Upwardthought blog on the Denver Snuffer movment;

[Seek the Truth]

Seek the truth wrote...

Nice deception. By not including the source of this you have engaged in sleight of hand. If you had actually read the post you would have noted the reference to the author of the post at the end... Adrian Larson.

The fact is Willard Richards is a legitimate historical source and President Smith's statement is consistent with all scripture wherein murmuring against the leadership is negative and punished. Calling a people to repentance is not the same as criticizing Church leadership, steadying the ark with your own hand. If you had actually went to the source you would have understood that the instruction was to the leaders of the church not the members.

So another loss for Snufferism. Calling people offensive names does nothing to help you persuade anyone to your way of belief. Much like if I were to call your belief Monsonism, which, by the way, I would never do.

My response in Red.

Ok snowflake you didn't include a link which is standard internet forum practice, and you didn't do it on purpose. It was deceptive.

[Seek the Truth]

I guess you didn't read the first part of my post where Christ said the words of Isaiah were also directed at us, modern Gentiles. Members of the LDS church. There is a dual application. It is spelled out quite specifically.

Cool story. Do you know what year Isaiah was written in?

[AI2.0]

Ezekiel 33. 6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.

God has warned me and told me this scripture applies to me. If I do not warn you and others, the sin is on my head.

Guess what Thomas, many on this forum recognize that this scriptures applies to us too. If you and Underdog continue to come here to LDSFF and preach Snufferism, we will be following the same directive and warning YOU. Granted, I don't have a problem with arguing Snufferism, I'm happy to do it if it helps keep others from being seduced by this charlatan. If you are bored on the Remnant forums and you'd rather come here, fine with me, but if you're going to defend Snuffer and his Remnant claims, you'd better expect to have your feet held to the fire as we point out how wrong you were to leave the Lord's true church for this fake non-church break off sect that Denver Snuffer has started to salve his bruised ego...

If you are wise, you will consider carefully the challenges against Snuffer and his claims, you'll make sure that he is what you seem believe he is and what he claims to be, because if you find out he's an imposter down the road, serious eternal damage can be done to your loved ones and to your own spiritual well-being.

[Seek the Truth]

Thanks for the comments. I must remark though that most of what you post is what I call strawman. You build a false narrative so you can knock it down.

I really doubt you will ever accept what's going on with all this and it is fine with me. My concern is that people who run across this should take a look for themselves and see what Snuffer actually has said and it is not what you have described.

There is a difference between priesthood and the fullness of the priesthood. Snuffer has explained it fully but I doubt you have taken to time to learn what he says because it much easier to just make up false assumptions and then destroy them.

So did the LDS Church lose the Priesthood yes or no. What is the Snufferite position. This simple gentile has heard both from Snufferites, a contradiction, here is your chance to settle the issue.

[Seek the Truth]

Thanks for the suggestion. I will do that if you read D&C 84 and see where God took Moses away from the Israelites and took the higher priesthood as well. It is exactly what happened with Joseph Smith and our church.

That would require a new dispensation. You fatally contradicted yourself, over and over.

[Seek the Truth]

And once again, for those caught up with this last time issue, there has been no new dispensing of the priesthood. It has remained much like it remained with Alma. He did not need a new dispensing.

You have a cosmic contradiction. You won't be able to resolve it.

[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. (D&C 1:38)"

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.

What I'm saying it means is exactly what it says and that is that the Lord's words will all be fulfilled (if He/God really said it). And if the Lord spoke directly through Joseph Smith in his dictated revelations, then all of those revelations must be treated the same - you can't pick and choose what you're going to throw out or what you think expired, etc. - and the statements which have conditions attached to them must be "parsed" (distinguished) from the ones that do not have conditions attached. Therefore, when the Lord repeatedly used phrases like "for the last time" or "this one time" or "the last time" in connection with other terms indicating finality like "the end", you can't just throw those out because you need to make room for another usurping of the kingdom. Denver said he argued with the Lord, for the Church, and went through every scriptural exegesis imaginable. But that doesn't change the fact that the Lord, who is supposed to have perfect foreknowledge, is reported (reliably) to have said all these things through Joseph Smith which cannot simply be dismissed or evaporated into thin air. Many of Denver's scriptural twistings/interpretations - like "for the last time" and "servants" and "keys" - do not make sense across the cannon of Joseph Smith's words and revelations. I'm sorry, but they don't. I wish you guys could think clearly - you're too busy defending your new pet doctrines/innovations. None of you gave a single rational response to my "for the last time" thread - and the many examples - I haven't even finished, but there are like 6 already and none of them mean "the most recent time", clearly. You have to do mental gymnastics to try and make that interpretation stick. So I'm seeing a definite pattern of absurdity here.

