good book.

[EmmaLee]

I really like that. Can you tell me which of his books/talks that's from? I'd like to read the whole thing. Thanks.

This is also a good talk on that topic: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... h?lang=eng by By Elder D. Todd Christofferson.

An excerpt:

In the Church we not only learn divine doctrine; we also experience its application. As the body of Christ, the members of the Church minister to one another in the reality of day-to-day life. All of us are imperfect; we may offend and be offended. We often test one another with our personal idiosyncrasies. In the body of Christ, we have to go beyond concepts and exalted words and have a real “hands-on” experience as we learn to “live together in love.”

What he's describing is not something I see much of in life (at church, here on the forum, or otherwise), but no doubt is something we should all be working on. I honestly can't tell the difference between members of the Church and non-members anymore (with very few and far between exceptions). What he says sounds nice, but in the end, I believe he (and most people these days, it seems) and I have a different understanding of what "love" is.

It's weird, Mark, that you wouldn't share the source of the Givens quote when I kindly asked you to. I looked around online for it, but never could find it. Oh well. In my searching, I found that I like a lot of what he says, so I bought a few of his books (used, of course), and look forward to reading them.

It's equally weird, underdog, that you would share a quote from one of the top 15 leaders of a Church you consider to be in apostasy. But I understand some people have the opinion that 'truth is truth no matter who/where it comes from' - and to an extent, I agree. Probably in the end, when all actual truth is revealed, we'll all find that we didn't know near as much as we thought we did.

Sorry I've been busy golfing the past few days. it was from his book The Crucible of Doubt; Reflections on the Quest for Faith. Very good book.

I understand - good on you for having a life outside LDSFF - more people should follow your example in that. Thank you very much for the book title - that is one that I just bought yesterday! I look forward to reading it.

[Mark]

This is also a good talk on that topic: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... h?lang=eng by By Elder D. Todd Christofferson.

An excerpt:

What he's describing is not something I see much of in life (at church, here on the forum, or otherwise), but no doubt is something we should all be working on. I honestly can't tell the difference between members of the Church and non-members anymore (with very few and far between exceptions). What he says sounds nice, but in the end, I believe he (and most people these days, it seems) and I have a different understanding of what "love" is.

It's weird, Mark, that you wouldn't share the source of the Givens quote when I kindly asked you to. I looked around online for it, but never could find it. Oh well. In my searching, I found that I like a lot of what he says, so I bought a few of his books (used, of course), and look forward to reading them.

It's equally weird, underdog, that you would share a quote from one of the top 15 leaders of a Church you consider to be in apostasy. But I understand some people have the opinion that 'truth is truth no matter who/where it comes from' - and to an extent, I agree. Probably in the end, when all actual truth is revealed, we'll all find that we didn't know near as much as we thought we did.

Sorry I've been busy golfing the past few days. it was from his book The Crucible of Doubt; Reflections on the Quest for Faith. Very good book.

I understand - good on you for having a life outside LDSFF - more people should follow your example in that. Thank you very much for the book title - that is one that I just bought yesterday! I look forward to reading it.

You will enjoy it. Terrill and Fiona Givens are very talented writers. Here is another great quote:

"A life devoted to serving others reflects the best conceivable set of values. Regardless of what we say we believe, such a life SHOWS what we believe: that our hearts are attuned to others, that we feel the pain of the vulnerable and seek to relieve it, that we aspire to emulate Christ and his life of selfless service. If that kind of compassion- the act of putting ourselves in the place of the other and seeking their best interest- is the lodestar of our life, then That is true religion."

[drtanner]

Turns out that knowing the truth of anything isn't a mystery after all!!

Is it hard to know that it's daytime when the sun is up in the sky? Is it hard to know it is night time when it's pitch black? Should be a piece of cake, even "as the daylight is from the dark night"!

I say I'm 100% sure, as it's day time when the sun is out, that Denver's teachings "inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ." There is no question about it.

