The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

For discussion of secret combinations (political, economic, spiritual, religious, etc.) (Ether 8:18-25.)
User avatar
Silver Pie
seeker after Christ
Posts: 8989
Location: In the state that doesn't exist

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by Silver Pie »

totsuzen wrote: October 27th, 2017, 8:37 amSince his wife hasn't received her second comforter, how does this movement expect to do the same and bring about Zion?
I am very curious how you know this. This is the second time you have stated unequivocally that she has not received it, yet I don't recall him ever talking about her experiences with the Lord (he, I suppose, figures that is her right to say or not say). Did she tell you she has never seen the Lord? Did he tell you that she has never seen the Lord? Do you have a quote somewhere that you can share to support this knowledge you have? (Totally serious, here.)

If you have none- then, based on my intimate knowledge of this movement and its teachings, I will have to conclude that you do not have an actual knowledge of this idea, and that you are probably wrong (since the Lord has appeared to many women in this movement, why would he withhold his presence from her?).

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by jdt »

totsuzen wrote: October 31st, 2017, 8:09 am
jdt wrote: October 27th, 2017, 1:41 pm
totsuzen wrote: October 27th, 2017, 8:37 am My motivation is to ask for answers to those questions beyond a "yes"/"no" answer. I said 'agree to disagree' with Thomas because I took that as his final answer. He believes Denver is sharing those things, I am having trouble seeing it. He didn't show references where I could see how he reached that conclusion and so I could see that he (and all those who have responded thus far) are fulfilling what I titled this post - they either can't or won't show the answers to those questions.
To be fair, the questions you asked were yes or no questions. Let's start with:
Do they teach repentance? Are you changed by their preaching of it?
This could be easily transformed into a more open ended question like: "For those in the movement, how have these teachings encouraged you to repent?"
I am less than direct in my communications because I am getting responders who don't have the answers and when they don't, they use demeaning statements like, "you didn't try very hard", "you haven't read anything from Denver or have been offended", etc. It is the default setting for people who are afraid or don't know something. Name call or distract from the fact that they don't have an answer.
Again there are some questions on your list like:
Do they allow comments on their blog or do they heavily sensor comments?
I am going to come out and say that at least with regards to Denver himself, you either know the answer to that question or you did not try very hard. Again this could have been very different (at least in this case, since I don't know about any prior conversations), had you simply instead asked, "Why do you think Denver does not allow comments on his blog? Shouldn't he be completely open?"
I don't want a battle of put downs. I want anyone from this movement to show where to find the answer(s).
Agreed. I say what I have said, not as a put down, but hopefully so you can get better insight into how I think. You may not agree with it, but at least you hopefully understand where I am coming from.
Let's just do three questions to help simplify it for now:

When was the last time Denver made reference to speaking face to face with the Lord?
I don't know for sure. He does not often bring up the subject. I know in one of his talks he said he spoke more often with the Lord than has been recorded with Joseph Smith. He attributed that to him being a slower learner than Joseph. I don't recall which talk that was.
Since his wife hasn't received her second comforter, how does this movement expect to do the same and bring about Zion?
I have never heard anything one way or the other about Stephanie having received the Second Comforter or not. So the question is based on a premise I am unsure of.
What is the most detailed account Denver has given, besides Come Let Us Adore Him, with the Savior?
Again Denver has seemed rather guarded about sharing details of these experiences. Frankly, I don't know what would rank as #2.

My declarative statements to the above questions:
-Denver hasn't, from all that I have read (and I study what he writes because I am looking for truth wherever I can find it), spoken face to face with the Lord in years. I have gone back through his writings from the last two years and there is no face to face reference anywhere. I could go further but two years is a long time, in my opinion.
This assumes he has mentioned every visitation. Which may or may not be true. As I read the question, I feel an implication in it (namely that Denver should not be disbelieved because he has not reported such a visitation). So I will ask you the questions I think are important to the implication (that may just be my interpretation).
Is it normal for a prophet to discuss all his/her encounters with the Lord?
How often should a prophet meet with the Lord?
What is your basis for answering the other 2 questions (i.e. scriptural examples, etc)?
(Now I asked these to you, but it is perfectly acceptable to reflect these and say, I am unsure, what do you think?)
-Because his wife hasn't received the second comforter, I don't understand why people are jumping on board to build Zion (eventually) when he isn't able to teach his wife how to obtain it. How can an entire movement with whom he is unequally yoked going to be able to understand the process any better than his co-equal?
As mentioned above I do not know of any statement either way about his wife having received the Second Comforter.
My questions:
What leads you to believe that his wife has not received the Second Comforter?
What connection do you see between receiving the Second Comforter and establishing Zion?
Why do you think that it is necessary for couples to receive the Second Comforter together?
What do you think it means to be equally yoked?
How do you think Zion will be built?
What is your basis for answering the other questions (i.e. scriptural examples, etc)?
-All I can find is the answer to the covenant. He references the Lord having given him the covenant but no details as to how, i.e. revelation, face to face, a voice in his mind, etc. If Come Let Us Adore Him is the most Denver has seen it was 1. years ago and 2. not befitting a Davidic Servant who is to be a prophet, seer, revelator, and translator. The whole package.
The answer and covenant is very recent. And yes is just presented as a revelation, without transmission details. But, the Testimony of John is within the last year as well and represents a major revelation/translation/seership.
My questions:
How do you think the Lord gives information to His prophet(s)?
Is the prophet under a constraint to share the exact method used for receiving information?
How often does a prophet need to receive major information from the Lord before he/she should no longer be considered a prophet?
What is your basis for answering the other questions (i.e. scriptural examples, etc)?

