Upwardthought blog on the Denver Snuffer movment;

[underdog]

As proof that signs do not produce faith Jesef, you already have heard from people who have seen the Lord based on following Snuffer's teaches. You also are aware of the physical signs, baptism of Phoenix the day before his lecture, earthquake in Ephraim. It is because these things can be so easily dismissed that you will not believe them. Spiritual manifestations happen to those with faith not those who harbor doubt. You can be given all the proof in the world but you refuse to believe it.

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father."

What works are those? Why the same works that Jesus did. What works did Jesus do? Why he went around healing the sick, the lame, curing diseases, and raising the dead, and other great works.

We aren't talking about seeing signs so that we can believe. We are talking about how signs follow those who have the Holy Ghost. It is recorded in the scriptures when the ancient apostles were here on this earth they went around healing the sick, curing diseases, raising the dead, and they manifested in their works God's power, because they had God's power. It is said in the scriptures that signs will follow those who have God's power. These signs followed the ancient apostles because of their faith and because they were anointed from on high. It had nothing to do with the bystanders, to unbelievers, etc. It is recorded that even those who had no faith whatsoever were healed of afflictions and diseases. So, yes, signs do follow faith, it doesn't mean that the faithless can't be healed by the faithful. Because they can.

If Denver Snuffer is the Mighty and Strong one, then in order to fulfill the scripture, Denver must begin manifesting mighty and strong works, and those works will be great. If Denver is filled with the Holy Ghost, he will be filled with the love of God, and if he is filled with the love of God, or the pure love of Christ, then his bowels will be filled with mercy and compassion for his fellow man. It is how we can know that one is filled with the Holy Ghost, because they will be able to perform mighty works, just like the ancient apostles did.

Nothing to do with me, Jesef, or other unbelievers of Denver. It has everything to do with Denver's faith and Denver's anointing, if he possess it.

"These miraculous signs will accompany those who believe: They will cast out demons in my name, and they will speak in new languages. They will be able to handle snakes with safety, and if they drink anything poisonous, it won’t hurt them. They will be able to place their hands on the sick, and they will be healed.”

-Finrock

As I've said already, I think mighty works and wonders wrought now may be a disservice to establishing Zion. Plus there is no need to exercise faith. If great miracles are performed, it would be easy to get a following.

Furthermore, didn't Jesus on numerous occasions perform a miracle (based on the RECIPIENT'S faith) and charge the person to "tell it to no one"?

These are all key points that I think largely put the matter to rest.

Another point to repeat: Denver's ministry, since coming out of the closet, is just a few years old. Give it time. Such miracles will come IF he is whom people say he is.

Last major point: I believe there is gross unbelief on the earth now. Else, tons of people would be seeing Jesus Christ in the flesh. There would be healings and all manner of miracles NOW among people on every continent. We all agree these miracles DO happen on occasion. We've all heard of them through the years. However, my point is that the earth groans under the wickedness of men. Moroni teaches us that is it BECAUSE OF faith that miracles are wrought (Ether 12). So you and Jesef bemoaning the lack of miracles just highlights the fact I just pointed out -- that we are a faithless generation.

Our faithlessness explains the phenomenon you are describing.

Remember this from Matt 13:

57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without ahonour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Could it be, just could it be that the collective "we" are to blame??

But alas, there is hope. I believe faith is beginning to increase. Surely it will.

I believe one of the outcomes of a modern-day Joseph Smith in our midst is that FAITH WILL INCREASE. And AFTER faith is developed THEN the miracles will come.

I would caution against judging Denver as "lacking" in this area is very unfair and premature. Give the Lord time to do his strange act.

We are to blame if we (individually) are not doing the works that Jesus did. But, we are talking about one who professes to be a modern day Moses or the Mighty and Strong one. In general, a person who is filled with the Holy Ghost and who has faith doesn't need me (or you) to be filled with the Holy Ghost and to have faith in order to perform their mighty works.

The same thing applies to the LDS apostles, frankly, and I've had the same discussion with my LDS counterparts and they say the same things, that these mighty works are happening, but its just being kept secret. That is a bogus excuse in my view. The ancient apostles went around doing mighty works openly and abundantly. It was evidence that they were indeed apostles of Jesus Christ and that they had been endowed with power from on high.

-Finrock

I agree with you. I'm very sympathetic and have made the same points you make.

Nevertheless, you must admit that it is ENTIRELY CONCEIVABLE that such signs are not the will of God right now for His servant to be performing. After all, it's GOD'S will which is important and not our's or Denver's. Agreed? God's ways are not our ways.

[underdog]

I say the following things with great respect to you and to your religious beliefs. I also recognize that we all have our individual journey here on this earth and I respect that your journey may take to where you are at today. I have great trust that God is at the helm and He is working with His children (you and I) continually and that He loves and cares for you just as much as He loves and cares for me. I trust God knows what you need in life to learn the things that you need to learn. I don't think you are going to hell or that you will be condemned because I disagree with your beliefs and ideas. It is my hope to help and not to injure you and I am sharing only that this is where the Holy Spirit and God has lead me as I've pondered, prayed, considered, and asked with sincerity and with real intent. I am sharing with you the things God has revealed to me concerning Denver Snuffer and his religion and the truths that I have received by the power of the Holy Ghost.

To your question of how I suppose God is closing the door on the Gentiles, I've surmised for many years, due to the precipitous fall in numbers of Gentile converts (and now the Church doesn't report on the low numbers presumably because they are so low), that the times of the Gentiles were coming to a close. Now that there is a prophet again on the earth and his message is being wholesale rejected by the mainstream Church, it seems quite obvious to me that their time is up. God grants us a probationary time. If we don't repent during this time, then we fail the test, and there is no other reason for us to allowed to live. Thus Sodom was destroyed. Thus the people in Noah's day were destroyed by water. Thus the Jaredites and Nephites were swept off. They had no interest in repenting. The mainstream Mormons are in the process of rejecting Denver's message (as many of you are doing), and even as many of you have indicated on this forum, have no interest in introspection or repentance -- "all is well in Zion," as you believe.

I have great interest in introspection and repentance, but I don't believe Denver Snuffer is the mouthpiece of Jesus Christ. I don't believe all is well in Zion, yet I don't believe Denver Snuffer is the mouthpiece of Jesus Christ.