The real question is how do good people here on this forum assert with a straight face that his teachings "persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God"?

Which specific teachings "persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God"?

Where is the evil in persuading men and women from the church of Jesus Christ?
-Baptism with authority
-The gift of the Holy Ghost
-Temple covenants
- Sealing power to bind families
- Living Prophets


All of these things combined with our faithfulness work together with the gospel for our salvation. Of course you being a member already know this so why would Heavenly Father let us have so much back and forth with something this important? I don't believe he does. So why the struggle to know? This exchange from War and Peace about knowing God between a man (Pierre) who meets a Mason and changes his life may have some principles that may be the reason some do not know and struggle to know.

He paused and sighed, evidently trying to calm himself.

"If He were not," he said quietly, "you and I would not be speaking of Him, my dear sir. Of what, of whom, are we speaking? Whom hast thou denied?" he suddenly asked with exulting austerity and authority in his voice. "Who invented Him, if He did not exist? Whence came thy conception of the existence of such an incomprehensible Being? didst thou, and why did the whole world, conceive the idea of the existence of such an incomprehensible Being, a Being all-powerful, eternal, and infinite in all His attributes?..."

He stopped and remained silent for a long time.

Pierre could not and did not wish to break this silence.

"He exists, but to understand Him is hard," the Mason began again, looking not at Pierre but straight before him, and turning the leaves of his book with his old hands which from excitement he could not keep still. "If it were a man whose existence thou didst doubt I could bring him to thee, could take him by the hand and show him to thee. But how can I, an insignificant mortal, show His omnipotence, His infinity, and all His mercy to one who is blind, or who shuts his eyes that he may not see or understand Him and may not see or understand his own vileness and sinfulness?" He paused again. "Who art thou? Thou dreamest that thou art wise because thou couldst utter those blasphemous words," he went on, with a somber and scornful smile. "And thou art more foolish and unreasonable than a little child, who, playing with the parts of a skillfully made watch, dares to say that, as he does not understand its use, he does not believe in the master who made it. To know Him is hard.... For ages, from our forefather Adam to our own day, we labor to attain that knowledge and are still infinitely far from our aim; but in our lack of understanding we see only our weakness and His greatness...."

Pierre listened with swelling heart, gazing into the Mason's face with shining eyes, not interrupting or questioning him, but believing with his whole soul what the stranger said. Whether he accepted the wise reasoning contained in the Mason's words, or believed as a child believes, in the speaker's tone of conviction and earnestness, or the tremor of the speaker's voice—which sometimes almost broke—or those brilliant aged eyes grown old in this conviction, or the calm firmness and certainty of his vocation, which radiated from his whole being (and which struck Pierre especially by contrast with his own dejection and hopelessness)—at any rate, Pierre longed with his whole soul to believe and he did believe, and felt a joyful sense of comfort, regeneration, and return to life.

"He is not to be apprehended by reason, but by life," said the Mason.

"I do not understand," said Pierre, feeling with dismay doubts reawakening. He was afraid of any want of clearness, any weakness, in the Mason's arguments; he dreaded not to be able to believe in him. "I don't understand," he said, "how it is that the mind of man cannot attain the knowledge of which you speak."

The Mason smiled with his gentle fatherly smile.

"The highest wisdom and truth are like the purest liquid we may wish to imbibe," he said. "Can I receive that pure liquid into an impure vessel and judge of its purity? Only by the inner purification of myself can I retain in some degree of purity the liquid I receive."

"Yes, yes, that is so," said Pierre joyfully.

"The highest wisdom is not founded on reason alone, not on those worldly sciences of physics, history, chemistry, and the like, into which intellectual knowledge is divided. The highest wisdom is one. The highest wisdom has but one science—the science of the whole—the science explaining the whole creation and man's place in it. To receive that science it is necessary to purify and renew one's inner self, and so before one can know, it is necessary to believe and to perfect one's self. And to attain this end, we have the light called conscience that God has implanted in our souls."