That's a lot of questions. Probably more than can be answered in one response. Pick the one(s) you feel most important and we can continue with a smaller scope.
Does this answer any of those questions? https://awakeandariseandgoforth.blogspo ... eeing.html
Did you intend that link or the one in the original post (this is a link to a different post with no questions)?

Do you take my post as a hijack of some kind? I thought I was quite thorough in responding to your last post, giving you many options to expound upon your declarations and ask detailed followup questions to your original ones.

totsuzen
captain of 50
Posts: 64

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by totsuzen »

I didn't take it as being hijacked at all. Forgive me for being remiss in expressing my gratitude for taking the questions seriously. Thank you, sincerely. That is why I included the new link - to show a main concern which is the LACK of transparency and details. Vague statements akin to the LDS tradition of not talking about specifics.

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by jdt »

lemuel wrote: October 30th, 2017, 3:03 pm Come to think of it, my source might not be all that credible--he had sandy hair, and I didn't feel anything when I kissed his hand. I had a filling at the dentist earlier that day, so it might have been the numbness in my mouth that kept me from feeling him.

I guess I'll have to say I might be wrong on this one.
You are now 2 for 2 on this thread.

I was thinking that I hope we end up in the same place, cause dang you are funny guy.
Of course, most here think me destined for hell being an apostate. Does that mean that I wish hell upon you?
Maybe we will kick the ole rascal out and make a paradise of it? Well, you will make the paradise with your humor and I will contribute the loud laughter.

totsuzen
captain of 50
Posts: 64

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by totsuzen »

-His wife has not received her Second Comforter.
-Denver isn't talking with the Lord face to face but for a few times. He has received some visions and he says that he has interacted more with the Savior more than Joseph Smith which he downplays with a comment that it's probably because he's a slow learner.

***LOOK CLOSELY *** For anyone who is paying attention to the psychological gymnastics Denver contorts you will see those comments for what they are. Boasting and then putting yourself down. It's a passive/aggressive message which is used to manipulate the mind. Look at some examples and see if they sound familiar:

"I'm nobody - don't follow me...I'm the Davidic servant - but its such a bad name."
"I've seen more/interacted with the Savior more than Joseph, but it's because I'm slow..."
"I won't start a church...but here's how you are to run women's councils and baptisms and tithing and fellowships..."
"I want everyone to receive their Second Comforter...(Someone receives Christ) No. That person conjures..."
"Women should conduct the entire Boise conference because they are so special...There is a place for B-itching and moaning...and it's filled with women...(Denver said this in St. George in March. If you read the talk - you won't find it. You have to listen to his talks because he edits. Isn't that what he criticized the LDS church for doing?)"

EDIT - I was messaged the following about the women conducting/speaking in Boise. Looks like I was wrong - here's what I was sent:

"The idea literally came from God. The organizing committee took nominations for dozens of men and women to speak, conduct, and pray. We discussed the positive aspects of each nomination, prayed, and then cast lots to determine who would be assigned each of the main duties. By lot, ALL of the speaking duties (except Denver) fell to women, including the 2 alternates. It wasn’t until we got to the 3rd alternate speaker that a man’s name was drawn. Crazy, but true."

I think casting lots is a very interesting thing. It allows the Lord's will to be revealed. The Lord was clearly sending a message. After all that went on with Jon doe's council and how Denver was able to influence (remember..."no power or influence...") the women into reversing their decision - one can't help but wonder if God wasn't telling the movement that women needed to rise up and take back the power and influence they've given away.

(And since I'll get asked how Denver got them to reverse their decision - he blamed Jon doe's verdict on the women's lack of mercy. No one wants to have that branding so the women agreed to give his certificate back asap. If that isn't abusing power and influence into power and manipulation, I'm not sure what is. There are so many inner circle workings that we aren't aware of. Truly discernment is the only key going forward in any movement).
Last edited by totsuzen on November 3rd, 2017, 3:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

totsuzen
captain of 50
Posts: 64

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by totsuzen »

Silver Pie wrote: October 31st, 2017, 12:38 pm
totsuzen wrote: October 27th, 2017, 8:37 amSince his wife hasn't received her second comforter, how does this movement expect to do the same and bring about Zion?
I am very curious how you know this. This is the second time you have stated unequivocally that she has not received it, yet I don't recall him ever talking about her experiences with the Lord (he, I suppose, figures that is her right to say or not say). Did she tell you she has never seen the Lord? Did he tell you that she has never seen the Lord? Do you have a quote somewhere that you can share to support this knowledge you have? (Totally serious, here.)

If you have none- then, based on my intimate knowledge of this movement and its teachings, I will have to conclude that you do not have an actual knowledge of this idea, and that you are probably wrong (since the Lord has appeared to many women in this movement, why would he withhold his presence from her?).
Your points are very valid. Denver has never spoken publicly about her experiences and I have no quote to reference. I can not say more than I have said without incurring fire. I don't blame anyone who writes my statement off. I would do the same if the roles were reversed.

