Remnant General Conference this weekend

[underdog]

How's that dream proof of apostasy? The barn/farm does obviously not represent the church.

Of course it doesn't.

Ok, so back to my first question then. Sounds to me like the apostates are fighting over inheritances belonging to Joseph Smith and the Church. What's your interpretation? And as others have pointed out, this came from Church records.

Yes, obviously it came from "Church" records. The point is the cover up.

I'll leave the interpretation to you. Anybody who reads this, though, has to admit that the one of the obvious and probably "first gut" interpretation doesn't look flattering in the least bit to the Church.

[underdog]

How's that dream proof of apostasy? The barn/farm does obviously not represent the church.

Of course it doesn't.

Ok, so back to my first question then. Sounds to me like the apostates are fighting over inheritances belonging to Joseph Smith and the Church. What's your interpretation? And as others have pointed out, this came from Church records.

Yes, obviously it came from "Church" records. The point is the cover up.

I'll leave the interpretation to you. Anybody who reads this, though, has to admit that one of the obvious and probably "first gut" interpretations doesn't look flattering in the least bit to the Church.

[inho]

I cannot understand why the Snufferite scripture committe decided to canonize it while they threw out some Sections from D&C. The dream is not written or dictated by Joseph Smith. It is a second hand report coming from a fellow that visited Carthage jail. If I have understood correctly, the account of the dream comes from a letter Cyril Wheelock wrote in 1854, several years after the event.

yes, I'm quoting myself...
This actually shows that the criteria the Scripture committee used were something else than historical accuracy.

[underdog]

I cannot understand why the Snufferite scripture committe decided to canonize it while they threw out some Sections from D&C. The dream is not written or dictated by Joseph Smith. It is a second hand report coming from a fellow that visited Carthage jail. If I have understood correctly, the account of the dream comes from a letter Cyril Wheelock wrote in 1854, several years after the event.

yes, I'm quoting myself...
This actually shows that the criteria the Scripture committee used were something else than historical accuracy.

This could be an interesting point you make.

I didn't realize it was in the new scriptures, or Section 55 of the DC.

http://scriptures.info/scriptures/dc/section/55

The introduction reads, "Dream given to Joseph Smith, Jr., June 26, 1844. (Doctrinal History of the Church 6:609-619)"

I think the main justification would be that it was written down when there was no "agenda". Unlike all the made-up polygamy stuff that came well after Joseph's death which sought to justify immorality.

Again, the point is: there is a cover-up!

[Arenera]

How's that dream proof of apostasy? The barn/farm does obviously not represent the church.

Of course it doesn't.

Ok, so back to my first question then. Sounds to me like the apostates are fighting over inheritances belonging to Joseph Smith and the Church. What's your interpretation? And as others have pointed out, this came from Church records.

Yes, obviously it came from "Church" records. The point is the cover up.

I'll leave the interpretation to you. Anybody who reads this, though, has to admit that the one of the obvious and probably "first gut" interpretation doesn't look flattering in the least bit to the Church.

Coverup??? The John Doe case, a coverup orchestrated by Denver and the Larsens and rejection of the Council of Women, which was Denver's idea. A serial sex pervert running amuck and condoned by Denver.

[inho]

Again, the point is: there is a cover-up!

Ignoring something is not same as covering up. What kind of lessons should the manuals have had based on the dream? It is just one of Joseph's many dreams. To be honest, Joseph doesn't even make it totally clear whether he thought the dream was inspired or not.

[underdog]

Of course it doesn't.

Ok, so back to my first question then. Sounds to me like the apostates are fighting over inheritances belonging to Joseph Smith and the Church. What's your interpretation? And as others have pointed out, this came from Church records.

Yes, obviously it came from "Church" records. The point is the cover up.

I'll leave the interpretation to you. Anybody who reads this, though, has to admit that the one of the obvious and probably "first gut" interpretation doesn't look flattering in the least bit to the Church.

Coverup??? The John Doe case, a coverup orchestrated by Denver and the Larsens and rejection of the Council of Women, which was Denver's idea. A serial sex pervert running amuck and condoned by Denver.

You are the best at ignoring all the evidence I bring to you.

Then you turn around and try to implicate Denver in the sins of another man, which he apparently repented of and made restitution for. Are you denying the Atonement works for that man? Are you saying Denver should be punished for that man's repented of sins? Just what are you saying? Besides trying to distract from the issue at hand.

[Arenera]

Ok, so back to my first question then. Sounds to me like the apostates are fighting over inheritances belonging to Joseph Smith and the Church. What's your interpretation? And as others have pointed out, this came from Church records.

Yes, obviously it came from "Church" records. The point is the cover up.

I'll leave the interpretation to you. Anybody who reads this, though, has to admit that the one of the obvious and probably "first gut" interpretation doesn't look flattering in the least bit to the Church.