Thank you, Dr. Tanner, for your most thoughtful and elegant response.

Your lesson learned from that book reminds me of:

Now I would that ye should remember that God has said that the inward vessel shall be cleansed first, and then shall the outer vessel be cleansed also.
Alma 60:23

You ask this: "Why would Heavenly Father let us have so much back and forth with something this important?"

Do you think your sentiment was expressed in the premortal world when Heavenly Father's plan and Lucifer's plan were debated openly?

Perhaps many people in the ranks of the third of the hosts of heaven wondered similarly? Perhaps many who ended up keeping their first estate marveled at Heavenly Father allowing such back and forth?

Maybe many wished He would just "let us know so we wouldn't have to doubt what to do"?

Jesef is the voice for these people. "Just manifest Thy power in the manner I expect so I will know the truth, Father in Heaven! "

It is clearer now to me that there is a very strong undercurrent in the Church having these characteristics:

1) We want to be instructed clearly what to do so as to minimize risk of choosing the wrong.
2) We can't accept if the correct path is not manifested by God according to what WE feel is a proper divine manifestation.
3) We are sincerely perplexed that God honors the free will of all sides so that genuine confusion is allowed to remain among His children.

In other words, summing all three up, there is a strong undercurrent (instilled over many decades) where we WANT to outsource the responsibility rightfully devolving upon ourselves to our leaders.

Having Brethren to lead and guide us fulfills all 3 in that we can know clearly the path (because my leader says so), not worry about hearing God's voice for ourselves (because I can hear my leader's voice), and our perplexity at God not intervening is completely removed because our leader explains everything.

When all along, the answers to our questions are available in the Scriptures, through which God speaks to us. It truly is an "open book test." We don't need to look to see what another fellow test-taker (the Brethren) says; all we have to do is consult the Scriptures.

I can see the Lord telling us face to face some day: "I know you THOUGHT your tradition or certain belief was true, but did that tradition / belief conform to Scripture? "

For example, "the Lord will not permit the president to lead the church astray. " The Lord may ask us, "Where did you ever get the notion that I would control or force any man to do my will? Any leader or any man or group of men are free to choose. If you want to believe you're safe and secure in your salvation by following them, then that is your right! I will always honor what you want. Did I not say you were gods, agents who can create, who can choose your destiny? You are free to choose."

That's right there is a difference between knowing and believing (acting / using agency to obey what you know) "If any man will do his will he shall know of the doctrine." If you "believed" in the church whole heartedly what would you be doing different in your life? What is keeping you from doing those things?

[Mark]

Shadow,

When you come with something that is non circular and fresh and not based on your false premise (and then reasoning backwards, as if that makes any sense), then I'll respond. Otherwise, you'll get crickets from me. It's a waste of time for you to repeat yourself, and for me to respond.

I'm looking for serious discussion and not a repeat of your traditions.

AI2 had a response that showed research and thoughtfulness, quoting references, etc. Your responses are always based in your assumptions of what is true. Opinions and assertions can't be brought forth as evidence. Need something that at least appears to be factual.

Why do you even care? You have already made your choice and a stick of dynamite wouldn't move you off your intended remnant path. Is this just a game to you to get people's blood pressure to elevate? Clearly you are not trying to decide which path to follow. It just seems so fruitless to pursue any more discussion on this topic. Nothing said here will make any difference at this point. Just move forward with your new path and live your life.

[Arenera]

The hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world.

[shadow]

Shadow,

When you come with something that is non circular and fresh and not based on your false premise (and then reasoning backwards, as if that makes any sense), then I'll respond. Otherwise, you'll get crickets from me. It's a waste of time for you to repeat yourself, and for me to respond.

I'm looking for serious discussion and not a repeat of your traditions.

AI2 had a response that showed research and thoughtfulness, quoting references, etc. Your responses are always based in your assumptions of what is true. Opinions and assertions can't be brought forth as evidence. Need something that at least appears to be factual.