(Also, I never said the Lord is "withholding His presence from her". Only that she has not received her Second Comforter. She is an excellent woman. The point is not his wife - just that the closest person to Denver, his helpmeet, thus far hasn't been able to receive the Second Comforter and so how is an entire movement going to rise up and receive Christ in the flesh? Will Zion be filled with people who do not "know" Him personally?). This post provides more clarity on the difference: https://awakeandariseandgoforth.blogspo ... eeing.html

User avatar
Silver Pie
seeker after Christ
Posts: 8989
Location: In the state that doesn't exist

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by Silver Pie »

Thank you for your reply, totsuzen.

gardener4life
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1690

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by gardener4life »

Alma 2: 2 Now this Amlici had, by his cunning, drawn away much people after him; even so much that they began to be very powerful; and they began to endeavor to establish Amlici to be a king over the people.
3 Now this was alarming to the people of the church, and also to all those who had not been drawn away after the persuasions of Amlici; for they knew that according to their law that such things must be established by the voice of the people. (wonderful persuasions with cunning, and trusting the arm of the flesh rather than trusting existing leaders.)
4 Therefore, if it were possible that Amlici should gain the voice of the people, he, being a wicked man, would deprive them of their rights and privileges of the church; for it was his intent to destroy the church of God. (In order to build up his own kingdom/church/gathering...)
5 And it came to pass that the people assembled themselves together throughout all the land, every man according to his mind, whether it were for or against Amlici, in separate bodies, having much dispute and wonderful contentions one with another.
6 And thus they did assemble themselves together to cast in their voices concerning the matter; and they were laid before the judges. (Hmm doesn't that guy have some legal background too?)
7 And it came to pass that the voice of the people came against Amlici, that he was not made king / (spiritual leader ) over the people. (He isn't an ordained/appointed leader but won't let it go?...)
8 Now this did cause much joy in the hearts of those who were against him; but Amlici did stir up those who were in his favor to anger against those who were not in his favor. (continues to prey off the weak, drawing away the righteous into blindness and by using clever illusions. He teaches them that they can only identify leadership using HIS methods rather than what methods the Lord uses.)
9 And it came to pass that they gathered themselves together, and did consecrate Amlici to be their king.

Why is it that the pattern on Amlici fits so well on this guy?

I don't really need to go through the list of questions because I already know this guy isn't who he says he is. (Alma and others in the Book of Mormon had already been close enough to the Lord to trust their own answers, rather than Satan's cheap imitations. The same example in the Pearl of Grand Precio/ Great Price. In this instance he's trying to teach people that they can only use his teaching to sort truth and error rather than the Lord's way...hence...cheap imitations.) Stick to simple, pure, and what you already know to be true. Stick to the Spirit and your own answers to prayers that you have felt already. He doesn't need to teach you to reinvent the wheel.

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by jdt »

totsuzen wrote: October 31st, 2017, 12:47 pm I didn't take it as being hijacked at all. Forgive me for being remiss in expressing my gratitude for taking the questions seriously. Thank you, sincerely. That is why I included the new link - to show a main concern which is the LACK of transparency and details. Vague statements akin to the LDS tradition of not talking about specifics.
I totally misread your response. I took "Does this answer any of those questions?" as "your (jdt's) response did not address anything I had been asking:" as opposed to "if you want to know more where I am coming from read this:"

You have some interesting points. Obviously it is inappropriate to overstate experiences (whether outright or to imply).
But I do find it interesting your examples. You named Joseph (Smith Jr. I assume), the Brother of Jared, and Lehi.
In the case of Lehi, the account is actually not given. This actually seems to directly contrary to the point you are trying to make. If I am understanding your claim, we ought to have fully detailed accounts. Saying things like "I saw and heard much" does not cut it. But is that not what we are left with in Nephi's account? It seems an odd choice to use, since there is literally no details.
I would be curious to see your specific examples from Joseph Smith as well. Joseph is a great example because he is the most recent that we likely all accept.
As I look at his accounts, it is kind of a mixed bag. Take the First Vision: 4 primary accounts though they do not all paint the same picture with regards to exactly who was there and what took place. Some question as to even the year it took place.
Okay, what about the visit with Moroni. While the content seems pretty consistent, it seems that half the records indicate Nephi as the visitor not Moroni.
What about the translation of the Book of Mormon? Was it done using the Nephite Interpreters (sometimes called Urim and Thumim), or Joseph's seer stone(s), or simply nothing at all? Were the plates even in the same room?
Receiving the Priesthood: we have accounts the Aaronic Priesthood from John the Baptist, but nothing for the Melchezidek and Peter, James and John.
Then there are other things like the Vision (D&C 76) that are amazing and well recorded. But the account of the Savior is pretty brief (if profound!) and void of details (see vs 18-23).
Now I am not calling into question Nephi's account of Lehi's testimony nor Joseph Smith's reported visitations. I believe them to be accurate. But I don't see a definitive pattern that is consistently followed with prophets giving a specific level of detail in regards to their visitations.

At this point in my life, I also put much more stock in the fruits of the message rather than the fruits of the messenger or the fruits of the details of the message. My educational background is going to seep out now and a cross table for good/bad fruits or a message and good/bad fruits for details of the message.
So if the fruits are good across the board, then it is good because it is all good.
If the fruits are bad across the board, then it is bad because it is bad.
The interesting cases are if they disagree:
Would you be convinced of a bad message if the details around the message were good? (I am disinclined towards polygamy, so it would be like me wanting to accept polygamy because the speaker had the date recorded, gave a detailed record of the visitation). I can't see this working.
What about a good message with bad or non-existent details? Again I am okay with this.
So for me the message stands on its own. Whether it was by dream, by visitation, by urim and thumim, by word for word dictation to mind, or concepts presented to the mind that the hearer converts to words, it does not really matter. That is my take.

totsuzen
captain of 50
Posts: 64

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by totsuzen »

I used Nephi's account of Lehi's ascension only as the first example in the book of Mormon. Nephi said that Lehi wrote A LOT more and Nephi was only re-telling a small portion. Even with that small portion Nephi shared - it is FAR more than Denver has ever shared of his experiences. Clearly these kinds of things are okay to share and important for the reader/hearer to consider.