Coverup??? The John Doe case, a coverup orchestrated by Denver and the Larsens and rejection of the Council of Women, which was Denver's idea. A serial sex pervert running amuck and condoned by Denver.

You are the best at ignoring all the evidence I bring to you.

Then you turn around and try to implicate Denver in the sins of another man, which he apparently repented of and made restitution for. Are you denying the Atonement works for that man? Are you saying Denver should be punished for that man's repented of sins? Just what are you saying? Besides being a good lawyer and trying to distract from the issue at hand.

Denver is a false prophet, an apostate of the LDS church, and has been dealt appropriately. It is interesting that in Denver's Church you can say I"m sorry and everything is forgiven, even serial sex perversion. In addition, Denver is the one who suggested setting up Women Councils, and the first one to fight against one.

The real issue at hand is you hiding in the LDS church while actively promoting apostasy and fighting against the Church, leaders and members. This is actually fighting against Christ.

You should go to your bishop and confess. Why don't you?

[cyclOps]

Underdog, which account of Joseph Smith's first vision are you saying is ignored and even purposefully hidden by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? You said last, but please be more specific.

It's posted in its entirety above.

But here you go:

Joseph’s Last Vision
June 26, 1844 (the next day Joseph was murdered by a mob that no doubt included some fellow Mormons)

I was back in Kirtland, Ohio, and thought I would take a walk out by myself, and view my old farm, which I found grown up with weeds and brambles, and altogether bearing evidence of neglect and want of culture. I went into the barn, which I found without floor or doors, with the weather-boarding off, and was altogether in keeping with the farm.

While I viewed the desolation around me, and was contemplating how it might be recovered from the curse upon it, there came rushing into the barn a company of furious men, who commenced to pick a quarrel with me.

The leader of the party ordered me to leave the barn and farm, stating it was none of mine, and that I must give up all hope of ever possessing it.
I told him the farm was given me by the Church, and although I had not had any use of it for some time back, still I had not sold it, and according to righteous principles it belonged to me or the Church.

He then grew furious and began to rail upon me, and threaten me, and said it never did belong to me nor to the Church.
I then told him that I did not think it worth contending about, that I had no desire to live upon it in its present state, and if he thought he had a better right I would not quarrel with him about it but leave; but my assurance that I would not trouble him at present did not seem to satisfy him, as he seemed determined to quarrel with me, and threatened me with the destruction of my body.

While he was thus engaged, pouring out his bitter words upon me, a rabble rushed in and nearly filled the barn, drew out their knives, and began to quarrel among themselves for the premises, and for a moment forgot me, at which time I took the opportunity to walk out of the barn about up to my ankles in mud.

When I was a little distance from the barn, I heard them screeching and screaming in a very distressed manner, as it appeared they had engaged in a general fight with their knives. While they were thus engaged, the dream or vision ended.”

You can find the original in the Millennial Star or Doctrinal History of the Church 6:609-619.

Sorry I must have read through your numbered post too quick. I misunderstood and thought I read his LAST account of the FIRST VISION was being covered up. I misread what vision you were talking about.

[underdog]

Again, the point is: there is a cover-up!

Ignoring something is not same as covering up. What kind of lessons should the manuals have had based on the dream? It is just one of Joseph's many dreams. To be honest, Joseph doesn't even make it totally clear whether he thought the dream was inspired or not.

INHO,


Thanks for the link. Perhaps if he had more time to live, Joseph would have commented on the dream. It doesn't leave much to the imagination though, does it?

It certainly does fit the "agenda" of the remnant. But what if the vision was a prophesy of the farm he worked so hard to establish going to pot?

It reminds me of DC 101, the other revelation Joseph had of church apostasy:

50 And while they were at variance one with another they became very slothful, and they hearkened not unto the commandments of their lord.

51 And the enemy came by night, and broke down the hedge; and the servants of the nobleman arose and were affrighted, and fled; and the enemy destroyed their works, and broke down the olive trees.

52 Now, behold, the nobleman, the lord of the vineyard, called upon his servants, and said unto them, Why! what is the cause of this great evil?

53 Ought ye not to have done even as I commanded you, and—after ye had planted the vineyard, and built the hedge round about, and set watchmen upon the walls thereof—built the tower also, and set a watchman upon the tower, and watched for my vineyard, and not have fallen asleep, lest the enemy should come upon you?

54 And behold, the watchman upon the tower would have seen the enemy while he was yet afar off; and then ye could have made ready and kept the enemy from breaking down the hedge thereof, and saved my vineyard from the hands of the destroyer.

There are lots of parallels, wouldn't you say? The farm goes into disrepair, just like the vineyard!

[underdog]

Yes, obviously it came from "Church" records. The point is the cover up.

I'll leave the interpretation to you. Anybody who reads this, though, has to admit that the one of the obvious and probably "first gut" interpretation doesn't look flattering in the least bit to the Church.

Coverup??? The John Doe case, a coverup orchestrated by Denver and the Larsens and rejection of the Council of Women, which was Denver's idea. A serial sex pervert running amuck and condoned by Denver.