But what is Denver's message? It's the "fulness of the gospel". Perfectly fulfilling Jesus' prophesy from 3 Nephi that the Mormon gentiles will reject "the fulness of the gospel". "I say unto you, that if the Gentiles do not repent after the blessing which they shall receive..." And He says, "I will remember the covenant which I have made with my people, and I have covenanted with them that I would gather them together in mine own due time..." And "the time cometh, when the fulness of my gospel shall be preached unto them..." Christ says "my people shall know my name; yea, in that day they shall know that I am he that doth speak..." Unfortunately, "there shall be among [the Mormon Gentiles] those who will not believe it, although a man (Denver) shall declare it unto them." The prophesy goes on. It's all there. The Spirit teaches the meaning. The signs in the heaven bear witness. To me, it makes sense

Not having the fullness of the gospel does not equate to being completely apostate/corrupt or without any gospel.

I agree that there are issues within the LDS Church (I have spoken about these issues myself from time to time) and I agree that people need to repent or in other words, people need to have a broken heart and a contrite Spirit so they can be baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost. However, Denver Snuffer isn't the solution. He doesn't resolve the issues you speak about. It is the same trust in man (veneration) and in many cases Denver's religion actually compounds and adds new issues, thus making the outcome worse.

-Finrock

Thank you for your charitable remarks. I agree with your points above.

[Arenera]

Lets change the words a little and say Pope and protestants. Which side are you on? Cause it is the exact same issues.

The things Joseph Smith established have now been thrown out and we have become the Catholic Church. Look into the things Martin Luther said about the Catholic Church because they are the same things that Snuffer, Underdog and others are saying about our situation now.

How can it be wrong for the Catholics but right for us?

It's the first lesson we teach over and over again as LDS missionaries—the cycle of restoration through true messengers followed by apostasy and blind guides. Why do we believe we're immune to this in our dispensation when every dispensation before us except those who actually became Zion followed this same pattern? We believe we're immune because those we have accepted as guides have assured us that this dispensation cannot fail. Rather than believe the clear pattern shown us in scripture, we prefer to be pacified and lulled away into carnal security, saying, "All is well in Zion. Yea, Zion prospereth! All is well!", while our souls are cheated and lead carefully down to hell. We the Gentiles have done exactly what Jesus, Isaiah, and Nephi said we would do, and just as God said He would do, He has set His hand again the second time to recover His people.

Those who prefer supposed credentials and seeming safety in numbers and smooth words may miss what is happening today, just as the Jews mostly missed it during Jesus' mortal ministry and as the Protestants mostly missed it when that treasure-hunting farm boy Joseph Smith was here, but those who are able to recognize the truth of the message in spite of the seeming improbability of the messenger will see the Lord's hand in our day. He hasn't changed the nature of the test for this dispensation.

This has nothing to do with criticizing Church leaders or thinking one has grown beyond the need for a flawed Church. It's about recognizing true messengers. A lot of people think God would never send a messenger like Denver, but it's how He's always done things. A lot of people thought God could never have sent to the Jews that bug-eating, camel hair-wearing John baptizing people out in the wilderness a while back. He wasn't in the religious hierarchy of the Jews, and what's more, he even seemed to be speaking evil of the Lord's anointed! Yet, he was an authorized messenger. Who was Abinadi to tell ordained priests that they had turned the law of Moses into something devoid of actual meaning and saving power? Yet, he was an authorized messenger.

Are we like the priests of King Noah? Do we believe salvation comes through the ritual practices of our day just as they believed salvation could come through the law of Moses? Do we think the endowment will save us if we do not recognize and actually obtain the things the endowment symbolically demonstrates? Just as the law of Moses itself did not save but was meant to point the Israelites toward Christ who could save, so in our day the temple ordinances themselves do not save but are meant to point us to Christ who can save. Too often today we mistake the symbol for the real thing and neglect to ever seek the real thing. We think the garments from the distribution center can make us holy without Christ Himself placing on us a robe of righteousness.

If Joseph Smith said we should move forward until God Himself tells us by His own voice from heaven that we will be exalted, and that we should go on thereafter to enter Christ's presence, have things changed in our day? Is it now enough to pay tithing and maintain a current temple recommend? If the sacrifice of all things and making one's calling and election sure were part of the knowledge required for salvation in Joseph Smith's day, are they no longer important? If they are still important, why do our shepherds not teach us to seek these things? Where are these lessons in our manuals and conference talks?

I know that God still requires the sacrifice of all things and that He still seals His children up to eternal life by His own voice in our day. The pattern Joseph Smith taught is still true and is still required of us, even if we neglect to teach it now. Some of us say, but we know our leaders have their calling and election made sure when they are made general authorities! Even if these pantomime rites administered from one man to another were any substitute for the actual thing administered by God, what would it mean for us? Is our exaltation ensured because we suspect our leaders have received that more sure word of prophecy? Joseph Smith certainly didn't think so. He told all of us to seek these things for ourselves.

We tell ourselves, this Church must still be in God's good graces because we have the priesthood and we feel the Spirit when our leaders speak to us! Joseph Smith was a prophet, and we have his scriptures and have continued his legacy! If inheriting scriptures from a dispensation head and keeping the institution intact over the course of generations were enough to please God, then He would have had no need to send John the Baptist and Jesus to the Jews—after all, they still had Moses' scriptures and claimed to yet be God's people. He would have had no need to send Joseph Smith to the Catholics and Protestants—after all, they still had Peter's and the other apostles' scriptures and claimed to yet be God's people. He would have no need to send Denver Snuffer to the Mormons—after all, we still have Joseph Smith's scriptures and claim to yet be God's people.

Do the Catholics believe their church has priesthood? Can Catholic leaders ever say inspired things that are true and that the Holy Ghost can testify of to the hearts and minds of those who hear them? Does God love His children in the Catholic church and work with them according to where they are and where they can go from there? Can the Catholic church teach truth and improve the lives of its members and help its members draw nearer to God? Father certainly does love, speak to, and bless His faithful children who happen to be Catholic, even in our day, and yet God felt it necessary to send Joseph Smith to restore truth. God's patience and blessings toward us are no more an endorsement of our Church than they are of the Catholic church as He blesses His children there.