You don't have to respond if you don't want to, intellectually you offer nothing anyway. You can't respond to Snuffer's claim of wresting the keys because it's contrary to the revelations from the Lord to Joseph Smith. You can't respond because Joseph Smith said those who refuse to attend their court deserve to be excommunicated on that point alone. Putting 2+2 together for you- Because Snuffer didn't attend his court, the appeal to the first presidency SHOULD be responded to only as validating the excommunication- that's what Joseph taught. Snuffer gave them no choice. Granted, even if he attended his court the result should've been excommunication simply by way of the false doctrine Snuffer was teaching. Believing false doctrine is one thing and can be dealt with in various ways including not dealing with it at all, but once a following occurs and the false doctrine continues to be taught, excommunication is the correct answer. This is backed by revelation to Joseph Smith and it's backed by scripture found in the Book of Mormon.

So sure, if by circular you mean I keep bringing up the same points that you gloss over then I'm guilty. If you don't want to respond to it then don't, but most likely I'll keep bringing it up.

[underdog]

Shadow,

When you come with something that is non circular and fresh and not based on your false premise (and then reasoning backwards, as if that makes any sense), then I'll respond. Otherwise, you'll get crickets from me. It's a waste of time for you to repeat yourself, and for me to respond.

I'm looking for serious discussion and not a repeat of your traditions.

AI2 had a response that showed research and thoughtfulness, quoting references, etc. Your responses are always based in your assumptions of what is true. Opinions and assertions can't be brought forth as evidence. Need something that at least appears to be factual.

Why do you even care? You have already made your choice and a stick of dynamite wouldn't move you off your intended remnant path. Is this just a game to you to get people's blood pressure to elevate? Clearly you are not trying to decide which path to follow. It just seems so fruitless to pursue any more discussion on this topic. Nothing said here will make any difference at this point. Just move forward with your new path and live your life.

Good point, and good questions, Mark.

I am persuaded by your points.

I will cautiously move forward.

Like you, and like the good folks here, I do want to follow the Lord and I want to do that by following His commandments and repenting and getting to the point where I understand His voice.

I know I'm a good person, and because I do the things I should be doing as a good member of the Church like reading the BoM, Bible, etc., going to the Temple, magnifying my callings, being a good dad and husband, etc. I think I should expect to be led by the Spirit.

Could I be wrong about Denver? I could. I walk by faith. I do not believe I could be wrong about the BoM or Jesus Christ. I believe both to be true.

To me, Denver's teachings match up and corroborate and sustain and conform to the Scriptures. The Scriptures testify of latter-day apostasy. I wish the Church didn't have so many black eyes, but what can I say, it just keeps giving itself black eyes. I truly and fervently wish the Church would stop it.

If Denver is a Pied Piper, then I could be victim. It's true. But right now, he's leading me to wake up and look to the Lord and not man. I have stopped my preoccupation with the Brethren -- my self-confessed idolatry. They don't claim anything more than what I've received and so why should I exalt them more than any other man?

If I am to be a victim, then I wonder what the result will be? Will Denver ask us to drink poisoned Koolaid, ala Jim Jones? Surely I won't fall for that one. Could I lose money by donating to the Temple fund? If I uproot and head to Zion, that would be a sacrifice and my non member family would think I'm nuts. But they think I'm nuts anyway for having joined the LDS Church 30 years ago.

I'm not sure how I can really be hurt negatively by trying to rely more on Jesus Christ and not on man?

At the end of the day, if I understand God's will for me, then I will be safe. Isn't that all any of us can do? At the end of the day, we must be plugged into the True Vine and we must do His will.

[underdog]

Turns out that knowing the truth of anything isn't a mystery after all!!

Is it hard to know that it's daytime when the sun is up in the sky? Is it hard to know it is night time when it's pitch black? Should be a piece of cake, even "as the daylight is from the dark night"!

I say I'm 100% sure, as it's day time when the sun is out, that Denver's teachings "inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ." There is no question about it.

