Receiving the Second Comforter-Personal Visit From Christ?


Jason_J
 Share

Recommended Posts

Good morning Anddenex! I hope you are happy and well. :)

God desiring all of us to be prophets does not mean we have the right to declare new truths. It is not within our stewardship, otherwise there would be more than one head, which ultimately would lead to confusion.

Those of us who learn doctrines, not yet revealed, should not teach it -- even if we have reached the level of spirituality like unto a prophet.

But what if what is being taught isn't new doctrine?

What if the problem is not that the doctrine is new or false or that it isn't being openly taught by the President of the Church? What if the doctrine is being openly taught by the President of the Church, but people aren't recognizing it? If a person recognizes a truth being taught by the Prophet, are they not authorize to teach it? Should a person stop teaching revealed doctrine because others are blind to it?

I do not mean to cause anyone offense with my questions.

Regards,

Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

19 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come

Hopefully, all my posts in this thread can be seen directly relating to the context of the OP's query regarding receiving the Second Comforter and what it entails. There is a pattern to this, which is illustrated by most, if not all prophets such as Abraham, Moses, Lehi, Nephi, Moriancumer, etc, etc (calling, stewardship, prophecying, etc).

Without a doubt. But another integral part of the pattern comes from D&C 28. Unless I'm the President of the Church, then--while I may speak as moved by the Spirit--I am forbidden from writing "by way of commandment", or from "command[ing] him who is at . . . the head of the church". The keys to the mysteries and sealed revelations lie only with Joseph, and his successors. And in D&C 43 we are commanded:

5 And this shall be a law unto you, that ye receive not the teachings of any that shall come before you as revelations or commandments;

6 And this I give unto you that you may not be deceived, that you may know they are not of me.

7 For verily I say unto you, that he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those revelations which you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what if what is being taught isn't new doctrine?

What if the problem is not that the doctrine is new or false or that it isn't being openly taught by the President of the Church? What if the doctrine is being openly taught by the President of the Church, but people aren't recognizing it? If a person recognizes a truth being taught by the Prophet, are they not authorize to teach it? Should a person stop teaching revealed doctrine because others are blind to it?

I do not mean to cause anyone offense with my questions.

Regards,

Finrock

I believe I have already answered the question, "new doctrine," doctrine which is true but must be revealed through proper channels.

If we are teaching doctrine which has already been revealed and you can support the doctrine by words of the prophets, as accepted by the Church, then the doctrine isn't new.

If we need to imply "our own interpretation" to the meaning of the prophets words, then people are welcome to share their opinion -- key word "opinion." Example, I don't agree with your personal interpretation that we "become Christ" in taking upon us his name. I have taken upon myself the name of my father, but I am not my father. An adoptive son who takes upon the name of his adoptive family, doesn't become the father of the adoptive family, but is required to take good care of the name he now owns. We are spiritually begotten by our Savior, we take upon us his name, however, I haven't found any evidence in scripture, without personal interpretation, saying we "become Christ." Thus, I see this as your personal opinion, and will do so until the spirit of the Lord teaches me otherwise, or continues to confirm my present understanding.

I am trying to remember which prophet received the spirit of prophecy and revelation regarding the doctrine, "As man is, God once was; As God is man may become." I thought it very interesting that he never taught this doctrine himself (although revealed personally by the spirit to him), and did not teach it until he heard the prophet Brigham Young teach the doctrine. I am thinking it was George A. Smith, Heber J. Grant, or Lorenzo Snow (any helps?).

No offense taken :)

EDIT: Lorenzo Snow (Thank you mikbone), "Feeling that he had received "a sacred communication" that he should guard carefully, Lorenzo Snow did not teach the doctrine publicly until he knew that the Prophet Joseph Smith had taught it. Once he knew the doctrine was public knowledge, he testified of it frequently." (Teaching of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow, Chapter 5, "The Grand Destiny of the Faithful," first page in Chapter 5)

There in lies every members responsibility when they receive holy communication from God.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am trying to remember which prophet received the spirit of prophecy and revelation regarding the doctrine, "As man is, God once was; As God is man may become." I thought it very interesting that he never taught this doctrine himself (although revealed personally by the spirit to him), and did not teach it until he heard the prophet Brigham Young teach the doctrine. I am thinking it was George A. Smith, Heber J. Grant, or Lorenzo Snow (any helps?).

Lorenzo Snow. See Chapter 5 in the present Priesthood Manual (Teachings of Lorenzo Snow).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I was just reading in D&C 28 and verses 4-7 seem to indicate that this Denver Snuffer would be in keeping with this counsel, IF he is not commanding the prophet or commanding others.