You are the best at ignoring all the evidence I bring to you.

Then you turn around and try to implicate Denver in the sins of another man, which he apparently repented of and made restitution for. Are you denying the Atonement works for that man? Are you saying Denver should be punished for that man's repented of sins? Just what are you saying? Besides being a good lawyer and trying to distract from the issue at hand.

Denver is a false prophet, an apostate of the LDS church, and has been dealt appropriately. It is interesting that in Denver's Church you can say I"m sorry and everything is forgiven, even serial sex perversion. In addition, Denver is the one who suggested setting up Women Councils, and the first one to fight against one.

The real issue at hand is you hiding in the LDS church while actively promoting apostasy and fighting against the Church, leaders and members. This is actually fighting against Christ.

You should go to your bishop and confess. Why don't you?

Arenera, for your own benefit, I hope you will be able to see the difference between Christ and the Church. They are not one in the same, my dear sister. I am speaking FOR Christ. I have always defended Him and His gospel. What some of you all are doing is fighting for an institution that has signs of apostasy.

Like was noted above, it's a matter of degree. Let me ask you, do you admit there is some degree of apostasy or corruption within the Church?

[inho]

It certainly does fit the "agenda" of the remnant. But what if the vision was a prophesy of the farm he worked so hard to establish going to pot?

I'm confused. Are you now saying that the farm represents the church? Earlier you said this:

How's that dream proof of apostasy? The barn/farm does obviously not represent the church.

Of course it doesn't.

[shadow]

I will do some prophesying here on this forum. I prophesy that the Snuffer inspired remnant movement will crash and burn just like so many other apostate movements have done over the past 200 odd years. It will end up just like Harmstons goofy movement that he took to the deception cleaners. No apostate movements will ever prosper. Satan will dump the duped on their proverbial heads eventually after he has done everything to ruin their spiritual lives. Just ask Korihor or Sherem. You can take that to the bank.

The Lord has done some prophesying too about some apostasy. See DC 101:43-62. Also, look up Joseph's Last Vision, which is the Lord prophesying that apostasy of the Church would occur.

I'll paste here for your convenience:

Joseph’s Last Vision
June 26, 1844 (the next day Joseph was murdered by a mob no doubt included some fellow Mormons)

I was back in Kirtland, Ohio, and thought I would take a walk out by myself, and view my old farm, which I found grown up with weeds and brambles, and altogether bearing evidence of neglect and want of culture. I went into the barn, which I found without floor or doors, with the weather-boarding off, and was altogether in keeping with the farm.

While I viewed the desolation around me, and was contemplating how it might be recovered from the curse upon it, there came rushing into the barn a company of furious men, who commenced to pick a quarrel with me.

The leader of the party ordered me to leave the barn and farm, stating it was none of mine, and that I must give up all hope of ever possessing it.
I told him the farm was given me by the Church, and although I had not had any use of it for some time back, still I had not sold it, and according to righteous principles it belonged to me or the Church.

He then grew furious and began to rail upon me, and threaten me, and said it never did belong to me nor to the Church.
I then told him that I did not think it worth contending about, that I had no desire to live upon it in its present state, and if he thought he had a better right I would not quarrel with him about it but leave; but my assurance that I would not trouble him at present did not seem to satisfy him, as he seemed determined to quarrel with me, and threatened me with the destruction of my body.

While he was thus engaged, pouring out his bitter words upon me, a rabble rushed in and nearly filled the barn, drew out their knives, and began to quarrel among themselves for the premises, and for a moment forgot me, at which time I took the opportunity to walk out of the barn about up to my ankles in mud.

When I was a little distance from the barn, I heard them screeching and screaming in a very distressed manner, as it appeared they had engaged in a general fight with their knives. While they were thus engaged, the dream or vision ended.”

How you can interpret that to mean he was prophesying about the church going into apostasy is beyond me. If anything, the men represent people like Snuffer who claim the church doesn't own it, "it" meaning the barn which you interpret to mean the gospel- something Joseph never claimed.
Joseph was clear in this- "it", whatever "it" is, belongs to the church. I don't know what "it" is, it might just be a barn but Joseph said the church and himself are the rightful owners, not some unnamed men who are fighting for it.... like Snuffer!
That^^And your so called proof of apostasy from your earlier post are such a stretch and require so many mental gymnastics that I have to wonder if you actually believe it yourself.

What is condemning certainly is the content of the vision. But let's remove interpretation out of the discussion for a moment. What is condemning is the utter blackout and censorship of this vision from the records! Nobody ever talks about it, agreed? WHY? Obviously, it doesn't make the Church look good, does it? The OBVIOUS interpretation is that the Church would go into apostasy. But sure, I suppose mental gymnastics could somehow create another spin on what it means. The point is the cover-up!