Many religions can help God's children take steps in the right direction, but God expects much more than that if a church is to be His. He expects His church to enter His presence and become Zion—not only to say, but to do according to that which He has written. When did God lift the condemnation He pronounced on us for neglecting the Book of Mormon? If that condemnation has been lifted, when did it happen? If that condemnation has not been lifted, why aren't God's servants warning us about our condition so that we can remove the condemnation and receive the fullness that was once offered to us—or are God's servants in fact doing just that right now while we fail to recognize the servants? Are we oblivious to God's hand at work? Will future generations think of us as we think of the Jews and Catholics?

A thought from Joseph Smith: "The world always mistook false prophets for true ones, and those that were sent of God, they considered to be false prophets, and hence they killed, stoned, punished and imprisoned the true prophets, and these had to hide themselves 'in deserts and dens, and caves of the earth,' and though the most honorable men of the earth, they banished them from their society as vagabonds, whilst they cherished, honored and supported knaves, vagabonds, hypocrites, impostors, and the basest of men."

I wrote a story about this idea. If Amos in the story represents Moses and Jeremiah in the story represents John the Baptist and Jesus, we think it's an apt parable. If Amos in the story represents Jesus and Peter and Jeremiah in the story represents Joseph Smith, what a profound portrait of the latter-day restoration! But if Amos in the story represents Joseph Smith and Jeremiah in the story represents Denver Snuffer—this simply cannot be! We know the Church is true, and God will not allow us to go astray this time!

I pray that we'll be able to recognize the Lord's voice, even when it doesn't conform to our expectations.

Denver is old news around here, and has been thouroughly debunked. Remnants try to support him but are misguided.

[Finrock]

Are you the only one that has the Spirit?

Oh, you didn't already know this? I thought it was universally understood that I'm the only one that has the Spirit. Sorry, I guess I should have made that clear...

:))

-Finrock

[Silver Pie]

I guess that is the difference Jesef, I saw near 7 inches of rain in Mesa, which was a record by far and water in the desert, everywhere. Knee high water if not hip high. Homes flooded, roads flooded. Rivers flowing over the road north west of Phoenix that made them near impassable. I had to wade through water in my hotel parking lot the whole time I was there.

I guess, I have been saying it because you keep bringing up the lack of signs. I keep seeing signs.

People kayaking in the parks built to hold floodwater in several places in the city. It was pretty dang deep in the park I saw. I've walked in that park when I lived in Mesa. It was a baptism the likes of which was never seen, so I understood at the time. It even reached up to the freeway between Nevada and Utah, washing it out soon after Meili and I passed through on our way down to the Mesa area.

[Thomas]

Yes, I-15 between Mesquite and Las Vegas was washed away. Several miles of it. I heard it was a traffic nightmare. I drove through Page AZ to get home so I avoided that area. The highway was shutdown for some time.

[Seek the Truth]

Seriously, let go of your traditions for just the smallest moment. For the tiniest of moments, soften your heart and your open mind.

To what, Catholocism? Islam?

Read the quote again, he actively encourages people to point out every flaw in his words and actions. ACTIVELY ENCOURAGING. But has the caution to not curse him. A very reasonable statement considering any Christian should not curse anyone, but actively seek to bless all.

Classic Denver doublespeak.

Now compare that to what Elder Oaks had to say about criticism, even if it is true, about church leaders.
I state plainly that no objective person could accept what Elder Oaks said and find fault with with what Denver said.

I can.

Lets see what joseph smith said:

That man who rises up to condemn other, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives. TPJS pg 157

Joseph Smith is a prophet. Denver Snuffer did exactly as Joseph predicted would happen. He started finding fault with the Church, and apostasized. It sounds like you are in the process or already did. Joseph Smith gave me this great key to thwart the devil and it has served me well.

[investigator]

Unfortunately, Joseph didn't actually say that...

Lets see what joseph smith said:

That man who rises up to condemn other, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives. TPJS pg 157

Joseph Smith is a prophet. Denver Snuffer did exactly as Joseph predicted would happen. He started finding fault with the Church, and apostasized. It sounds like you are in the process or already did. Joseph Smith gave me this great key to thwart the devil and it has served me well.

This particular quote is cited as follows:

History of the Church, 3:385; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on July 2, 1839, in Montrose, Iowa; reported by Wilford Woodruff and Willard Richards.

Therefore, this quote is cited from three sources:
History of the Church by B.H. Roberts;
Wilford Woodruff
Willard Richards

The quote does indeed appear in Source 1, History of the Church, but that's not the original source. History of the Church simply lifted the quote from the other two sources, as follows:

First is Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, where we find the lengthy notes Woodruff took during the meeting in question. Trouble is, Woodruff's Journal completely omits this quote, though it directly (and without interruption) supplies the rest of the sermon used in History of the Church.

The other source is Willard Richards' Pocket Companion, which does contain this quote.

OK, so got that so far? Woodruff omits this paragraph from the sermon. Richards has this paragraph in the middle of the sermon. Woodruff, no. Richards, yes.

Woodruff, who was present at the meeting in question, is considered the most reliable source because he recorded the notes of the meeting while in attendance. But this quote does not appear in that record. The sermon before and after this quote appears there uninterrupted, but the quoted paragraph is completely absent.

Richards' Pocket Companion is actually a collection of material Willard Richards copied from other sources. Therefore, though this material appears there, Richards was not actually present when Joseph gave this sermon, and Richards copied the material from elsewhere, most likely Wilford Woodruff’s journal. As to how the quote in question got into Richards' Pocket Companion while NOT appearing in the original record is a mystery. Nobody knows where it came from. It is therefore hearsay and not a historical record.

We are left to wonder where Richards obtained the quote and why he stuck it in the middle of a sermon he didn’t hear Joseph give. There is no original source that contains this quotation, and Richards was on a mission in England when Joseph was supposed to have said it.

The quote's dubious provenance is not helped by its doctrinal difficulties. For example, scripture is replete with true prophets, called of God, who did indeed "rise up to condemn others, finding fault with the church, saying they are out of the way." Some obvious examples are as follows:
Noah
Abraham
Moses
Lehi
Jacob
Benjamin
Abinadi
Alma the Younger
Samuel the Lamanite
John the Baptist
Jesus Christ
Joseph Smith

In fact, you can pretty much summarize the mission of any true prophet as calling people to repentance. (D&C 11:9) How is this not "condemn[ing] others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way?"