[AI2.0]

Jesef wrote: 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.

I have done plenty of research and you still have not addressed the issue of the twelve not having exclusive right to the priesthood. But lets address the issue of common consent. Brigham had the Twelve vote him in as president and then Brigham chose two counselors to form a new first presidency. This violates the revelation from God given to Joseph Smith about how the First Presidency is to chosen. They are to be chosen by the body of the priesthood.

D&C 107: 22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.

To this day common consent has been done away with. The sustaining vote has now been turned into a test of loyalty instead of a true vote. How do think God can honor that? Like I said, it was a coup.

The victors rewrite history. Rigdon's claim was just as good as Brigham's and there is some question as to whether the passing of keys to twelve was legit or not. Brigham's first reaction upon hearing Joseph died was wondering if he took the keys of the kingdom with him. There are several claims that Brigham rewrote much of the church history to suit the new order of things. Its hard to know what to trust.

But all that is besides the point because it is one thing to obtain keys and another to retain them.

It's a possible interpretation. I don't think you're trying to make a case for Sidney - very few at the time bought his bid - not Amasa Lyman (2nd Counselor in the FP) and none of the Twelve. As far as "chosen by the body" - the body chose the Twelve to lead them, pretty decisively it seems. FP reorganization is a different matter, for which you also lack evidence and the historical evidence supports BY.

9 of the 12 (including BY himself) in 1844 favored/voted for the Twelve to lead the Church as the next presiding quorum. But none of JS's family followed BY & 12 West (Emma, Lucy Mack, William, etc. - NONE followed BY):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum_of_the_Twelve
1. Brigham Young - obviously
2. Heber C. Kimball - followed BY
3. Orson Hyde - followed BY
4. Parley P. Pratt - followed BY
5. William Smith - Joseph's & Hyrum's younger brother, initially followed BY & 12 but got ex'd in 1845 by them, check out his "exit letter" - did NOT like BY and decried "spiritual wifery", not unlike the Laws and the Nauvoo Expositor which got JS & HS killed - http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL ... 5.htm#1029 - starts with "A Proclamation".
6. Orson Pratt - followed BY
7. John E. Page - After 1844, Page joined with the Strangite and Brewsterite. Page went on to be an apostle in the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) or "Hedrickite" church.
8. John Taylor - followed BY
9. Wilford Woodruff - followed BY
10. George A. Smith - followed BY
11. Willard Richards - followed BY
12. Lyman Wight - Wight broke with all sects in 1844. He was ordained president of his own church, known as the Wightites. However, he later sided with the claims of William Smith and eventually of Joseph Smith III and the RLDS Church.
13. Amasa Lyman (2nd Counselor in FP) - followed BY

History redaction is hard to prove and is akin to a conspiracy theory. Can't prove you wrong but there's no evidence you're correct either. The historical evidence is being questioned and discredited with no real proof.

You are right that Joseph's mother, brother and three sisters did not make the journey to Utah with the church under Brigham Young's leadership, but there are some reasons for that. William had a falling out (but had always had problems, even with Joseph). Lucy, Joseph's mother was quite old and would not make the trek unless her family did. All the other males were dead and the sisters were subject to what their husbands wanted to do. I see good reason for why none of them went west. Brigham Young was supportive to Lucy and to her family in the years after the church went west.
Here's an article about it;

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... Smith.html

Also, it should be noted that members of the Smith's extended family, cousins-- did go--and Hyrum's widow and his children made the trek and stayed with Brigham Young.

edited to add:

5. William Smith - Joseph's & Hyrum's younger brother, initially followed BY & 12 but got ex'd in 1845 by them, check out his "exit letter" - did NOT like BY and decried "spiritual wifery", not unlike the Laws and the Nauvoo Expositor which got JS & HS killed - http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL

William was a polygamist and not a very successful one--he had some unhappy wives.

[Seek the Truth]

Hyrum's family came across and produced multiple Church Presidents. Not that it really matters.

[shadow]

Thanks for the comments. I must remark though that most of what you post is what I call strawman. You build a false narrative so you can knock it down.

I really doubt you will ever accept what's going on with all this and it is fine with me. My concern is that people who run across this should take a look for themselves and see what Snuffer actually has said and it is not what you have described.

There is a difference between priesthood and the fullness of the priesthood. Snuffer has explained it fully but I doubt you have taken to time to learn what he says because it much easier to just make up false assumptions and then destroy them.