I fail to see how it makes the church look bad. I see how it can make impostors look bad, like Snuffer and the many who were before him. Joseph said in his dream that the barn belongs to the church and himself. Others, not the church, were trying to take it. Without Josephs interpretation of his dream, why waste time on it? All it would be is speculation. Maybe that's why the church doesn't focus on it. I fail to see why remnants, followers of Snuffer who claims he wrested the keys from the church, don't more easily see themselves as the crazy men in the dream. Look at it that way and it might make more sense, but it's still speculation.

I can testify that the church still holds the keys. I recently was at the Temple doing work for the dead- it's all real. That's all I say about that. I suggest humbling yourself, repenting and return to the very much Living Church of Jesus Christ.

[shadow]

I am speaking FOR Christ.

Wow @-) . Certainly you do not speak for Christ.

[underdog]

It certainly does fit the "agenda" of the remnant. But what if the vision was a prophesy of the farm he worked so hard to establish going to pot?

I'm confused. Are you now saying that the farm represents the church? Earlier you said this:

How's that dream proof of apostasy? The barn/farm does obviously not represent the church.

Of course it doesn't.

My apologies. I was being a bit sarcastic there with Jonesy. I really don't want to argue the interpretation. I think it's quite clear, but if folks want to say it doesn't even smell or look like church apostasy "just because," then I don't want to argue about it frankly. The only argument folks can offer to rebut the facts I've given is when they avoid acknowledging the facts but offer a different interpretation of the facts. Like Joseph said, it's about impossible to even appeal to the Bible, due to the many different interpretations.

[Arenera]

Coverup??? The John Doe case, a coverup orchestrated by Denver and the Larsens and rejection of the Council of Women, which was Denver's idea. A serial sex pervert running amuck and condoned by Denver.

You are the best at ignoring all the evidence I bring to you.

Then you turn around and try to implicate Denver in the sins of another man, which he apparently repented of and made restitution for. Are you denying the Atonement works for that man? Are you saying Denver should be punished for that man's repented of sins? Just what are you saying? Besides being a good lawyer and trying to distract from the issue at hand.

Denver is a false prophet, an apostate of the LDS church, and has been dealt appropriately. It is interesting that in Denver's Church you can say I"m sorry and everything is forgiven, even serial sex perversion. In addition, Denver is the one who suggested setting up Women Councils, and the first one to fight against one.

The real issue at hand is you hiding in the LDS church while actively promoting apostasy and fighting against the Church, leaders and members. This is actually fighting against Christ.

You should go to your bishop and confess. Why don't you?

Arenera, for your own benefit, I hope you will be able to see the difference between Christ and the Church. They are not one in the same, my dear sister. I am speaking FOR Christ. I have always defended Him and His gospel. What some of you all are doing is fighting for an institution that has signs of apostasy.

Like was noted above, it's a matter of degree. Let me ask you, do you admit there is some degree of apostasy or corruption within the Church?

You are an example of corruption in the church. You should go to your bishop and repent. You aren't happy, you are a conflicted person.

[underdog]

I am speaking FOR Christ.

Wow @-) . Certainly you do not speak for Christ.

You're getting a reputation for quoting things out of context (a trend becomes strong evidence of intent; and the intent would be to deceive). I hope you were just joking around. For people not paying attention, the context was this:

I hope you will be able to see the difference between Christ and the Church. They are not one in the same, my dear sister. I am speaking FOR Christ. I have always defended Him and His gospel. What some of you all are doing is fighting for an institution that has signs of apostasy.

Just like Alma and Amulek testified to the people of Ammonihah, they were speaking in FAVOR of the Nephite law, not against it. Here, I am always speaking IN FAVOR of Christ and His restored Gospel and SOMETIMES that means the Church may be off base. It's okay if that happens, but we should admit it, instead of doggedly defending the Church even when it goes rogue. No, I do not speak for Christ, as in "thus saith the Lord."

[AI2.0]

My responses in blue:

AI2 Wrote the following. I will respond in red but I will support what I say with scripture.

I tuned into the conference to see what was going on, listened to a couple of talks, watched their sacrament service. Here's some things that I think are 'pleasing to the carnal mind' which Denver Snuffer and joining his Remnant offer to LDS.
First, everyone is dressed like they are at a picnic, shorts, t-shirts, many women in short shorts and tank tops. Very casual. It is pleasing to the carnal mind to no longer have to worry about dressing modestly by hiding garments (they don't wear them) and no need to be oncomfortable in a suit and tie or a dress. Does the Lord require a shirt and tie for proper worship or is that a tradition of men? 2 Nephi 28:13 They rob the poor because of their fine sanctuaries; they rob the poor because of their fine clothing; and they persecute the meek and the poor in heart, because in their pride they are puffed up.