Therefore, since Joseph Smith himself was "on the high road to apostasy" if this quote were true, it is utterly preposterous that Joseph Smith ever said this. Nobody quite knows where this quote came from, but it wasn't Joseph Smith. Adrian Larsen.

[investigator]

That man who rises up to condemn other, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives. TPJS pg 157

Even if you don't allow yourself to believe Joseph never said that, it turns out that when you read the full context, the Writer was warning apostles and seventies and leaders in general that “when they rise up in the church” (in its ranks) and “find fault with the church” (its lowly lay members), they (the leaders) are on the high road to apostasy. What a difference this makes. And yet this quote has been used to teach the exact opposite intended meaning for many years.

[Thomas]

I, Thomas will give you a key by which to determine falsehoods:

Any key that makes Jesus Christ an apostate is a false key.

[Jesef]

Here's another key: any teaching or interpretation that has Christ/God (actually) contradicting Himself (things He previously said) is false.

Or, as He put it, "What I the Lord have spoken I have spoken and I excuse not myself; and though the Heaven and the Earth pass away my word shall not pass away but shall all be fulfilled whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants it is the same."

This also means that apparent contradictions need to be examined carefully because somebody is messing with something. Fundamental eternal principle: God is not a liar. He doesn't do double takes. If He says something conditional, He will state the conditions. If He doesn't put conditions on it (such as unconditional prophecies), then it's going to happen regardless of what man might do to try and thwart it. Denver seems to be messing with stuff and making the Lord contradict Himself. Such as "for the last time" and "this one time", etc. Also, several other of his innovative re-interpretations/re-workings (twisting of meaning) of scripture and re-contextualizations. I've pointed out several with no good response from you (Remnant friends). His redefinition of "servants" (as "almost always" heavenly angels, clearly not true in D&C) and also his claim that Melchizedek Priesthood and keys, as well as the giving of the gift of the Holy Ghost, could not be transmitted by the laying on of hands. But the confirmation bias is apparently too strong for you guys to see these things or acknowledge them. Carry on.

[Arenera]

It appears that, using the case of remnants, the remnants interpret certain scriptures one way while standard Mormons interpret the same scriptures another way, so neither agree.

How do the remnants get around Christ setting up His organization with apostles and prophets? This is confirmed in the D&C, New Testament, and the Book of Mormon. What say you?

[shadow]

I, Thomas will give you a key by which to determine falsehoods:

Any key that makes Jesus Christ an apostate is a false key.

Since we're giving keys, here's a real and valid one-
Here's a key on how keys are NOT wrested, according to Joseph Smith-

First lets note that Snuffer refused to attend his own court hearing. This is fact and he admits to it. He was at church, but he refused to attend the hearing. Joseph Smith addressed those who refuse to attend. This actually has precedent.
From the history of Joseph Smith-
"On the evening of the 2nd of January, a Bishop's court assembled in Kirtland to investigate the case of Wesley Hurlburt, against whom charges had been preferred by Harriet Howe and others to the effect "that Hurlburt had denied the faith, spoken reproachfully of the Church, did not believe Joseph was a true Prophet," (Sounds familiar!!) etc. Hurlburt was in the place, but did not appear before the court, consequently was cut off." Exactly like Snuffer. He was in the place, but he refused to appear. He was cut off.

Another example- An Elder Green found himself subject to Church discipline for "for accusing President Joseph Smith, Jun., 'of rebuking Brother Aldridge wrongfully, and under the influence of an evil spirit.'" Green declined to attend, but a decision was taken in his absence: "President Rigdon arose and said, that it was the decision of the Presidency, that the Council proceed to examine the charge preferred, because Brother Green had been regularly summoned by himself."

Regarding this excom, Joseph Smith said this- "The decision of the Presidency of the High Council is that Brother Green be and is now excluded from this Church, and shall be a member no more, until he comes in by the ordinance of baptism, as appointed by the Gospel, to be done in the Church." The Prophet validated the excommunication.
And if Snuff's excom was incorrect (it was correct) it still isn't an end of the church- there's a system, even if the brethren mess up. From Joseph Smith-
"An attempt was made in the foregoing council to criminate [i.e., incriminate, charge, accuse] the Twelve before the high council for cutting off (excommunicating) Gladden Bishop at their Bradford Conference, but their attempt totally failed. I decided that the high council had nothing to do with the Twelve, or the decisions of the Twelve. But if the Twelve erred they were accountable only to the general council of the authorities of the whole Church, according to the revelations." So if the 12 err in an excom, or anything for that matter, they are to be held accountable by the church. This is all in the D&C- revelations to Joseph. Maybe Snuffer forgot to remind the Lord of the system He Himself set up

What an arrogant fool to think he wrested the keys because he was excommunicated and what a bunch of gullible, misguided people who believe him.

[Mark]

I, Thomas will give you a key by which to determine falsehoods:

Any key that makes Jesus Christ an apostate is a false key.

Since we're giving keys, here's a real and valid one-
Here's a key on how keys are NOT wrested, according to Joseph Smith-

First lets note that Snuffer refused to attend his own court hearing. This is fact and he admits to it. He was at church, but he refused to attend the hearing. Joseph Smith addressed those who refuse to attend. This actually has precedent.
From the history of Joseph Smith-
"On the evening of the 2nd of January, a Bishop's court assembled in Kirtland to investigate the case of Wesley Hurlburt, against whom charges had been preferred by Harriet Howe and others to the effect "that Hurlburt had denied the faith, spoken reproachfully of the Church, did not believe Joseph was a true Prophet," (Sounds familiar!!) etc. Hurlburt was in the place, but did not appear before the court, consequently was cut off." Exactly like Snuffer. He was in the place, but he refused to appear. He was cut off.

Another example- An Elder Green found himself subject to Church discipline for "for accusing President Joseph Smith, Jun., 'of rebuking Brother Aldridge wrongfully, and under the influence of an evil spirit.'" Green declined to attend, but a decision was taken in his absence: "President Rigdon arose and said, that it was the decision of the Presidency, that the Council proceed to examine the charge preferred, because Brother Green had been regularly summoned by himself."