I also look for fruit. Denver is preaching the scriptures - they are the Lord's words so you WILL find fruit. The LDS church does the SAME so people find fruit in the Prophet's messages. But that is only half of the fruit. Reading about what they are experiencing is another side of the fruit. So we can pray and discern further.

totsuzen
captain of 50
Posts: 64

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by totsuzen »

gardener4life wrote: October 31st, 2017, 3:47 pm Alma 2: 2 Now this Amlici had, by his cunning, drawn away much people after him; even so much that they began to be very powerful; and they began to endeavor to establish Amlici to be a king over the people.
3 Now this was alarming to the people of the church, and also to all those who had not been drawn away after the persuasions of Amlici; for they knew that according to their law that such things must be established by the voice of the people. (wonderful persuasions with cunning, and trusting the arm of the flesh rather than trusting existing leaders.)
4 Therefore, if it were possible that Amlici should gain the voice of the people, he, being a wicked man, would deprive them of their rights and privileges of the church; for it was his intent to destroy the church of God. (In order to build up his own kingdom/church/gathering...)
5 And it came to pass that the people assembled themselves together throughout all the land, every man according to his mind, whether it were for or against Amlici, in separate bodies, having much dispute and wonderful contentions one with another.
6 And thus they did assemble themselves together to cast in their voices concerning the matter; and they were laid before the judges. (Hmm doesn't that guy have some legal background too?)
7 And it came to pass that the voice of the people came against Amlici, that he was not made king / (spiritual leader ) over the people. (He isn't an ordained/appointed leader but won't let it go?...)
8 Now this did cause much joy in the hearts of those who were against him; but Amlici did stir up those who were in his favor to anger against those who were not in his favor. (continues to prey off the weak, drawing away the righteous into blindness and by using clever illusions. He teaches them that they can only identify leadership using HIS methods rather than what methods the Lord uses.)
9 And it came to pass that they gathered themselves together, and did consecrate Amlici to be their king.

Why is it that the pattern on Amlici fits so well on this guy?

I don't really need to go through the list of questions because I already know this guy isn't who he says he is. (Alma and others in the Book of Mormon had already been close enough to the Lord to trust their own answers, rather than Satan's cheap imitations. The same example in the Pearl of Grand Precio/ Great Price. In this instance he's trying to teach people that they can only use his teaching to sort truth and error rather than the Lord's way...hence...cheap imitations.) Stick to simple, pure, and what you already know to be true. Stick to the Spirit and your own answers to prayers that you have felt already. He doesn't need to teach you to reinvent the wheel.

Wow. Great thoughts.

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by jdt »

totsuzen wrote: October 31st, 2017, 12:58 pm -His wife has not received her Second Comforter.
-Denver isn't talking with the Lord face to face but for a few times. He has received some visions and he says that he has interacted more with the Savior more than Joseph Smith which he downplays with a comment that it's probably because he's a slow learner.

***LOOK CLOSELY *** For anyone who is paying attention to the psychological gymnastics Denver contorts you will see those comments for what they are. Boasting and then putting yourself down. It's a passive/aggressive message which is used to manipulate the mind. Look at some examples and see if they sound familiar:

"I'm nobody - don't follow me...I'm the Davidic servant - but its such a bad name."
"I've seen more/interacted with the Savior more than Joseph, but it's because I'm slow..."
"I won't start a church...but here's how you are to run women's councils and baptisms and tithing and fellowships..."
"I want everyone to receive their Second Comforter...(Someone receives Christ) No. That person conjures..."
"Women should conduct the entire Boise conference because they are so special...there is a place for B-itching and moaning...and it's filled with women..."
Okay it is time to back up claims:
By what reason do you think that his wife has or has not received the Second Comforter? Is it just because there is no open claim of it? That is a huge assumption.
By what reason do you think you have any idea how often the Lord may or may not visit Denver?
Where has Denver actually claimed to be the Davidic Servant beyond the revelation that his name was to be David? I find it astounding that non-remnant folks read more into a name than remnant folks do (I have never heard a remnant person say that they even speculate that Denver is the Davidic servant, honestly).
I am curious to know who you are referencing in regards to Denver denying someone else's witness. (I read a lot of his writings, I have no idea where this is. True he has stated that he was always fully awake, and it was never upon demand, but that is different than what you are implying).
How do you know what Denver's input was in regards to the Boise conference agenda? Speak plainly what you think he actually asked for.

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by jdt »

totsuzen wrote: November 1st, 2017, 10:23 am I used Nephi's account of Lehi's ascension only as the first example in the book of Mormon. Nephi said that Lehi wrote A LOT more and Nephi was only re-telling a small portion. Even with that small portion Nephi shared - it is FAR more than Denver has ever shared of his experiences. Clearly these kinds of things are okay to share and important for the reader/hearer to consider.

I also look for fruit. Denver is preaching the scriptures - they are the Lord's words so you WILL find fruit. The LDS church does the SAME so people find fruit in the Prophet's messages. But that is only half of the fruit. Reading about what they are experiencing is another side of the fruit. So we can pray and discern further.
I would claim that Denver has given at least 10 times the necessary information to more than adequately evaluate the fruits of the message he has shared. He has at least a million of words on his blog, nearly 10 books, and several addresses at sunstone, the 40 years series, the 500 years series, and many one off events. That is more words than the entire LDS standard works.