Do you think that dressing as if you are going to play frisbie, soccer or paint a fence--when you have more appropriate clothing for taking part in worship services, is the way to prove to God that you aren't vain and materialistic? One reason why, when you were LDS, you were encouraged to dress in your better clothing(no one said expensive, just 'better' than what we might wear for a casual day at the beach, if we have this. If not, then we come in whatever we can) for church was as a sign of respect to our Heavenly Father. We try to bring a spirit of reverence into the Chapel with us, that will help us remember whose house we are in and invites the spirit. I'm certain the people in the Remnant group had 'better' clothing, but they chose not to wear it because I think that they are childishly throwing off every teaching that they felt constrained them or that they did not like when they were LDS. And, please don't accuse the LDS people of 'robbing the poor' when they pay tithing, fast offering, temple fund, humanitarian aid, perpetual education fund, etc. while the Remnant people have rejected these things instead leaving to the individual to decide if they feel like throwing a couple of bucks into the fellowship kittie every once in awhile.


Then there is their version of Sacrament with it big hunks of Artisan bread and a healthy serving of wine to go with it. No more having to worry about the word of wisdom. They can drink all they want, it's no longer a commandment. That's definitely pleasing to the carnal mind. Did the Lord break the bread into tiny pieces or did they eat until they were full? "3 Ne 18:3-4 And when the disciples had come with bread and wine, he took of the bread and brake and blessed it; and he gave unto the disciples and commanded that they should eat. 4 And when they had eaten and were filled, he commanded that they should give unto the multitude. 5 And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the disciples:" Is the partaking of wine prescribed in the word of wisdom? Why yes it is ... D&C 89: 5 That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him. 6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.

Why are you all so hung up on drinking wine? Just what is this about? More teenage rebellion on the part of some of you? And why quote me scripture when I can quote it right back at you! 'For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattererth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory..." (D&C 27:2) It doesn't matter. Did you get that???? Since it's obvious that water was just fine, why do you all have to break the word or wisdom so you can drink wine? In my opinion, it's just another example of the nature of break off sects that they are similar to rebellious teenagers in thumbing their noses at their parent church. Are you all going to go out and get tattoos now too?One of the mormon leaked documents said that some fellowship groups were drinking the 'sacrament' wine till they were drunk, something that is warned of in 1 Corinthians 11:20-22. It's obvious that the LDS version of Sacrament is honoring the cautions given by Paul, while some Remnant followers, quick to throw off the shackles of what they felt was a too strict prohibition against alcohol, are now over doing it like rebellious teens out partying since they are no longer under their parent's thumb.

And then, in the Remnant, you don't have to pay one tenth of your income to the church--just throw in a couple of bucks if you decide to attend a fellowship meeting. That's pleasing to the carnal mind, not having to give the Lord any of your money. These people just covenanted to obey the scriptures in which this is included...D&C 119:5 Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you. And this... JST Genesis 14: 36 And this Melchizedek, having thus established righteousness, was called the king of heaven by his people, or, in other words, the King of peace.37 And he lifted up his voice, and he blessed Abram, being the high priest, and the keeper of the storehouse of God;38 Him whom God had appointed to receive tithes for the poor.

So are you suggesting that you don't have to pay tithing until Zion is established? Sorry, but that's not how it works, if you aren't a tithe paying people now, how can you ever expect to establish Zion. I can't believe I'm actually having to argue the Commandment of Paying Tithing with a supposed LDS member/former member. ""Will a man rob Gob?
Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say: Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.Ye are cursed with a curse, for ye have robbed me, even this whole nations. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse that there may be meat in my house;" (3 Ne 24:8-10). Those were the Lord's words to the Nephites--he made sure they had them since they did not have the writings of Malachi. If you all still follow the book of Mormon (and Snuffer hasn't excised that part) you should know that you all need to pay a proper tithing. One of the most egregious things that Denver Snuffer has done is teach people to ROB GOD and feel justified in doing so. But, I don't think it will be on Denver's head for those who know better. Those who were LDS members and lived the commandment of Tithing at one time and yet, stopped paying it and instead donate money to their fellowship and rationalize that it's the same thing-they will be held accountable. It's not the same thing and deep down, they know it and will be judged accordingly.


And of course, there is the relaxed situation of the fellowships and no organized church, I bet a lot of those former LDS enjoy not having to fulfill callings, not having to do visiting and hometeaching, not having to worry about missionary work or service projects or even having to take time away from recreating to attend the Temple and of course, not having to live worthily to enter the temple. I bet they enjoy not having to worry about going to church on Sundays. It's a pretty casual, relaxed 'church' that they can take on their terms. That's pleasing to the carnal mind. The standard of obedience for these "remnant" people is much higher than for those who trust in the arm of the flesh and wait upon a man to assign the what to do. They are required to connect with the Lord and do what he tells them to do. D&C 84:44 For you shall live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God.