Regarding this excom, Joseph Smith said this- "The decision of the Presidency of the High Council is that Brother Green be and is now excluded from this Church, and shall be a member no more, until he comes in by the ordinance of baptism, as appointed by the Gospel, to be done in the Church." The Prophet validated the excommunication.
And if Snuff's excom was incorrect (it was correct) it still isn't an end of the church- there's a system, even if the brethren mess up. From Joseph Smith-
"An attempt was made in the foregoing council to criminate [i.e., incriminate, charge, accuse] the Twelve before the high council for cutting off (excommunicating) Gladden Bishop at their Bradford Conference, but their attempt totally failed. I decided that the high council had nothing to do with the Twelve, or the decisions of the Twelve. But if the Twelve erred they were accountable only to the general council of the authorities of the whole Church, according to the revelations." So if the 12 err in an excom, or anything for that matter, they are to be held accountable by the church. This is all in the D&C- revelations to Joseph. Maybe Snuffer forgot to remind the Lord of the system He Himself set up

What an arrogant fool to think he wrested the keys because he was excommunicated and what a bunch of gullible, misguided people who believe him.

Those like Thomas just choose to ignore anything from the restoration period that doesn't line up with their own paradigm. Snuffer would have been exed by Joseph had lived then and done what he did back at that time. He is no friend of Joseph or the restored church. His day in the sun will come and go. I'm going to start calling him Reluctant David Hurlbut.

[Thomas]

Here's another key: any teaching or interpretation that has Christ/God (actually) contradicting Himself (things He previously said) is false.

Or, as He put it, "What I the Lord have spoken I have spoken and I excuse not myself; and though the Heaven and the Earth pass away my word shall not pass away but shall all be fulfilled whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants it is the same."

This also means that apparent contradictions need to be examined carefully because somebody is messing with something. Fundamental eternal principle: God is not a liar. He doesn't do double takes. If He says something conditional, He will state the conditions. If He doesn't put conditions on it (such as unconditional prophecies), then it's going to happen regardless of what man might do to try and thwart it. Denver seems to be messing with stuff and making the Lord contradict Himself. Such as "for the last time" and "this one time", etc. Also, several other of his innovative re-interpretations/re-workings (twisting of meaning) of scripture and re-contextualizations. I've pointed out several with no good response from you (Remnant friends). His redefinition of "servants" (as "almost always" heavenly angels, clearly not true in D&C) and also his claim that Melchizedek Priesthood and keys, as well as the giving of the gift of the Holy Ghost, could not be transmitted by the laying on of hands. But the confirmation bias is apparently too strong for you guys to see these things or acknowledge them. Carry on.

It quite interesting that you and Finrock seem to cling to this scripture and use it out of context, while ignoring a mountain of other scriptures.

What do you think it means? If it means what you seem to be implying it means than explain to me how the priesthood wasn't lost when Brigham Young refused to allow the First Presidency to run the church. No where does it say the Quorum of the Twelve have exclusive right to the priesthood. Nor has Denver ever said there has been a new dispensing of the priesthood. You are making a wild misinterpretation of the scripture in question. I think I could make a better case for the First Presidency to have priesthood rights then the twelve. Yet Brigham cut them off from the Church. Lets face it. it was a coup.

Others are included in the scripture. Those who have not misused their priesthood retained it.

[Arenera]

Here's another key: any teaching or interpretation that has Christ/God (actually) contradicting Himself (things He previously said) is false.

Or, as He put it, "What I the Lord have spoken I have spoken and I excuse not myself; and though the Heaven and the Earth pass away my word shall not pass away but shall all be fulfilled whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants it is the same."

This also means that apparent contradictions need to be examined carefully because somebody is messing with something. Fundamental eternal principle: God is not a liar. He doesn't do double takes. If He says something conditional, He will state the conditions. If He doesn't put conditions on it (such as unconditional prophecies), then it's going to happen regardless of what man might do to try and thwart it. Denver seems to be messing with stuff and making the Lord contradict Himself. Such as "for the last time" and "this one time", etc. Also, several other of his innovative re-interpretations/re-workings (twisting of meaning) of scripture and re-contextualizations. I've pointed out several with no good response from you (Remnant friends). His redefinition of "servants" (as "almost always" heavenly angels, clearly not true in D&C) and also his claim that Melchizedek Priesthood and keys, as well as the giving of the gift of the Holy Ghost, could not be transmitted by the laying on of hands. But the confirmation bias is apparently too strong for you guys to see these things or acknowledge them. Carry on.

It quite interesting that you and Finrock seem to cling to this scripture and use it out of context, while ignoring a mountain of other scriptures.

What do you think it means? If it means what you seem to be implying it means than explain to me how the priesthood wasn't lost when Brigham Young refused to allow the First Presidency to run the church. No where does it say the Quorum of the Twelve have exclusive right to the priesthood. Nor has Denver ever said there has been a new dispensing of the priesthood. You are making a wild misinterpretation of the scripture in question. I think I could make a better case for the First Presidency to have priesthood rights then the twelve. Yet Brigham cut them off from the Church. Lets face it. it was a coup.

Others are included in the scripture. Those who have not misused their priesthood retained it.

Where is your example in the Book of Mormon?

Korihor's story fits with Denver.

[underdog]

I, Thomas will give you a key by which to determine falsehoods:

Any key that makes Jesus Christ an apostate is a false key.

Since we're giving keys, here's a real and valid one-
Here's a key on how keys are NOT wrested, according to Joseph Smith-

First lets note that Snuffer refused to attend his own court hearing. This is fact and he admits to it. He was at church, but he refused to attend the hearing. Joseph Smith addressed those who refuse to attend. This actually has precedent.
From the history of Joseph Smith-
"On the evening of the 2nd of January, a Bishop's court assembled in Kirtland to investigate the case of Wesley Hurlburt, against whom charges had been preferred by Harriet Howe and others to the effect "that Hurlburt had denied the faith, spoken reproachfully of the Church, did not believe Joseph was a true Prophet," (Sounds familiar!!) etc. Hurlburt was in the place, but did not appear before the court, consequently was cut off." Exactly like Snuffer. He was in the place, but he refused to appear. He was cut off.

Another example- An Elder Green found himself subject to Church discipline for "for accusing President Joseph Smith, Jun., 'of rebuking Brother Aldridge wrongfully, and under the influence of an evil spirit.'" Green declined to attend, but a decision was taken in his absence: "President Rigdon arose and said, that it was the decision of the Presidency, that the Council proceed to examine the charge preferred, because Brother Green had been regularly summoned by himself."