So did the LDS Church lose the Priesthood yes or no. What is the Snufferite position. This simple gentile has heard both from Snufferites, a contradiction, here is your chance to settle the issue.

Oh yes, the fullness of the Priesthood. Joseph Smith lost that, not Brigham. But it was also restored- with Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo Temple. Section 124 explains it quite well (without the mental gymnastics Snuffer uses) in tandem with Joseph Smith's own words. We certainly don't need Snuffer's mumble jumble.

‘If a man gets a fulness of the Priesthood of God, he has to get it in the same way that Jesus Christ obtained it, and that was by keeping all the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord.’ -Joseph Smith

Gotta have the Temple. Without it, there is NO fullness. That's why section 124 says they lost it.
Oh, how's the Remnant church of Snufferism doing without a Temple? Obviously they lack the fullness. Of course, even if they had a temple it wouldn't be valid since they lack the KEYS #-o

[Seek the Truth]

Yes. Fullness of the Priesthood is the endowment. Snufferites don't have it. They require a new dispensation which was revealed would not happen, would not need to happen.

[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. (D&C 1:38)"

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.

What I'm saying it means is exactly what it says and that is that the Lord's words will all be fulfilled (if He/God really said it). And if the Lord spoke directly through Joseph Smith in his dictated revelations, then all of those revelations must be treated the same - you can't pick and choose what you're going to throw out or what you think expired, etc. - and the statements which have conditions attached to them must be "parsed" (distinguished) from the ones that do not have conditions attached. Therefore, when the Lord repeatedly used phrases like "for the last time" or "this one time" or "the last time" in connection with other terms indicating finality like "the end", you can't just throw those out because you need to make room for another usurping of the kingdom. Denver said he argued with the Lord, for the Church, and went through every scriptural exegesis imaginable. But that doesn't change the fact that the Lord, who is supposed to have perfect foreknowledge, is reported (reliably) to have said all these things through Joseph Smith which cannot simply be dismissed or evaporated into thin air. Many of Denver's scriptural twistings/interpretations - like "for the last time" and "servants" and "keys" - do not make sense across the cannon of Joseph Smith's words and revelations. I'm sorry, but they don't. I wish you guys could think clearly - you're too busy defending your new pet doctrines/innovations. None of you gave a single rational response to my "for the last time" thread - and the many examples - I haven't even finished, but there are like 6 already and none of them mean "the most recent time", clearly. You have to do mental gymnastics to try and make that interpretation stick. So I'm seeing a definite pattern of absurdity here.

Sorry but can you point to me where it says they have exclusive rights? Wasn't the priesthood dispensed widely? The twelve didn't just keep it to themselves. They were given priesthood and shared with thousands of other people. Do you know what dispensation means? Doesn't it mean dispensing?

[Seek the Truth]

It's very simple Thomas. Did the LDS Church lose the Priesthood or not. You will not be able to evade this question with your deceptions and evasions.

Yes or no.

Edit: Keep in mind you have said both.

[Thomas]

It's very simple Thomas. Did the LDS Church lose the Priesthood or not. You will not be able to evade this question with your deceptions and evasions.

Yes or no.

Edit: Keep in mind you have said both.

Read D&C 84. It is the same thing that to happened the LDS. Lost the greater priesthood first. Lost the lesser in 2014. Those faithful to their priesthood retain it. Priesthood exists outside of the church.

See the story of King Noah and Alma. Also Lehi and numerous others that have followed this same pattern

[AI2.0]

That's not a fair assessment of what I said, underdog - check your confirmation bias filter, reread it, and please refrain from accusing. Joseph was the one who established the keys & priesthood hierarchy and presiding authority structure. You need to go back and apply the same standards to Joseph that you're applying to Brigham.

Jesef,

The moment you attempt to convince others to follow you or to listen to you by virtue of keys/ Priesthood you hold, you are in the power of Satan. You have enlisted on the devil's side for he is the one who tries to control men and exercise dominion upon them. But this is exactly what Denver Snuffer is claiming now. I know you are late to his movement, but you do know he claims to have 'wrested the keys' from Pres. Monson and the Quorum of 12. I'm sorry to inform you, but that's the 'authority' that Denver Snuffer is claiming--and he is expecting you all to listen to him and follow him--having you make this 'covenant', Snuffer is calling on the world to acknowledge that he hold the keys and so we all should listen to him. Your leader Denver SNuffer is doing just this, so who's power is he under, in your opinion?