You're kidding right? So, their 'standards' are high like John Doe's standards? A man who believed he received personal revelation that he could commit adultery and fornication at will? Those standards? Was it 'the Lord' who told Doe to do that? I'm sure he thought so. How about the woman who claimed that she was told to have an affair? You think her standards were higher than LDS because she's listening to the voices in her head?
Sorry, but so far, the bar has been set pretty low among Remnant people and until they start to show how their 'religion' is so much harder to live than the one they abandoned, the answer is obvious. Their standards of conduct are lower. Their level of sacrifice is lower. Their need to discipline themselves, live by the Lord's commandments (they've already thrown out one of them...how many more will it be?) and serve others, is lower.

And there's the doctrines. No need to worry about what the Prophet teaches (of course this is changing--as Denver Snuffer starts to exert more control, I believe Remnant people are going to have to be more inclined to follow what Snuffer says), since Snuffer used to teach that you go directly to Christ and only concern yourself with what you personally receive. That's pretty pleasing to the carnal mind, IMO. You attribute things to Snuffer that he does not teach. There has been no revocation of the requirement to connect with the Lord and become a Zion people/person. None who have not done that will be admitted to Zion. Snuffer teaches to heed the words of the Prophets who direct you to Christ. There is a prophesied third Zion that will be brought about prior to the Second Coming of the Lord. There has not been a Zion that was not lead by a true messenger i.e. Enoch, the city of Enoch, Melchizedek, the city of Salem. Heeding true messengers and conversing with the Lord through the veil are still requirements to ascend back into the presence of the Lord.

Denver Snuffer is changing his teachings as he goes along. And it remains to be seen if the Remnant even want to be a Zion people.
So far, it seems to be something...in the future. Also, Denver Snuffer is now teaching to heed HIS WORDS. Maybe someone needs to remind the Remnant people that they don't need Snuffer to teach them how to connect with the Lord. They don't need him. But, he needs them now, because with his new ambitions--to be a 'Davidic Servant' and lead a people, he now needs them to follow his teachings and requirements. And he got a bunch of them to 'covenant' that they'd do that this last weekend.

And the lies Snuffer has taught have to do with his revisionist versions of Church history and his accusations against those he has snidely called 'the proud descendants of Nauvoo'. Our own scriptures testify of the wickedness of Nauvoo progenitors which the church refuses to address or explain. Here are a couple of verses describing our "blessed honored pioneers" 6 Behold, I say unto you, there were jarrings, and contentions, and envyings, and strifes, and lustful and covetous desires among them; therefore by these things they polluted their inheritances. 7 They were slow to hearken unto the voice of the Lord their God; therefore, the Lord their God is slow to hearken unto their prayers, to answer them in the day of their trouble.8 In the day of their peace they esteemed lightly my counsel; but, in the day of their trouble, of necessity they feel after me....For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood.

FYI, this is how the "lord' supposedly through Denver SNuffer, described the 'blessed, honored' Remnant 'pioneers' of this movement in his 12 page prelude to covenant:

For you to unite I must admonish and instruct you, for my will is to have you love one
another. As people you lack the ability to respectfully disagree among one another. You are
as Paul and Peter whose disagreements resulted in jarring and sharp contentions.
Nevertheless they both loved me and I loved them. You must do better.
I commend your diligent labor, and your desire to repent and recover the scriptures
containing the covenant I offer for the last days. For this purpose I caused the Book of
Mormon to come forth. I commend those who have participated, as well as those who have
offered words of caution, for I weigh the hearts of men and many have intended well,
although they have spoken poorly. Wisdom counsels mankind to align their words with their
hearts, but mankind refuses to take counsel from Wisdom.
Nevertheless, there have been sharp disputes between you that should have been avoided. I
speak these words to reprove you that you may learn, not to upbraid you so that you mourn.
I want my people to have understanding.

Maybe people who live in glass houses should be careful about throwing stones.


There's a starter for you.

There is a starter for you.

[AI2.0]

LDS Anarchist, if you don't mind sharing - I find your perspective and testimony fascinating - how did you come to the belief of spiritual knowledge/understanding that the LDS Prophets/Apostles have the keys and that "it is the keys that matter, that's all that matters" and that you and all of us need those keys (ordinances, etc.)?

Also, when you have prophesied those very unlikely things that eventually came to pass, can you describe the gift and how it operates (in you)? Does the power of the Holy Ghost come upon you, do you feel a certain way, does your mind light up in a particular manner, how is the information communicated to you, is there a voice that speaks it to you, etc.? Also very interesting. Maybe you can teach some of the rest of us how to feel or recognize the Spirit better. Thanks.

If you want to know where LDSanarchy is coming from, I would suggest you read his blog....

[underdog]

The Lord has done some prophesying too about some apostasy. See DC 101:43-62. Also, look up Joseph's Last Vision, which is the Lord prophesying that apostasy of the Church would occur.