The real question is how do good people here on this forum assert with a straight face that his teachings "persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God"?

Which specific teachings "persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God"?

Where is the evil in persuading men and women from the church of Jesus Christ?
-Baptism with authority
-The gift of the Holy Ghost
-Temple covenants
- Sealing power to bind families
- Living Prophets


All of these things combined with our faithfulness work together with the gospel for our salvation. Of course you being a member already know this so why would Heavenly Father let us have so much back and forth with something this important? I don't believe he does. So why the struggle to know? This exchange from War and Peace about knowing God between a man (Pierre) who meets a Mason and changes his life may have some principles that may be the reason some do not know and struggle to know.

He paused and sighed, evidently trying to calm himself.

"If He were not," he said quietly, "you and I would not be speaking of Him, my dear sir. Of what, of whom, are we speaking? Whom hast thou denied?" he suddenly asked with exulting austerity and authority in his voice. "Who invented Him, if He did not exist? Whence came thy conception of the existence of such an incomprehensible Being? didst thou, and why did the whole world, conceive the idea of the existence of such an incomprehensible Being, a Being all-powerful, eternal, and infinite in all His attributes?..."

He stopped and remained silent for a long time.

Pierre could not and did not wish to break this silence.

"He exists, but to understand Him is hard," the Mason began again, looking not at Pierre but straight before him, and turning the leaves of his book with his old hands which from excitement he could not keep still. "If it were a man whose existence thou didst doubt I could bring him to thee, could take him by the hand and show him to thee. But how can I, an insignificant mortal, show His omnipotence, His infinity, and all His mercy to one who is blind, or who shuts his eyes that he may not see or understand Him and may not see or understand his own vileness and sinfulness?" He paused again. "Who art thou? Thou dreamest that thou art wise because thou couldst utter those blasphemous words," he went on, with a somber and scornful smile. "And thou art more foolish and unreasonable than a little child, who, playing with the parts of a skillfully made watch, dares to say that, as he does not understand its use, he does not believe in the master who made it. To know Him is hard.... For ages, from our forefather Adam to our own day, we labor to attain that knowledge and are still infinitely far from our aim; but in our lack of understanding we see only our weakness and His greatness...."

Pierre listened with swelling heart, gazing into the Mason's face with shining eyes, not interrupting or questioning him, but believing with his whole soul what the stranger said. Whether he accepted the wise reasoning contained in the Mason's words, or believed as a child believes, in the speaker's tone of conviction and earnestness, or the tremor of the speaker's voice—which sometimes almost broke—or those brilliant aged eyes grown old in this conviction, or the calm firmness and certainty of his vocation, which radiated from his whole being (and which struck Pierre especially by contrast with his own dejection and hopelessness)—at any rate, Pierre longed with his whole soul to believe and he did believe, and felt a joyful sense of comfort, regeneration, and return to life.

"He is not to be apprehended by reason, but by life," said the Mason.

"I do not understand," said Pierre, feeling with dismay doubts reawakening. He was afraid of any want of clearness, any weakness, in the Mason's arguments; he dreaded not to be able to believe in him. "I don't understand," he said, "how it is that the mind of man cannot attain the knowledge of which you speak."

The Mason smiled with his gentle fatherly smile.

"The highest wisdom and truth are like the purest liquid we may wish to imbibe," he said. "Can I receive that pure liquid into an impure vessel and judge of its purity? Only by the inner purification of myself can I retain in some degree of purity the liquid I receive."

"Yes, yes, that is so," said Pierre joyfully.

"The highest wisdom is not founded on reason alone, not on those worldly sciences of physics, history, chemistry, and the like, into which intellectual knowledge is divided. The highest wisdom is one. The highest wisdom has but one science—the science of the whole—the science explaining the whole creation and man's place in it. To receive that science it is necessary to purify and renew one's inner self, and so before one can know, it is necessary to believe and to perfect one's self. And to attain this end, we have the light called conscience that God has implanted in our souls."