I have not read this Denver Snuffer material, so I have no feeling one way or another. But my initial feelings suggest to me that Denver is in keeping with that counsel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If openly speaking of such experiences is "perfectly normal" then why don't the GAs do it? Why does Elder Holland cite to a (superficially) relatively obscure passage in one of Peter's epistles rather than just coming out and saying "He's real, I've seen Him"?

Does Snuffer have understanding that Holland lacks? Does Snuffer have keys to a ministry that Holland lacks?

Or does Holland have understanding that Snuffer lacks?

Maybe; but his later conduct--as partially outlined in this previous post of mine (last three paragraphs)--does not seem to comport with what you would expect of someone who had had that kind of experience.

Denver Snuffer is the sum total of all of his writings. His blogs and his attitude towards the Church leadership, or his incivility with his critics, cannot be disregarded; however much he may wish for us to do so.

The fact that Sidney Rigdon, William Marks, John W. Taylor, and Matthias Cowley made rousing and perhaps even edifying sermons at one point in their lives--and even, in at least some cases, were privy to marvelous revelations--does not excuse their disobedience later in life.

I would say for one that not all of the GAs have experienced the things Denver talks about. I don't know why the Apostles would be obscure. Just come out and say it! Joseph Smith did and most prophets who have experienced the same things.

I would say that Holland's and Snuffer's understanding and experiences are different. I would also say that God can call any man to minister such as Paul. Alma 13 goes into this concept more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without a doubt. But another integral part of the pattern comes from D&C 28. Unless I'm the President of the Church, then--while I may speak as moved by the Spirit--I am forbidden from writing "by way of commandment", or from "command[ing] him who is at . . . the head of the church". The keys to the mysteries and sealed revelations lie only with Joseph, and his successors. And in D&C 43 we are commanded:

Just_A_Guy, God is not limited to revealing His mysteries to the authorities alone. In fact the scriptures say that any man or woman can know of God's mysteries. Joseph Smith said the same thing.

Alma 12:

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart conly according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the blesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

Edited by Smeagums
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why the Apostles would be obscure. Just come out and say it! Joseph Smith did and most prophets who have experienced the same things.

Your reasoning is circular. You claim that apostles who have had such experiences would just come out and say so, as in the case of Joseph Smith and some others. But that is not a conclusion; that is simply your assertion. In fact, it's completely possible that many people, apostles and otherwise, have had such experiences without ever feeling the need to reveal them in public.

I do agree that I see no reason to believe that all or most apostles or other General Authorities have had such supernal experiences or have had their calling and election made sure. But I also believe that such things would rarely or never be discussed in public. Joseph Smith's was, because he is the prophet to this dispensation and his experiences, both good and bad, are held up as models for us.

Once we have such scriptural models of sacred things that we don't normally discuss openly, whether it's Joseph Smith, Moses, Nephi, the ancient apostles, the Nephite Twelve, or Jesus Christ himself, there is little need to use examples from Thomas Monson or Smeagums or Vort. We are allowed, and for the most part commanded, to keep such things private.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your reasoning is circular. You claim that apostles who have had such experiences would just come out and say so, as in the case of Joseph Smith and some others. But that is not a conclusion; that is simply your assertion. In fact, it's completely possible that many people, apostles and otherwise, have had such experiences without ever feeling the need to reveal them in public.

I do agree that I see no reason to believe that all or most apostles or other General Authorities have had such supernal experiences or have had their calling and election made sure. But I also believe that such things would rarely or never be discussed in public. Joseph Smith's was, because he is the prophet to this dispensation and his experiences, both good and bad, are held up as models for us.

Once we have such scriptural models of sacred things that we don't normally discuss openly, whether it's Joseph Smith, Moses, Nephi, the ancient apostles, the Nephite Twelve, or Jesus Christ himself, there is little need to use examples from Thomas Monson or Smeagums or Vort. We are allowed, and for the most part commanded, to keep such things private.

Vort, I agree that they probably have experienced many sacred things. Saying, as an apostle, that you know Christ lives "for I have seen Him" would not take away from the sacred experience.

If you or anyone else have read Denver's book, not saying you haven't, you would know he doesn't casually speak about his experiences. In fact his book "The Second Comforter" has, I think, just one or maybe two sentences that allows the reader to know he has conversed with the Lord.

Edited by Smeagums
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vort, I agree that they probably have experienced many sacred things. Saying, as an apostle, that you know Christ lives "for I have seen Him" would not take away from the sacred experience.

I don't disagree with this. In fact, given that the apostles are charged to be "special witnesses" of Christ, I would think this completely appropriate. That they don't say such things makes me suspect they have not had that experience. So we seem to agree on that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with this. In fact, given that the apostles are charged to be "special witnesses" of Christ, I would think this completely appropriate. That they don't say such things makes me suspect they have not had that experience. So we seem to agree on that point.