Regarding this excom, Joseph Smith said this- "The decision of the Presidency of the High Council is that Brother Green be and is now excluded from this Church, and shall be a member no more, until he comes in by the ordinance of baptism, as appointed by the Gospel, to be done in the Church." The Prophet validated the excommunication.
And if Snuff's excom was incorrect (it was correct) it still isn't an end of the church- there's a system, even if the brethren mess up. From Joseph Smith-
"An attempt was made in the foregoing council to criminate [i.e., incriminate, charge, accuse] the Twelve before the high council for cutting off (excommunicating) Gladden Bishop at their Bradford Conference, but their attempt totally failed. I decided that the high council had nothing to do with the Twelve, or the decisions of the Twelve. But if the Twelve erred they were accountable only to the general council of the authorities of the whole Church, according to the revelations." So if the 12 err in an excom, or anything for that matter, they are to be held accountable by the church. This is all in the D&C- revelations to Joseph. Maybe Snuffer forgot to remind the Lord of the system He Himself set up

What an arrogant fool to think he wrested the keys because he was excommunicated and what a bunch of gullible, misguided people who believe him.

Shadow,

Since you brought it up, it's fair game. Here's what happened, in Denver's own words:

August 22, 2013 I received a summons delivered to my door by two of the stake clerks, including a neighbor who lives on my street. On August 28, 2013 a copy of the summons letter was put on the blog so that anyone who would be concerned about reading anything written by someone under threat of church discipline would be aware of my status. I concluded that I should not hide the truth, and mislead anyone about my status.

In emails between the time of the notice and the time of the court, I confirmed with President Hunt that I would be bringing my family. One of my daughters was not able to come home from college that weekend. She was the only one who would not be attending. All the others would be driving home, some from out-of-state, to be with me during the court.

On September 8th the church disciplinary council was held. My journal has pages of entries from throughout the day. When the time arrived, my family and I went to the stake offices. After an hour of discussion, President Hunt refused to permit my family to witness the court. We all tried to persuade him to let us in. He refused. During the hour spent trying to change his mind, I asserted I was worthy of a temple recommend and he agreed. He said the decision to discipline me was "his alone" to make. In response to that I reminded him that we were interrupted by a phone call from one of the Presidents of the Seventy and he was instructed "to stand down. That he then did 'stand down.' And that if he really believed I was worthy of discipline he would never have stood down, but would have acted then." Therefore, this was not his doing, but the doing of those in the hierarchy. He agreed he had been called, and that he had stood down when told to do so, but that he would be the one responsible for making the decision. I told him the decision had already been made, and not by him.

I reminded him that in emails beforehand I had been clear that my family was coming. I did not want them to be unaware of what happened behind closed doors. There would be rumors that this had to do with something other than the book, and therefore I wanted them to see and hear and witness what happened. He said that was a reasonable concern and he said to everyone of us that "this only has to do with a book." One of my daughters responded, almost to herself but loud enough we all heard her: "A book! A book! Are you serious?" Later, all of my children said they thought President Hunt "looked sheepish and ashamed" at this remark. Because my family could not attend, we left without knowing if the court would proceed or be reconvened at another date. As we drove home all of my family said they felt sorry for President Hunt. I agreed. I thought he was put on the spot and doing something he very much did not want to do.

I share this because you redact information (which I think is evidence of deceit) to portray Denver as less than virtuous or less than agreeable or less than cooperative.

The record shows that he was not only there, but willing to attend. On the other hand, it was the Stake President who was the one that was exercising unrighteous dominion upon Denver and his family. The clearly-stated expectation was that Denver AND his family would attend the council. The SP gave no reasoning, was not open to persuasion. It was the SP and not Denver who was uncooperative. And it was the SP, as an aside, who admitted that Denver was worthy and that Denver's discipline "only has to do with a book." The SP also corroborated Denver's testimony that the SP was compelled to action by authorities above him. In other words, the SP was LYING when he said it was his decision "alone" to move forward with disciplining Denver. The SP tried to cover his lie by saying that he was indeed compelled earlier, but that he was acting now independently.

Which of these two men acted as Christ would have acted? The SP or Denver? Please answer the question, Shadow (and Mark for that matter).

[Arenera]

Which of these two men acted as Christ would have acted? The SP or Denver? Please answer the question, Shadow (and Mark for that matter).

If you read the New Testament, you would see that Christ stood before several groups.

Denver is weak, he wanted to take his whole family, including you. Denver didn't stand before them like Christ did.

That is the answer to your question.

[Thomas]

Here's another key: any teaching or interpretation that has Christ/God (actually) contradicting Himself (things He previously said) is false.

Or, as He put it, "What I the Lord have spoken I have spoken and I excuse not myself; and though the Heaven and the Earth pass away my word shall not pass away but shall all be fulfilled whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants it is the same."

This also means that apparent contradictions need to be examined carefully because somebody is messing with something. Fundamental eternal principle: God is not a liar. He doesn't do double takes. If He says something conditional, He will state the conditions. If He doesn't put conditions on it (such as unconditional prophecies), then it's going to happen regardless of what man might do to try and thwart it. Denver seems to be messing with stuff and making the Lord contradict Himself. Such as "for the last time" and "this one time", etc. Also, several other of his innovative re-interpretations/re-workings (twisting of meaning) of scripture and re-contextualizations. I've pointed out several with no good response from you (Remnant friends). His redefinition of "servants" (as "almost always" heavenly angels, clearly not true in D&C) and also his claim that Melchizedek Priesthood and keys, as well as the giving of the gift of the Holy Ghost, could not be transmitted by the laying on of hands. But the confirmation bias is apparently too strong for you guys to see these things or acknowledge them. Carry on.

It quite interesting that you and Finrock seem to cling to this scripture and use it out of context, while ignoring a mountain of other scriptures.

What do you think it means? If it means what you seem to be implying it means than explain to me how the priesthood wasn't lost when Brigham Young refused to allow the First Presidency to run the church. No where does it say the Quorum of the Twelve have exclusive right to the priesthood. Nor has Denver ever said there has been a new dispensing of the priesthood. You are making a wild misinterpretation of the scripture in question. I think I could make a better case for the First Presidency to have priesthood rights then the twelve. Yet Brigham cut them off from the Church. Lets face it. it was a coup.