Thank you, Dr. Tanner, for your most thoughtful and elegant response.

Your lesson learned from that book reminds me of:

Now I would that ye should remember that God has said that the inward vessel shall be cleansed first, and then shall the outer vessel be cleansed also.
Alma 60:23

You ask this: "Why would Heavenly Father let us have so much back and forth with something this important?"

Do you think your sentiment was expressed in the premortal world when Heavenly Father's plan and Lucifer's plan were debated openly?

Perhaps many people in the ranks of the third of the hosts of heaven wondered similarly? Perhaps many who ended up keeping their first estate marveled at Heavenly Father allowing such back and forth?

Maybe many wished He would just "let us know so we wouldn't have to doubt what to do"?

Jesef is the voice for these people. "Just manifest Thy power in the manner I expect so I will know the truth, Father in Heaven! "

It is clearer now to me that there is a very strong undercurrent in the Church having these characteristics:

1) We want to be instructed clearly what to do so as to minimize risk of choosing the wrong.
2) We can't accept if the correct path is not manifested by God according to what WE feel is a proper divine manifestation.
3) We are sincerely perplexed that God honors the free will of all sides so that genuine confusion is allowed to remain among His children.

In other words, summing all three up, there is a strong undercurrent (instilled over many decades) where we WANT to outsource the responsibility rightfully devolving upon ourselves to our leaders.

Having Brethren to lead and guide us fulfills all 3 in that we can know clearly the path (because my leader says so), not worry about hearing God's voice for ourselves (because I can hear my leader's voice), and our perplexity at God not intervening is completely removed because our leader explains everything.

When all along, the answers to our questions are available in the Scriptures, through which God speaks to us. It truly is an "open book test." We don't need to look to see what another fellow test-taker (the Brethren) says; all we have to do is consult the Scriptures.

I can see the Lord telling us face to face some day: "I know you THOUGHT your tradition or certain belief was true, but did that tradition / belief conform to Scripture? "

For example, "the Lord will not permit the president to lead the church astray. " The Lord may ask us, "Where did you ever get the notion that I would control or force any man to do my will? Any leader or any man or group of men are free to choose. If you want to believe you're safe and secure in your salvation by following them, then that is your right! I will always honor what you want. Did I not say you were gods, agents who can create, who can choose your destiny? You are free to choose."

That's right there is a difference between knowing and believing (acting / using agency to obey what you know) "If any man will do his will he shall know of the doctrine." If you "believed" in the church whole heartedly what would you be doing different in your life? What is keeping you from doing those things?

Dr. Tanner,

Thanks.

I love John 17:7. Probably my favorite verse. I've lived by and patterned my life around that verse.

If I believed in the Church NOW whole heartedly, what would I be doing differently now? I wouldn't be looking into the mysteries of Godliness. I wouldn't be questioning the rampant unrighteous dominion in the Church. I wouldn't be looking outside the mainstream orthodoxy for answers to my questions. I wouldn't be sad that I live in an empire of lies. I wouldn't be thinking about Zion. I wouldn't be as excited and energized about the Gospel as I am now.

[Arenera]

If I believed in the Church NOW whole heartedly, what would I be doing differently now? I wouldn't be looking into the mysteries of Godliness. I wouldn't be questioning the rampant unrighteous dominion in the Church. I wouldn't be looking outside the mainstream orthodoxy for answers to my questions. I wouldn't be sad that I live in an empire of lies. I wouldn't be thinking about Zion. I wouldn't be as excited and energized about the Gospel as I am now.

You are practicing unrighteous dominion now by your fighting against the Church. You have no priesthood. You are putting yourself, your family, and your posterity in danger.

[Seek the Truth]

Not sure what you're saying.

You know exactly what we are saying.

[Seek the Truth]

and that we should reject the philosophies of men mingled with Scripture.

This is why we reject Denver. He mixes his philosophies with scripture.