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

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by AI2.0 »

jdt wrote: November 1st, 2017, 1:21 pm
totsuzen wrote: November 1st, 2017, 10:23 am I used Nephi's account of Lehi's ascension only as the first example in the book of Mormon. Nephi said that Lehi wrote A LOT more and Nephi was only re-telling a small portion. Even with that small portion Nephi shared - it is FAR more than Denver has ever shared of his experiences. Clearly these kinds of things are okay to share and important for the reader/hearer to consider.

I also look for fruit. Denver is preaching the scriptures - they are the Lord's words so you WILL find fruit. The LDS church does the SAME so people find fruit in the Prophet's messages. But that is only half of the fruit. Reading about what they are experiencing is another side of the fruit. So we can pray and discern further.
I would claim that Denver has given at least 10 times the necessary information to more than adequately evaluate the fruits of the message he has shared. He has at least a million of words on his blog, nearly 10 books, and several addresses at sunstone, the 40 years series, the 500 years series, and many one off events. That is more words than the entire LDS standard works.
Well, all you've proven is that he's a prolific writer, and personally, I beg to differ. If you put all the LDS general Conference talks of our prophets and the books they wrote, Denver can never catch up. But that's neither here nor there.

The message matters but so does the messenger. If you think the messenger doesn't matter, you are assuming that the message is given within a vacuum--and we know it's not.

It ought to matter to LDS members that the 'message' is given by a man who was too proud to take correction when told he was teaching false doctrine.

And so far, Denver's 'fruit' is a lot of writing and speaking which has managed to take people away from the 'only true and living church on the earth', it's priesthood ordinances and authority and the covenants and blessings it's temples offer.

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

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by AI2.0 »

My responses in blue;
jdt wrote: November 1st, 2017, 1:14 pm
totsuzen wrote: October 31st, 2017, 12:58 pm -His wife has not received her Second Comforter.
-Denver isn't talking with the Lord face to face but for a few times. He has received some visions and he says that he has interacted more with the Savior more than Joseph Smith which he downplays with a comment that it's probably because he's a slow learner.

***LOOK CLOSELY *** For anyone who is paying attention to the psychological gymnastics Denver contorts you will see those comments for what they are. Boasting and then putting yourself down. It's a passive/aggressive message which is used to manipulate the mind. Look at some examples and see if they sound familiar:

"I'm nobody - don't follow me...I'm the Davidic servant - but its such a bad name."
"I've seen more/interacted with the Savior more than Joseph, but it's because I'm slow..."
"I won't start a church...but here's how you are to run women's councils and baptisms and tithing and fellowships..."
"I want everyone to receive their Second Comforter...(Someone receives Christ) No. That person conjures..."
"Women should conduct the entire Boise conference because they are so special...there is a place for B-itching and moaning...and it's filled with women..."
Okay it is time to back up claims:
By what reason do you think that his wife has or has not received the Second Comforter? Is it just because there is no open claim of it? That is a huge assumption.The question is, why would we think she had received it, since he's never mentioned it? It's a huge assumption to think she has. I supposed if someone cared they could try to ask him, but he doesn't take comments on his blog, I don't know how they reach him.
By what reason do you think you have any idea how often the Lord may or may not visit Denver?While it may seem nitpicky, the claim Denver made--that he's seen the Lord and talks to him, is the claim he makes to get people to listen to him. That's his claim to 'authority'. It's not surprising that people would be curious about HOW it happens and how many times it's taken place etc.
Where has Denver actually claimed to be the Davidic Servant beyond the revelation that his name was to be David? I find it astounding that non-remnant folks read more into a name than remnant folks do (I have never heard a remnant person say that they even speculate that Denver is the Davidic servant, honestly).Why so squeamish to admit it? If you are a follower, you know what he's claiming. He now says he's the head of a new dispensation AND his name was changed to 'David' --then he's claiming to be the Davidic Servant. There you have it.
I am curious to know who you are referencing in regards to Denver denying someone else's witness. (I read a lot of his writings, I have no idea where this is. True he has stated that he was always fully awake, and it was never upon demand, but that is different than what you are implying).
How do you know what Denver's input was in regards to the Boise conference agenda? Speak plainly what you think he actually asked for.

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by jdt »

My responses in red.
AI2.0 wrote: November 2nd, 2017, 10:41 am My responses in blue;
jdt wrote: November 1st, 2017, 1:14 pm
totsuzen wrote: October 31st, 2017, 12:58 pm -His wife has not received her Second Comforter.
-Denver isn't talking with the Lord face to face but for a few times. He has received some visions and he says that he has interacted more with the Savior more than Joseph Smith which he downplays with a comment that it's probably because he's a slow learner.