The question of who has the keys is totally irrelevant. This truth you apparently do not comprehend.
Uh, no. Keys are not irrelevent, they've always been vital to who God has given authority to. That's exactly why Denver claims to hold them now. Do you understand this?
The Lord couldn't be more clear in DC 121.

What I have said is a 100% honest assessment and I'm willing to be judged by God by the sane judgment. I do not accuse. I testify that Christ is love and patience and long suffering and not unrighteous dominion. He condemns the argument you are making.

In His words, you are "fighting against God."

I like you. I'm trying to help you see the truths taught in DC 121.

As long as you continue to willfully close your eyes to facts, it's like the blind leading the blind. Denver Snuffer is taking power,
and now he's prepared to wield it. This is about Snuffer's prideful need to take power and control, setting himself up with grandiose claims. It's so clear, many predicted this would happen and we're seeing it unfolding right now. He's following in the pattern of so many others before him to set themselves up to defy and fight the Lord's true church.

[AI2.0]

I think there are quite of few holes in this logic. For one, there was a line of succession in place and it didn't include the twelve. It was to be Hyrum then Samuel, then Joseph III. In fact, Joseph III was to be the successor, Samuel would take over only if both Hyrum and Joseph were dead and Joseph III was not yet of age. There is a record of JS setting Joseph III apart as his successor, in Nauvoo, in front of 5,000 people. It was pretty well known that it was to be a family line of succession. Both Rigdon and Brigham argued they would be temporary stewards until Joseph III came of age.

Some of the RLDS suspected that Samuel Smith was murdered to keep him from assuming his rightful role. His death was suspicious and he was a young man, only 36 years old. The RLDS accuse Brigham of manipulating the vote by calling his decorators on missions to remove them from the voting process. It is reported that approximately 1,000 men were taken out that way. There were factions and Brigham was making power plays. Emma was his biggest detractor. Called him a fraud.

As time went on and the saints moved from Nauvoo and away from Emma and Joseph III, Brigham gradually seized more and more power. Once they hit Salt lake and were isolated from the rest of the world, Brigham assumed total dictatorship of the church and secular government.

It is also pretty doubtful that Brigham obtained a majority of the LDS. About 10,000 followed him west but there were estimated 30,000 to 100,000 LDS in the Midwest.

Yes, Hyrum was a possible successor, but Samuel? That's a new one to me. And Joseph III, probably would have been the Prophet eventually, IF he'd gone west, but he didn't. Joseph F. Smith, Hyrum's son DID go west and he eventually became the prophet. And no one murdered Samuel Smith, but, when you listen to the rumors and accusations of disgruntled people who ended up starting their own church, do you really think you are getting objective, valid information?
Also, where did Emma call Brigham Young a 'fraud'? I know there was friction, but I've not heard that. And 100,000 LDS in the midwest??? That's totally made up. If there had been 100,000 of them, they wouldn't have been pushed out.

[Seek the Truth]

It's very simple Thomas. Did the LDS Church lose the Priesthood or not. You will not be able to evade this question with your deceptions and evasions.

Yes or no.

Edit: Keep in mind you have said both.

Read D&C 84. It is the same thing that to happened the LDS. Lost the greater priesthood first. Lost the lesser in 2014. Those faithful to their priesthood retain it. Priesthood exists outside of the church.

See the story of King Noah and Alma. Also Lehi and numerous others that have followed this same pattern

That would require a new dispensation and a new Kingdom. You have violated the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. You are in apostasy.

Also, Joseph Smith stated the Aaronic Priesthood would never be lost specifically.

69 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

You are in violation of revealed truth.

[Jesef]

I think there are quite of few holes in this logic. For one, there was a line of succession in place and it didn't include the twelve. It was to be Hyrum then Samuel, then Joseph III. In fact, Joseph III was to be the successor, Samuel would take over only if both Hyrum and Joseph were dead and Joseph III was not yet of age. There is a record of JS setting Joseph III apart as his successor, in Nauvoo, in front of 5,000 people. It was pretty well known that it was to be a family line of succession. Both Rigdon and Brigham argued they would be temporary stewards until Joseph III came of age.

Some of the RLDS suspected that Samuel Smith was murdered to keep him from assuming his rightful role. His death was suspicious and he was a young man, only 36 years old. The RLDS accuse Brigham of manipulating the vote by calling his decorators on missions to remove them from the voting process. It is reported that approximately 1,000 men were taken out that way. There were factions and Brigham was making power plays. Emma was his biggest detractor. Called him a fraud.

As time went on and the saints moved from Nauvoo and away from Emma and Joseph III, Brigham gradually seized more and more power. Once they hit Salt lake and were isolated from the rest of the world, Brigham assumed total dictatorship of the church and secular government.