Others are included in the scripture. Those who have not misused their priesthood retained it.

Where is your example in the Book of Mormon?

Korihor's story fits with Denver.

You keep bringing up Korihor in comparison with Snuffer. This makes me assume you either don't know what Korihor taught or you don't know what Snuffer teaches. Korihor taught that each man prospers by his genius and his strength. The LDS people live, right now by this principle that Korihor taught. Our leaders do not correct us from this error.

Snuffer on the other hand teaches the exact opposite, that we must use our genius and strength for the good of Zion that all may prosper together.

2 Nephi 26:31

31 But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.

[shadow]

The court wasn't for the family, it was for Denver. Denver was there but HE refused. The SP was correct to not allow the circus that surely would've attended the court. Just look at how mouthy Denver's daughter was from his own words that you quoted above. You're doing mental gymnastics again. Denver was there but he refused to attend. It isn't he or his wife who determines who can be there. That's the role of the SP. He decided and Denver rejected. He was rightfully excommunicated on that alone.

[underdog]

I, Thomas will give you a key by which to determine falsehoods:

Any key that makes Jesus Christ an apostate is a false key.

Since we're giving keys, here's a real and valid one-
Here's a key on how keys are NOT wrested, according to Joseph Smith-

First lets note that Snuffer refused to attend his own court hearing. This is fact and he admits to it. He was at church, but he refused to attend the hearing. Joseph Smith addressed those who refuse to attend. This actually has precedent.
From the history of Joseph Smith-
"On the evening of the 2nd of January, a Bishop's court assembled in Kirtland to investigate the case of Wesley Hurlburt, against whom charges had been preferred by Harriet Howe and others to the effect "that Hurlburt had denied the faith, spoken reproachfully of the Church, did not believe Joseph was a true Prophet," (Sounds familiar!!) etc. Hurlburt was in the place, but did not appear before the court, consequently was cut off." Exactly like Snuffer. He was in the place, but he refused to appear. He was cut off.

Another example- An Elder Green found himself subject to Church discipline for "for accusing President Joseph Smith, Jun., 'of rebuking Brother Aldridge wrongfully, and under the influence of an evil spirit.'" Green declined to attend, but a decision was taken in his absence: "President Rigdon arose and said, that it was the decision of the Presidency, that the Council proceed to examine the charge preferred, because Brother Green had been regularly summoned by himself."

Regarding this excom, Joseph Smith said this- "The decision of the Presidency of the High Council is that Brother Green be and is now excluded from this Church, and shall be a member no more, until he comes in by the ordinance of baptism, as appointed by the Gospel, to be done in the Church." The Prophet validated the excommunication.
And if Snuff's excom was incorrect (it was correct) it still isn't an end of the church- there's a system, even if the brethren mess up. From Joseph Smith-
"An attempt was made in the foregoing council to criminate [i.e., incriminate, charge, accuse] the Twelve before the high council for cutting off (excommunicating) Gladden Bishop at their Bradford Conference, but their attempt totally failed. I decided that the high council had nothing to do with the Twelve, or the decisions of the Twelve. But if the Twelve erred they were accountable only to the general council of the authorities of the whole Church, according to the revelations." So if the 12 err in an excom, or anything for that matter, they are to be held accountable by the church. This is all in the D&C- revelations to Joseph. Maybe Snuffer forgot to remind the Lord of the system He Himself set up

What an arrogant fool to think he wrested the keys because he was excommunicated and what a bunch of gullible, misguided people who believe him.

Those like Thomas just choose to ignore anything from the restoration period that doesn't line up with their own paradigm. Snuffer would have been exed by Joseph had lived then and done what he did back at that time. He is no friend of Joseph or the restored church. His day in the sun will come and go. I'm going to start calling him Reluctant David Hurlbut.

Thomas said,

Any key that makes Jesus Christ an apostate is a false key.

Do you not agree with this, Mark? If you disagree, why?

[Arenera]

Here's another key: any teaching or interpretation that has Christ/God (actually) contradicting Himself (things He previously said) is false.

Or, as He put it, "What I the Lord have spoken I have spoken and I excuse not myself; and though the Heaven and the Earth pass away my word shall not pass away but shall all be fulfilled whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants it is the same."

This also means that apparent contradictions need to be examined carefully because somebody is messing with something. Fundamental eternal principle: God is not a liar. He doesn't do double takes. If He says something conditional, He will state the conditions. If He doesn't put conditions on it (such as unconditional prophecies), then it's going to happen regardless of what man might do to try and thwart it. Denver seems to be messing with stuff and making the Lord contradict Himself. Such as "for the last time" and "this one time", etc. Also, several other of his innovative re-interpretations/re-workings (twisting of meaning) of scripture and re-contextualizations. I've pointed out several with no good response from you (Remnant friends). His redefinition of "servants" (as "almost always" heavenly angels, clearly not true in D&C) and also his claim that Melchizedek Priesthood and keys, as well as the giving of the gift of the Holy Ghost, could not be transmitted by the laying on of hands. But the confirmation bias is apparently too strong for you guys to see these things or acknowledge them. Carry on.

It quite interesting that you and Finrock seem to cling to this scripture and use it out of context, while ignoring a mountain of other scriptures.

What do you think it means? If it means what you seem to be implying it means than explain to me how the priesthood wasn't lost when Brigham Young refused to allow the First Presidency to run the church. No where does it say the Quorum of the Twelve have exclusive right to the priesthood. Nor has Denver ever said there has been a new dispensing of the priesthood. You are making a wild misinterpretation of the scripture in question. I think I could make a better case for the First Presidency to have priesthood rights then the twelve. Yet Brigham cut them off from the Church. Lets face it. it was a coup.

Others are included in the scripture. Those who have not misused their priesthood retained it.

Where is your example in the Book of Mormon?

Korihor's story fits with Denver.

You keep bringing up Korihor in comparison with Snuffer. This makes me assume you either don't know what Korihor taught or you don't know what Snuffer teaches. Korihor taught that each man prospers by his genius and his strength. The LDS people live, right now by this principle that Korihor taught. Our leaders do not correct us from this error.

Snuffer on the other hand teaches the exact opposite, that we must use our genius and strength for the good of Zion that all may prosper together.