***LOOK CLOSELY *** For anyone who is paying attention to the psychological gymnastics Denver contorts you will see those comments for what they are. Boasting and then putting yourself down. It's a passive/aggressive message which is used to manipulate the mind. Look at some examples and see if they sound familiar:

"I'm nobody - don't follow me...I'm the Davidic servant - but its such a bad name."
"I've seen more/interacted with the Savior more than Joseph, but it's because I'm slow..."
"I won't start a church...but here's how you are to run women's councils and baptisms and tithing and fellowships..."
"I want everyone to receive their Second Comforter...(Someone receives Christ) No. That person conjures..."
"Women should conduct the entire Boise conference because they are so special...there is a place for B-itching and moaning...and it's filled with women..."
Okay it is time to back up claims:
By what reason do you think that his wife has or has not received the Second Comforter? Is it just because there is no open claim of it? That is a huge assumption.The question is, why would we think she had received it, since he's never mentioned it? It's a huge assumption to think she has. I supposed if someone cared they could try to ask him, but he doesn't take comments on his blog, I don't know how they reach him.I agree I don't assume either way, because I have zero evidence for or against. totsuzen has now repeatedly claimed that it is a problem she has not received it, and I think it fair to ask how (s)he thinks it has not happened.
By what reason do you think you have any idea how often the Lord may or may not visit Denver?While it may seem nitpicky, the claim Denver made--that he's seen the Lord and talks to him, is the claim he makes to get people to listen to him. That's his claim to 'authority'. It's not surprising that people would be curious about HOW it happens and how many times it's taken place etc.Same as before.
totsuzen is making claims that it is a problem how infrequently Denver is being visited. I have no idea how (s)he knows how often this is or is not happening.

Where has Denver actually claimed to be the Davidic Servant beyond the revelation that his name was to be David? I find it astounding that non-remnant folks read more into a name than remnant folks do (I have never heard a remnant person say that they even speculate that Denver is the Davidic servant, honestly).Why so squeamish to admit it? If you are a follower, you know what he's claiming. He now says he's the head of a new dispensation AND his name was changed to 'David' --then he's claiming to be the Davidic Servant. There you have it.At this point in my life, titles mean diddly. Claim what you want. I don't care. Do the work and I respect that. How many people claim to be seers without actually producing seership? Would it not be better to simply translate and let people decide whether you are a seer or not? Same with the Davidic servant. If you think you know who it is, line up his accomplishments with what the scriptures say. I do not think Denver has met all the prophecies to date (the story is not finished though or I may be blind/wrong). So I would not call him that and would take exception to anyone who states that with any degree of confidence. Sure people can speculate all they want. But until the work is done, it does not mean much to me.
I am curious to know who you are referencing in regards to Denver denying someone else's witness. (I read a lot of his writings, I have no idea where this is. True he has stated that he was always fully awake, and it was never upon demand, but that is different than what you are implying).
How do you know what Denver's input was in regards to the Boise conference agenda? Speak plainly what you think he actually asked for.

totsuzen
captain of 50
Posts: 64

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by totsuzen »

I will say what I said to Silver:

Your points are very valid. Denver has never spoken publicly about her experiences and I have no quote to reference that his wife hasn't received her Second Comforter. I can not say more than I have said without incurring fire. I don't blame anyone who writes my statement off that Stephanie has not received her Second Comforter. I would do the same if the roles were reversed. I wouldn't have written what I've written if she had received it. She hasn't and you can seek to find out from the source (ask Stephanie). If you are privileged enough to be in their (Steph & Denver's) inner circle, you already know she hasn't. If you are not in that circle and you ask her (or him) directly - they will not tell you (which oddly enough will also tell you the answer).

Keep in mind, the point is not Stephanie. The point is that the closest person to Denver, his helpmeet, thus far hasn't been able to receive the Second Comforter and so how is an entire movement going to rise up and receive Christ in the flesh? Will Zion be filled with people who do not "know" Him personally?. This post provides more clarity on the difference: https://awakeandariseandgoforth.blogspo ... eeing.html

As for how much Denver has seen Christ and had visions - again, he has revealed what he has received. If he has seen more than Joseph - then that would be provable by what he has shared. From the accounts we do have that Joseph has shared - he told who came to him, words exchanged, what he saw, etc.. Denver has WRITTEN more than Joseph but RECORDED LESS than Joseph as to what he (Denver) has seen, what was spoken, what he saw, etc. We have only Denver's word (boasting) that he's seen more than Joseph. Denver has provided no proof (which, ironically, a lack of evidence or an eye witness account would render his testimony invalid in a court of law). Just 'take his word for it' like he criticized the LDS church for doing.

Denver has written A LOT...but any good Lawyer can take a bunch of events that happened in the past (history) and reconstruct it to make sense to the masses. HOW MUCH Denver has written is only HALF of testing the fruit. The other half is to read about his witness experiences, which he says are "private", "too sacred", and "nobody's business".

As for the Davidic servant. We are all adults. We all know about the Davidic servant who is to come before Christ. For Denver to start a movement, declare a dispensation, and inform everyone of his new name...which happens to be the name everyone is waiting to hear...let's not pretend it's "just a name". One thing is for sure - until the work is done, no one can claim anything. David is a name - and it represents one who can fall from their exaltation. It is the most appropriate name Denver could have been given.

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by jdt »

totsuzen wrote: November 2nd, 2017, 2:47 pm I will say what I said to Silver:

Your points are very valid. Denver has never spoken publicly about her experiences and I have no quote to reference that his wife hasn't received her Second Comforter. I can not say more than I have said without incurring fire. I don't blame anyone who writes my statement off that Stephanie has not received her Second Comforter. I would do the same if the roles were reversed. I wouldn't have written what I've written if she had received it. She hasn't and you can seek to find out from the source (ask Stephanie). If you are privileged enough to be in their (Steph & Denver's) inner circle, you already know she hasn't. If you are not in that circle and you ask her (or him) directly - they will not tell you (which oddly enough will also tell you the answer).