It is also pretty doubtful that Brigham obtained a majority of the LDS. About 10,000 followed him west but there were estimated 30,000 to 100,000 LDS in the Midwest.

Thomas, what reliable historical proof do you have that this is true? And, if so (and obviously critically important), why was this not given to the body in a dictated/official revelation from Joseph before he died? The only priesthood governance and Church organizational revelation they had to work with was (current) D&C 107 which says the Twelve form a quorum equal in authority and power to the First Presidency. With the President & VP killed, that quorum was dissolved - it required at least 3 to be a quorum. Sidney and Amasa had no legitimate claim, which is why Amasa supported BY. Sidney was trying to leverage his anointing/consecration as "spokesman" to justify his claim as guardian. I'll grant you this, though, Sidney acknowledged Joseph III. No one acknowledged William, btw. But the Lord knew this was coming, so why didn't he prepare the people for the succession crisis by giving them better instructions? Based on what they had, everyone acknowledged that Joseph had given the Twelve the keys of the kingdom. It's also a historical fact that Joseph spent much of his last (final) days with the Twelve instructing them and doing the higher ordinances for them, including the Second Anointing (sealing them up to eternal life). No one challenged that the Twelve had the keys and many in the Twelve could have dissented if BY was BS'ing. Where is the evidence for your interpretation?

[Jesef]

It's very simple Thomas. Did the LDS Church lose the Priesthood or not. You will not be able to evade this question with your deceptions and evasions.

Yes or no.

Edit: Keep in mind you have said both.

Read D&C 84. It is the same thing that to happened the LDS. Lost the greater priesthood first. Lost the lesser in 2014. Those faithful to their priesthood retain it. Priesthood exists outside of the church.

See the story of King Noah and Alma. Also Lehi and numerous others that have followed this same pattern

That would require a new dispensation and a new Kingdom. You have violated the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. You are in apostasy.

Also, Joseph Smith stated the Aaronic Priesthood would never be lost specifically.

69 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

You are in violation of revealed truth.

Snuffer claims the Aaronic Priesthood did continue, just not the Melchizedek Priesthood and "Fulness of the Priesthood".

But, what the Remnant is claiming is indeed a "new dispensation" with Denver Snuffer as dispensation head and I don't see how this can be reconciled with the continuity statements made by Joseph and by the Lord through Joseph (and by Jacob 5).

[Seek the Truth]

Amen. The Snufferite narrative is difficult to pin down however. A lot of moving goal posts.

[Seek the Truth]

Thomas, what reliable historical proof do you have that this is true?

He doesn't have any. He never has any. He never gives citations for his views.

[Seek the Truth]

More teachings of Joseph Smith rejected by Snufferism.

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

They have none of these.

[Seek the Truth]

They don't believe in this either.

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.

[Thomas]

It's very simple Thomas. Did the LDS Church lose the Priesthood or not. You will not be able to evade this question with your deceptions and evasions.

Yes or no.

Edit: Keep in mind you have said both.

Read D&C 84. It is the same thing that to happened the LDS. Lost the greater priesthood first. Lost the lesser in 2014. Those faithful to their priesthood retain it. Priesthood exists outside of the church.

See the story of King Noah and Alma. Also Lehi and numerous others that have followed this same pattern

That would require a new dispensation and a new Kingdom. You have violated the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. You are in apostasy.

Also, Joseph Smith stated the Aaronic Priesthood would never be lost specifically.

69 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

You are in violation of revealed truth.

Snuffer claims the Aaronic Priesthood did continue, just not the Melchizedek Priesthood and "Fulness of the Priesthood".

But, what the Remnant is claiming is indeed a "new dispensation" with Denver Snuffer as dispensation head and I don't see how this can be reconciled with the continuity statements made by Joseph and by the Lord through Joseph (and by Jacob 5).

I think you need to read your last time scripture again, in context. It is talking about the priesthood being dispensed. I guess, if you took the interpretation that I think you trying to make then, the priesthood is gone anyway because all those guys are long dead and it was given for the very LAST time. No more giving it to others so.....

[jdt]

It's very simple Thomas. Did the LDS Church lose the Priesthood or not. You will not be able to evade this question with your deceptions and evasions.

Yes or no.

Edit: Keep in mind you have said both.

Churches don't hold priesthood, only individuals do.
There has never been any ambiguity to this either. You listen to the wrong sources for information. The problem is there are many who don't know who project their own thinking onto others and this caused widespread mis-information.