Cool. Well, I think it is dangerous to assume such a tremendous thing upon any man. I also would not assume Monson to be a prophet "like unto Moses" unless he declared so. The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy.

I believe Monson leads the Church with inspiration but people need to realize that president and prophet are two different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool. Well, I think it is dangerous to assume such a tremendous thing upon any man. I also would not assume Monson to be a prophet "like unto Moses" unless he declared so. The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of prophecy.

I believe Monson leads the Church with inspiration but people need to realize that president and prophet are two different things.

They are two different positions. Thomas Monson is, by very definition, a prophet, a seer, and a revelator, because he is an apostle. And in fact, as the senior apostle, Brother Monson is THE prophet, seer, and revelator on the earth today, holding and actively exercising all the keys of the Priesthood for the kingdom of God.

He is the President by virtue of the fact that he reorganized the First Presidency upon the death of Brother Hinckley. He need not have done that; he could have remained as the senior apostle and president of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles and run the Church in that capacity, as Brigham Young did for years after Joseph Smith's death, and as John Taylor did for a period of time after Brigham Young's death. Brother Monson's calling as President of the Church is based on his reconstitution of the First Presidency, which was dissolved at the death of Gordon Hinckley. When Thomas Monson dies, the First Presidency will again be dissolved and the Church will be headed by the senior apostle, the president of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.

The point being that Brother Monson is indeed the Church president by virtue of administrative position, but he is first and foremost a prophet, a seer, and a revelator by virtue of ordination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Special Witnesses of Christ

Denver Snuffer's book in and of itself is a personal declaration that he has had his C&E.

The apostles are charged with being special witnesses of Christ (D&C 107:23) and you do not see them boasting of their prowess with humility, righteousness, and accomplishment.

When I read the scriptures or listen to general conference I feel the spirit. When I read from the desk of Denver Snuffer I do not feel inspired.

I know who is doing a better job following the example that Christ set.

This is not complicated...

Has anyone noticed the division that Books like the Second Comforter have caused???

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my understanding, up until David O. McKay, anytime they spoke of the "the Prophet" it was in reference to Joseph Smith. Brigham Young was an honest man. He never said he was something he wasn't. He told the people openly, as president of the Church, that he was a disciple of Joseph. He also said that even though the people call him a prophet he has never said such things.

"[After putting the motion for himself to be sustained as 'Prophet, Seer, and Revelator,' the President remarked:] I will say that I never dictated the latter part of that sentence. I will make the remark, because those words in that connection always made feel as though I am called more than I am deserving of. I am Brigham Young, an Apostle of Joseph Smith, and also of Jesus Christ. If I have been profitable to these people, I am glad of it. The brethren call me so; and if it be so, I am glad." (The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Vol. 3, p. 1347.)

" I am not going to interpret dreams; for I don't profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser[.]" (The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Vol. 3, p. 1306.)

"I do not want to skip Joseph, Peter, Jesus, Moses and go to my Father in Heaven. All I ask for is to be guided by the spirit of Joseph, then let others be governed by their head, or priesthood. Joseph enjoyed the priviliges which I never thought I had. Joseph was called of God. I was called of Joseph." (The Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, Vol. 2, p. 1108.)

The point is men and women who see Christ declare it. David B. Haight said that he saw Christ in vision when he was in the hospital with a stroke. It is wrong for members of the Church to teach that the mysteries are reserved for the leaders. The mysteries are for all of the Saints. Joseph said even the "least" of Saints can experience what he experienced.

The culminating event in our lives should be to "converse with the Lord through the veil".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, I am asked if I sustain President Monson as Prophet, Seer, and Revelator at least 1 1/2 times a year, that I can think of.

Just because they are being humble doesn't mean they aren't Prophets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Special Witnesses of Christ

Denver Snuffer's book in and of itself is a personal declaration that he has had his C&E.

The apostles are charged with being special witnesses of Christ (D&C 107:23) and you do not see them boasting of their prowess with humility, righteousness, and accomplishment.

When I read the scriptures or listen to general conference I feel the spirit. When I read from the desk of Denver Snuffer I do not feel inspired.

I know who is doing a better job following the example that Christ set.

This is not complicated...

Has anyone noticed the division that Books like the Second Comforter have caused???

Truth will indeed always cause division. I think what many people fail to realize is that Christ Himself did not come from any leadership position within the Church. He didn't have credentials as the world recognizes. He was a humble carpenter from Galilee. Christ taught His followers to listen to their leaders and to do as they say and not as they do.

Then spoke Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying, The scribes and pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not you after their works: for they say, and don't do it themselves.

Or what about Caiaphas?

2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

Caiaphas was the high priest but John was to prepare the way of the Lord.

The Lord has often times called men outside of the authorities. Christ Himself exemplified the fact that He wasn't called from a leadership position.