Keep in mind, the point is not Stephanie. The point is that the closest person to Denver, his helpmeet, thus far hasn't been able to receive the Second Comforter and so how is an entire movement going to rise up and receive Christ in the flesh? Will Zion be filled with people who do not "know" Him personally?. This post provides more clarity on the difference: https://awakeandariseandgoforth.blogspo ... eeing.html

As for how much Denver has seen Christ and had visions - again, he has revealed what he has received. If he has seen more than Joseph - then that would be provable by what he has shared. From the accounts we do have that Joseph has shared - he told who came to him, words exchanged, what he saw, etc.. Denver has WRITTEN more than Joseph but RECORDED LESS than Joseph as to what he (Denver) has seen, what was spoken, what he saw, etc. We have only Denver's word (boasting) that he's seen more than Joseph. Denver has provided no proof (which, ironically, a lack of evidence or an eye witness account would render his testimony invalid in a court of law). Just 'take his word for it' like he criticized the LDS church for doing.

Denver has written A LOT...but any good Lawyer can take a bunch of events that happened in the past (history) and reconstruct it to make sense to the masses. HOW MUCH Denver has written is only HALF of testing the fruit. The other half is to read about his witness experiences, which he says are "private", "too sacred", and "nobody's business".

As for the Davidic servant. We are all adults. We all know about the Davidic servant who is to come before Christ. For Denver to start a movement, declare a dispensation, and inform everyone of his new name...which happens to be the name everyone is waiting to hear...let's not pretend it's "just a name". One thing is for sure - until the work is done, no one can claim anything. David is a name - and it represents one who can fall from their exaltation. It is the most appropriate name Denver could have been given.
Fair enough. Let's assume you are right. What is the answer then?
Show me the better messenger.
Edit: Or better yet, show the better message.

totsuzen
captain of 50
Posts: 64

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by totsuzen »

jdt - I have to say, I am impressed with ALL of your responses to me and the kindness and humility with which you respond to my thoughts. Thank you very much. You seem to be a very good soul.

Honestly - I felt that Denver had been given a mission and a purpose from the Lord. I have prayed about many things he has written and taught. I have found truth in his early writings and teachings which awakened my mind to my baptism of fire and reception of the Holy Ghost. I feel a deep gratitude for the sacrifices he has made to help others. I had a dream in which I was shown Denver was not on the track he started on. I knew of three other people, who know him personally, who have been in his home many times and whom Denver would call friend, who also had similar dreams. Dreams can come from the adversary so I always make sure to use discernment in what I (or others) receive. The answer was that they were each from the Lord.

I believe Denver had a mission to fulfill. And I believe since he finished what the Lord asked him to do, he then began doing things that he HOPES will please the Lord. If you look back at the 40 years in Mormonism talks, Denver always tells where he got the content from and who asked him (Denver) to deliver these talks. Since that time, it has been sketchy.

So to answer your question...show the better message. Here it is:

Is there anyone reading this that, years ago, upon awakening to your awful situation, didn't kneel in mighty prayer before the Lord and plead for forgiveness and covenant to serve Him all the days of your life? Is there anyone who hasn't already gone before the Lord and accepted all revelations & scripture He has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and all that He will yet reveal pertaining to the Kingdom of God?

Christ told Joseph their creeds were an abomination. Denver has talked about how the intent was to bring the gospel to the Israelite remnant. Instead they brought on the Campbellite movement and created a New Testament church, with a creed. And the Lord called them an abomination and they welcomed false spirits. The false spirits, and false priests created yet another abominable creed that made slaves of the souls of men. They were doing the same thing as we in this movement have done... and we think our attempts are going to be successful even though we've done NOTHING different. When the Gentiles don't receive Christ - they get more scripture under a covenant since that is all they are willing to receive.

We have become the Israelites. Can we see it? Since we won't ascend and meet the Lord face to face - we are being offered far less. Fellowships. Rules. Correlated scriptures. Temple fund. All as a substitute for the real thing. Denver already declared this almost exactly one year ago:

"In His mercy, God has made provisions for all people. He loves all mankind equally, has planned for allowing those good and believing people WHO WILL NOT QUALIFY IN THEIR OWN RIGHT to ascend the “mountain of the Lord” into His presence to receive it through MORE ORDINARY MEANS. God’s purposes cannot be defeated, even by man’s weakness. God has OTHER MEANS to qualify people to be His covenant family.

"The purpose of a temple (meaning an actual temple commissioned, ordered, blessed, accepted and visited with His presence) is to SUBSTITUTE for the temporary ascent of a mortal into God’s presence. A real temple becomes “Holy Ground” and the means for making available to faithful people in every state of belief and hope the opportunity to receive, by authorized means, the same covenant, obligation, association, expectation and sealing through an authorized and binding arrangement in sacred space." http://denversnuffer.com/2016/04/why-a-temple/

And so, like ancient Israelites, we have a people who set up a man to be their Moses and declare what we need and don't need in order to be saved, avoid pestilence, famine, and destruction. We develop rules. We build a temple instead of becoming a Temple. We vote on scriptures instead of fulfilling them. Choose God and God alone. Choose to be the temple instead of build one. Choose to fulfill scripture instead of vote on them. Choose to stand as a sentinel and wait upon the Lord and be not moved until He comes for you, even if that means pestilence, famine, and death of your bodies. Do we want to be part of a group who has not yet been redeemed...or do you want to be part of Him? Choose Him. Again and again. Choose Him.

As for me and my house - we choose to receive the Lord in the flesh or perish. We have knelt and covenanted with a great offering and sacrifice on the alter. Our lives. Our blood. It’s Him - face to face, or death for us. And it gives us the greatest peace. Far greater than we imagined. RISE UP!!! REND THE VEIL!!! GET A COVENANT DIRECTLY FROM The God of ISRAEL!!!