2 Nephi 26:31

31 But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.

Where is your example in the Book of Mormon? Korihor fought against the leaders of the Church, Alma was the High Priest.

You and Denver are fighting against the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, of which Thomas Monson is the High Priest.

Are you resigned, excommunicated, or hiding in the Church?

[Jesef]

Here's another key: any teaching or interpretation that has Christ/God (actually) contradicting Himself (things He previously said) is false.

Or, as He put it, "What I the Lord have spoken I have spoken and I excuse not myself; and though the Heaven and the Earth pass away my word shall not pass away but shall all be fulfilled whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants it is the same."

This also means that apparent contradictions need to be examined carefully because somebody is messing with something. Fundamental eternal principle: God is not a liar. He doesn't do double takes. If He says something conditional, He will state the conditions. If He doesn't put conditions on it (such as unconditional prophecies), then it's going to happen regardless of what man might do to try and thwart it. Denver seems to be messing with stuff and making the Lord contradict Himself. Such as "for the last time" and "this one time", etc. Also, several other of his innovative re-interpretations/re-workings (twisting of meaning) of scripture and re-contextualizations. I've pointed out several with no good response from you (Remnant friends). His redefinition of "servants" (as "almost always" heavenly angels, clearly not true in D&C) and also his claim that Melchizedek Priesthood and keys, as well as the giving of the gift of the Holy Ghost, could not be transmitted by the laying on of hands. But the confirmation bias is apparently too strong for you guys to see these things or acknowledge them. Carry on.

It quite interesting that you and Finrock seem to cling to this scripture and use it out of context, while ignoring a mountain of other scriptures.

What do you think it means? If it means what you seem to be implying it means than explain to me how the priesthood wasn't lost when Brigham Young refused to allow the First Presidency to run the church. No where does it say the Quorum of the Twelve have exclusive right to the priesthood. Nor has Denver ever said there has been a new dispensing of the priesthood. You are making a wild misinterpretation of the scripture in question. I think I could make a better case for the First Presidency to have priesthood rights then the twelve. Yet Brigham cut them off from the Church. Lets face it. it was a coup.

Others are included in the scripture. Those who have not misused their priesthood retained it.

Thomas, you should do a little more research. Joseph & Hurum were President & VP/AP, Sidney was 1stC, Amasa Lyman 2ndC, when J & H were killed. This was a legitimate succession crisis with Hyrum dead too. Lyman felt the FP was dissolved and supported the Twelve with BY as President leading. He went West with his 7 wives. Sidney did not have the right to assume leadership by himself as 1stC. With the Twelve intact and the FP shattered by half, it makes sense they would preside, also since JS had given them the keys of the kingdom. Lyman's support says A LOT too. Hence the vote/common-consent, including Lyman's vote. Your choosing a Denver interpretation of the history that doesn't fit all the evidence.

[Thomas]

It quite interesting that you and Finrock seem to cling to this scripture and use it out of context, while ignoring a mountain of other scriptures.

What do you think it means? If it means what you seem to be implying it means than explain to me how the priesthood wasn't lost when Brigham Young refused to allow the First Presidency to run the church. No where does it say the Quorum of the Twelve have exclusive right to the priesthood. Nor has Denver ever said there has been a new dispensing of the priesthood. You are making a wild misinterpretation of the scripture in question. I think I could make a better case for the First Presidency to have priesthood rights then the twelve. Yet Brigham cut them off from the Church. Lets face it. it was a coup.

Others are included in the scripture. Those who have not misused their priesthood retained it.

Where is your example in the Book of Mormon?

Korihor's story fits with Denver.

You keep bringing up Korihor in comparison with Snuffer. This makes me assume you either don't know what Korihor taught or you don't know what Snuffer teaches. Korihor taught that each man prospers by his genius and his strength. The LDS people live, right now by this principle that Korihor taught. Our leaders do not correct us from this error.

Snuffer on the other hand teaches the exact opposite, that we must use our genius and strength for the good of Zion that all may prosper together.

2 Nephi 26:31

31 But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.

Where is your example in the Book of Mormon? Korihor fought against the leaders of the Church, Alma was the High Priest.

You and Denver are fighting against the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, of which Thomas Monson is the High Priest.

Are you resigned, excommunicated, or hiding in the Church?

My example from the Book of Mormon is Alma himself. Alma did not abuse his priesthood or at least if he did, he repented of it. Therefore he retained it. He did not need a new dispensing of the priesthood. King Noah and his priests inherited the rights to the priesthood from a righteous predecessor but they abused their priesthood and lost it. King Noah and his priests were the church.

There plenty more examples in the Book of Mormon. We can start with Lehi. who peached against the apostate church in Jerusalem. A church with a temple, baptisms, tithing, scriptures and religious authorities much like our own General Authorities who derived their authority from Moses. A true source

[underdog]

The court wasn't for the family, it was for Denver. Denver was there but HE refused. The SP was correct to not allow the circus that surely would've attended the court. Just look at how mouthy Denver's daughter was from his own words that you quoted above. You're doing mental gymnastics again. Denver was there but he refused to attend. It isn't he or his wife who determines who can be there. That's the role of the SP. He decided and Denver rejected. He was rightfully excommunicated on that alone.

Shadow,

On his blog, Denver posted the letter he received. The Stake President, IN WRITING, said "You are welcome to bring your wife if you choose." And the SP also asked Denver to let him know if he'd like to bring any others.

Denver responded that he'd like to bring his wife and kids.

The SP went from a warm welcome (in his letter) to a surprise and sudden reversal of warmth on the day of the council. No matter though, the SP actually ended up admitting Denver was worthy and in no way "apostate" by the normal definition, only that he'd written a book.

Obviously, the court wasn't for his family, and it was for Denver.

The SP, who was looking "sheepish and ashamed", is the one who denied Denver and his family to attend to council. They wanted to attend, but were denied. You're stating that Denver was the one obstinate and refusing to attend. You mischaracterize. I think that's deceitful.

Nothing about that whole sordid excommunication makes the Church look good in the least bit. It wreaks of darkness and cowardice and unrighteous dominion and I'm utterly ashamed of those leaders involved in casting out a righteous man. The lesson we learn is that God does indeed honor the free agency of man, even dictators who suppose they have authority over the members.