Samuel the Lamanite was a nobody to the Nephites. Christ had to tell the Nephities when He visited them that they needed to add his words into their scriptures. Abinidai is a very obscure character. There is no mention or any other person named Abinidai in the scriptures yet the rest of the story comes about, Alma, from this obscure prophet.

The point is God can call a man outside of what we perceive as "His" established authority. A lay member can prophecy and his/her prophecy can contain things a normal member has never heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, anyone can get prophecy and revelation for themselves. Only the Prophet, called of God and set apart, can get prophecy and revelation for the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is men and women who see Christ declare it.

This is simply untrue. I know people who have literally seen and conversed with angels, and they don't tell anyone except close family and specific individuals (such as leaders). They do not proclaim their events in public. They hold them sacred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is simply untrue. I know people who have literally seen and conversed with angels, and they don't tell anyone except close family and specific individuals (such as leaders). They do not proclaim their events in public. They hold them sacred.

Okay. Let me reiterate. I agree that they shouldn't tell everyone but they do declare it to some people around them. I wouldn't expect for them to say share it in fast and testimony meeting unless prompted to do so otherwise.

Overall though I think we should be believing. If a man or woman claims to have seen Christ should I be unbelieving? This attitude would be similar to those who persecuted Joseph Smith "for how can a boy see the Savior"? I remember when the mother of the family I home taught said that her very young daughter had talked with angels and I thought that she was crazy. I now regret that attitude of unbelief.

The children in 3rd Nephi experienced things the adults did not because of the unbelief of the adults.

And I am not saying I know of any of these things by myself. Yet I believe that we should be openly taught to seek the ministering of angels that will then help and prepare us to converse with our Lord in the flesh.

Moroni 7:

29 And because he hath done this, my beloved brethren, have miracles ceased? Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither have aangels ceased to minister unto the children of men.

36 Or have angels ceased to appear unto the children of men? Or has he withheld the power of the Holy Ghost from them? Or will he, so long as time shall last, or the earth shall stand, or there shall be one man upon the face thereof to be saved?

37 Behold I say unto you, Nay; for it is by faith that miracles are wrought; and it is by faith that angels appear and minister unto men; wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain.

Doctrine and Covenants 93:

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am;

Edited by Smeagums
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is simply untrue. I know people who have literally seen and conversed with angels, and they don't tell anyone except close family and specific individuals (such as leaders). They do not proclaim their events in public. They hold them sacred.

Vort, I completely agree, save only unless these individuals have been moved by the spirit. I know of one such case over the pulpit in sacrament. One of the most uplifting sacraments I have attended.

EDIT: I worked with an individual who grew up with Russell M. Nelson, family friends, and after his mission he visited Elder Nelson with a friend of his who blatantly asked Elder Nelson if he had seen Christ, his response, "Young man, will you forgive me if I don't answer your question?" The young man responded, "Yes." Elder Nelson responded, "Good, I will forgive you also for even asking me this question."

Yes, they hold these experiences, if they have experienced them, sacred.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall though I think we should be believing. If a man or woman claims to have seen Christ should I be unbelieving? This attitude would be similar to those who persecuted Joseph Smith "for how can a boy see the Savior"?

Here's the key: When someone says, "I saw God/angels/miracles!", we might believe them. When someone says, "I saw God/angels/miracles, and I'm going to tell you exactly what you need to do so that you can see them, too!", then that person is intrinsically claiming to be a prophet of God, tasked with carrying God's revelations to him to the whole world.

The kingdom of God has been established, and it is through the kingdom of God that such public revelation will always occur. Always. With the kingdom of God established, there is no other way that public revelation occurs, unless it occurs in the open sight of everyone. So when Joe Blow starts claiming that he can show you the way to God as it has been revealed to him and not to the Church at large, you can know with perfect sureness that he's wrong. And if he says the Church's leadership is deceived and is leading the people to false paths, you can know with perfect sureness that he is apostate.

Notice that I have not said anything about Denver what's-his-name. I don't know about him. I'm speaking in general principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The kingdom of God has been established, and it is through the kingdom of God that such public revelation will always occur. Always. With the kingdom of God established, there is no other way that public revelation occurs, unless it occurs in the open sight of everyone. So when Joe Blow starts claiming that he can show you the way to God as it has been revealed to him and not to the Church at large, you can know with perfect sureness that he's wrong. And if he says the Church's leadership is deceived and is leading the people to false paths, you can know with perfect sureness that he is apostate.

Okay but doesn't this fly in the face of everything that Christ taught? He was the epitome of one who had no priestly authority as far as the Church was concerned. The priests of His time often questioned Jesus and asked where He got His authority.

Vort, are you so convinced of your beliefs that you have no doubt of your heavenly success if you "follow the prophet"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share