I'll paste here for your convenience:

How you can interpret that to mean he was prophesying about the church going into apostasy is beyond me. If anything, the men represent people like Snuffer who claim the church doesn't own it, "it" meaning the barn which you interpret to mean the gospel- something Joseph never claimed.
Joseph was clear in this- "it", whatever "it" is, belongs to the church. I don't know what "it" is, it might just be a barn but Joseph said the church and himself are the rightful owners, not some unnamed men who are fighting for it.... like Snuffer!
That^^And your so called proof of apostasy from your earlier post are such a stretch and require so many mental gymnastics that I have to wonder if you actually believe it yourself.

What is condemning certainly is the content of the vision. But let's remove interpretation out of the discussion for a moment. What is condemning is the utter blackout and censorship of this vision from the records! Nobody ever talks about it, agreed? WHY? Obviously, it doesn't make the Church look good, does it? The OBVIOUS interpretation is that the Church would go into apostasy. But sure, I suppose mental gymnastics could somehow create another spin on what it means. The point is the cover-up!

I fail to see how it makes the church look bad. I see how it can make impostors look bad, like Snuffer and the many who were before him. Joseph said in his dream that the barn belongs to the church and himself. Others, not the church, were trying to take it. Without Josephs interpretation of his dream, why waste time on it? All it would be is speculation. Maybe that's why the church doesn't focus on it. I fail to see why remnants, followers of Snuffer who claims he wrested the keys from the church, don't more easily see themselves as the crazy men in the dream. Look at it that way and it might make more sense, but it's still speculation.

I can testify that the church still holds the keys. I recently was at the Temple doing work for the dead- it's all real. That's all I say about that. I suggest humbling yourself, repenting and return to the very much Living Church of Jesus Christ.

Okay gang, here you go:

• Premise: The farm/barn (in good repair) is the gospel or truths that Joseph restored, including let's say the "vehicle" which Joseph organized to deliver the message of truth to the world.

• Joseph left (he died).

• The farm deteriorated (apostasy set in).

• Joseph returned. Surveyed the desolation.

• Raucous men came on the scene and threatened him over who has right to posses it.

• Joseph told them he wasn't going to fight over it. It wasn't worth having anyway in it's apostate state.

• They threatened his life. But just then others came on the scene and a fight ensued.

• Joseph crept away, content to avoid the quarrel.

You fail to see why Denver or the Remnant doesn't see themselves as the violent men in the dream? It's because they are not looking to take the Church over. Its apostasy renders it unsuitable for them. They aren't interested in power and leadership and the honors of men. They are content to walk away from such fighting and focus on Zion and their relationship with God.

I think the dream just taught me an important lesson that I should heed.

[shadow]

I am speaking FOR Christ.

Wow @-) . Certainly you do not speak for Christ.

You're getting a reputation for quoting things out of context (a trend becomes strong evidence of intent; and the intent would be to deceive). I hope you were just joking around. For people not paying attention, the context was this:

I hope you will be able to see the difference between Christ and the Church. They are not one in the same, my dear sister. I am speaking FOR Christ. I have always defended Him and His gospel. What some of you all are doing is fighting for an institution that has signs of apostasy.

Just like Alma and Amulek testified to the people of Ammonihah, they were speaking in FAVOR of the Nephite law, not against it. Here, I am always speaking IN FAVOR of Christ and His restored Gospel and SOMETIMES that means the Church may be off base. It's okay if that happens, but we should admit it, instead of doggedly defending the Church even when it goes rogue. No, I do not speak for Christ, as in "thus saith the Lord."

Still, pretty gutsy thing to say. Personally, I don't believe you speak for Christ in anything. I think you're void of the spirit to even be moved upon to speak anything that would seem validated.

[AI2.0]

Underdog, which account of Joseph Smith's first vision are you saying is ignored and even purposefully hidden by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? You said last, but please be more specific.

It's posted in its entirety above.

But here you go:

Joseph’s Last Vision
June 26, 1844 (the next day Joseph was murdered by a mob that no doubt included some fellow Mormons)

I was back in Kirtland, Ohio, and thought I would take a walk out by myself, and view my old farm, which I found grown up with weeds and brambles, and altogether bearing evidence of neglect and want of culture. I went into the barn, which I found without floor or doors, with the weather-boarding off, and was altogether in keeping with the farm.

While I viewed the desolation around me, and was contemplating how it might be recovered from the curse upon it, there came rushing into the barn a company of furious men, who commenced to pick a quarrel with me.

The leader of the party ordered me to leave the barn and farm, stating it was none of mine, and that I must give up all hope of ever possessing it.
I told him the farm was given me by the Church, and although I had not had any use of it for some time back, still I had not sold it, and according to righteous principles it belonged to me or the Church.

He then grew furious and began to rail upon me, and threaten me, and said it never did belong to me nor to the Church.
I then told him that I did not think it worth contending about, that I had no desire to live upon it in its present state, and if he thought he had a better right I would not quarrel with him about it but leave; but my assurance that I would not trouble him at present did not seem to satisfy him, as he seemed determined to quarrel with me, and threatened me with the destruction of my body.