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by Arenera »

totsuzen wrote: November 3rd, 2017, 10:01 am As for me and my house - we choose to receive the Lord in the flesh or perish. We have knelt and covenanted with a great offering and sacrifice on the alter. Our lives. Our blood. It’s Him - face to face, or death for us. And it gives us the greatest peace. Far greater than we imagined. RISE UP!!! REND THE VEIL!!! GET A COVENANT DIRECTLY FROM The God of ISRAEL!!!
This seems over the top to me. This is what Jesus said:
And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

totsuzen
captain of 50
Posts: 64

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by totsuzen »

Perhaps my wording is more intense for some. For me - what I described IS a broken heart and contrite spirit. It’s Jesus or nothing. It’s giving everything, including my life. No longer desiring the self but the Savior.

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by jdt »

Now that was direct and plain! I have a much better understanding of you. And we agree in many ways.
I have been previously stated that I have thought the movement is more likely to fail than succeed (and received ridicule from one on this forum for saying that while being part of it). Simply put history proves mankind not very good at establishing Zion. I don't see why we would be any different, me least of all. But in spite of all that I will try.
I think we are in a transition period too. We have received an incredible amount of information, but now we kind of have a quiet period where we have to decide what to do with it all. Will we seek the Lord? Will we find peace one with another? I am not quite ready to write us off yet. I think there is still time to repent.
Our track record to date is problematic for sure. The guide and standard is a complete debacle. But I have hopes that we may learn something out of it. It is a wise thing the Lord asked and shows just how un-Zion-like we are. I hope that there will be a people (even if it is just a few) who finally understand how to work and live with others. I think the fellowships, conferences, and such are ways the Lord is using to humble us and break us, so that more are ready receive Him. This is speculative. I have not received the Second Comforter, so I can't say for sure. But I can say that in my fellowship, I have been able to increase in love, show greater mercy, have compassion on the poor, and gain a greater understanding of the scriptures through joint study than I had been able to without them. I do feel a greater desire to repent, though I am still a weak and fallen person.
God bless.

totsuzen
captain of 50
Posts: 64

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by totsuzen »

I think we do agree in a lot of ways too. I think you will be a perfect example of Christlike service among any you serve with. What I have learned is that many are trying to rise up in the church and out of the church and I hope the best for all of us. They are blessed to have you.

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

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by AI2.0 »

I've read people say that the Denver Snuffer who wrote 'The Second Comforter' was not the same Denver Snuffer who gave the last lecture in Mesa. I believe it. I would say also that the Denver Snuffer who gave the lectures is not the same Denver Snuffer today. He's evolving. He's not a prophet, he's a would-be reformer, who is now trying to make people believe he's a prophet. If you read his writings you can see it. He's also a lawyer and knows how to be cagey in what he says so it's hard for people to pin him down.

Some are unsure if he claimed to have wrested keys--that's because he implied it in his writings but never said it plainly. Some are now unsure if he's claiming to be the Davidic Servant--that's because again, he's being cagey in the way he states things. This allows those who are not ready or are uncomfortable for these messages to pretend that he isn't actually saying things.

If you ask me, the reason you can't find straight, plain, clear answers, is because of a deliberate choice on Denver Snuffer's part to NOT be plain and direct. And, this bad habit has infected many of his followers as well.

All I can say is, if you are unsure about him(and you should be), you are way smarter not to throw away the true church for a mirage. The Snuffer fruits will begin to show soon enough....they already are. The John Doe incident is an example of problems, the Scripture committee and their work of blasphemy on the scriptures is another. And there will be more, just way and see. I'd bet some may already know of things that are bubbling under the surface but are being kept hidden until they can't be hidden any longer.

jdt
captain of 100
Posts: 354

Re: The questions Denver's movement can't and won't answer

Post by jdt »

AI2.0 wrote: November 5th, 2017, 5:04 pm I've read people say that the Denver Snuffer who wrote 'The Second Comforter' was not the same Denver Snuffer who gave the last lecture in Mesa. I believe it. I would say also that the Denver Snuffer who gave the lectures is not the same Denver Snuffer today. He's evolving. He's not a prophet, he's a would-be reformer, who is now trying to make people believe he's a prophet. If you read his writings you can see it. He's also a lawyer and knows how to be cagey in what he says so it's hard for people to pin him down.

Some are unsure if he claimed to have wrested keys--that's because he implied it in his writings but never said it plainly. Some are now unsure if he's claiming to be the Davidic Servant--that's because again, he's being cagey in the way he states things. This allows those who are not ready or are uncomfortable for these messages to pretend that he isn't actually saying things.

If you ask me, the reason you can't find straight, plain, clear answers, is because of a deliberate choice on Denver Snuffer's part to NOT be plain and direct. And, this bad habit has infected many of his followers as well.

All I can say is, if you are unsure about him(and you should be), you are way smarter not to throw away the true church for a mirage. The Snuffer fruits will begin to show soon enough....they already are. The John Doe incident is an example of problems, the Scripture committee and their work of blasphemy on the scriptures is another. And there will be more, just way and see. I'd bet some may already know of things that are bubbling under the surface but are being kept hidden until they can't be hidden any longer.
People also said that Joseph evolved from the pre-Kirtland to Kirtland and Kirtland to Nauvoo eras. And they are right. The things Joseph emphasized did change over time. And that's okay.
And I would claim that Denver is only evasive in the domains of titles, offices, priesthoods, and visitations. If you look at the message he has shared since the beginning, it is about preparing a people for the establishment of Zion. The message has been incredibly consistent and detailed.

Post Reply