While he was thus engaged, pouring out his bitter words upon me, a rabble rushed in and nearly filled the barn, drew out their knives, and began to quarrel among themselves for the premises, and for a moment forgot me, at which time I took the opportunity to walk out of the barn about up to my ankles in mud.

When I was a little distance from the barn, I heard them screeching and screaming in a very distressed manner, as it appeared they had engaged in a general fight with their knives. While they were thus engaged, the dream or vision ended.”

You can find the original in the Millennial Star or Doctrinal History of the Church 6:609-619.

So....the only reason we know about the dream is because the church published it in their records...but yet, you are accusing the church of censorship and a cover up. Riiiiiight.... 8-|

[inho]

Okay gang, here you go

The most straightforward interpretation of the dream would be that there is no allegorical message hidden in it and Joseph just dreamt about his old farm in Kirtland. (I'm not saying this interpretation is the correct one, nor that I necessarily interpret it that way.) In your interpretation, is there any significance that the farm was in Kirtland? That seems to be an unnecessary detail.

[Jonesy]

Okay gang, here you go:

• Premise: The farm/barn (in good repair) is the gospel or truths that Joseph restored, including let's say the "vehicle" which Joseph organized to deliver the message of truth to the world.

• Joseph left (he died).

• The farm deteriorated (apostasy set in).

• Joseph returned. Surveyed the desolation.

• Raucous men came on the scene and threatened him over who has right to posses it.

• Joseph told them he wasn't going to fight over it. It wasn't worth having anyway in it's apostate state.

• They threatened his life. But just then others came on the scene and a fight ensued.

• Joseph crept away, content to avoid the quarrel.

You fail to see why Denver or the Remnant doesn't see themselves as the violent men in the dream? It's because they are not looking to take the Church over. Its apostasy renders it unsuitable for them. They aren't interested in power and leadership and the honors of men. They are content to walk away from such fighting and focus on Zion and their relationship with God.

I think the dream just taught me an important lesson that I should heed.

So, in the same post, you say that the barn/farm is the Gospel/truths including the church, but then also say it's the Church left in bad shape which the remnant movement doesn't want or claim. Do the Gospel/truths also become corrupted of which Joseph himself left?

[Arenera]

How you can interpret that to mean he was prophesying about the church going into apostasy is beyond me. If anything, the men represent people like Snuffer who claim the church doesn't own it, "it" meaning the barn which you interpret to mean the gospel- something Joseph never claimed.
Joseph was clear in this- "it", whatever "it" is, belongs to the church. I don't know what "it" is, it might just be a barn but Joseph said the church and himself are the rightful owners, not some unnamed men who are fighting for it.... like Snuffer!
That^^And your so called proof of apostasy from your earlier post are such a stretch and require so many mental gymnastics that I have to wonder if you actually believe it yourself.

What is condemning certainly is the content of the vision. But let's remove interpretation out of the discussion for a moment. What is condemning is the utter blackout and censorship of this vision from the records! Nobody ever talks about it, agreed? WHY? Obviously, it doesn't make the Church look good, does it? The OBVIOUS interpretation is that the Church would go into apostasy. But sure, I suppose mental gymnastics could somehow create another spin on what it means. The point is the cover-up!

I fail to see how it makes the church look bad. I see how it can make impostors look bad, like Snuffer and the many who were before him. Joseph said in his dream that the barn belongs to the church and himself. Others, not the church, were trying to take it. Without Josephs interpretation of his dream, why waste time on it? All it would be is speculation. Maybe that's why the church doesn't focus on it. I fail to see why remnants, followers of Snuffer who claims he wrested the keys from the church, don't more easily see themselves as the crazy men in the dream. Look at it that way and it might make more sense, but it's still speculation.

I can testify that the church still holds the keys. I recently was at the Temple doing work for the dead- it's all real. That's all I say about that. I suggest humbling yourself, repenting and return to the very much Living Church of Jesus Christ.

Okay gang, here you go:

• Premise: The farm/barn (in good repair) is the gospel or truths that Joseph restored, including let's say the "vehicle" which Joseph organized to deliver the message of truth to the world.

• Joseph left (he died).

• The farm deteriorated (apostasy set in).

• Joseph returned. Surveyed the desolation.

• Raucous men came on the scene and threatened him over who has right to posses it.

• Joseph told them he wasn't going to fight over it. It wasn't worth having anyway in it's apostate state.

• They threatened his life. But just then others came on the scene and a fight ensued.

• Joseph crept away, content to avoid the quarrel.

You fail to see why Denver or the Remnant doesn't see themselves as the violent men in the dream? It's because they are not looking to take the Church over. Its apostasy renders it unsuitable for them. They aren't interested in power and leadership and the honors of men. They are content to walk away from such fighting and focus on Zion and their relationship with God.

I think the dream just taught me an important lesson that I should heed.

According to your reasoning, the church doesn't give you anything now, so you can go play remnant. But will you? Will you be one of those who can't leave the church alone?