Receiving the Second Comforter-Personal Visit From Christ?

[Vort]

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.

Please quote any scripture -- ANY scripture at all, from any book of scripture -- that "flies in the face" of what I have written. Anything.

Jesus was not "the epitome of one who had no priestly authority as far as the Church was concerned." When the scribes and others demanded his authorization, it is because he taught doctrine that they did not recognize. As Jesus explained, the fact that they did not recognize their own doctrine was due to their own hard-hearted misinterpretations, not because he was telling them anything Moses had not already told them.

As for the rest, such as his own status as the Christ, that was revealed in private to those who followed him. Remember, he WAS the prophet, seer, and revelator on the earth. In addition to his position as Redeemer and Savior, he also filled the slot of being the head of his dispensation, just as Adam, Enoch, Noah, Moses, and Joseph Smith (among others) were the heads of their respective dispensations.

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

Correct. If I follow what God wants of me as revealed through his prophets, I cannot possibly fail. This belief is common to all followers of Christ, regardless of religious sect.

[Smeagums]

Christ with no priestly authority. He was/is God, what more authority do you need?

Anddenex, according to the priests at His time. He undoubtedly carried real authority from Heaven, the only source where power comes from, but those around Him did not. Do you see what I am trying to get at?

The chief priests, whose ranks or positions would be comparable to our general authorities, along with the Church did not recognize Jesus as anything other than a man. He wasn't the presiding high priest. He wasn't a general authority. It was only the humble few who recognized Him for who He really was.

Don't you find it ironic that the Jews of Jesus' time where the "chosen" people, had a Temple, the priesthood and occupied the promised land?

Are there any parallels with us to them?

Edited May 1, 2013 by Smeagums

[Anddenex]

Anddenex, according to the priests at His time. He undoubtedly carried real authority from Heaven, the only source where power comes from, but those around Him did not. Do you see what I am trying to get at?

The chief priests, whose ranks or positions would be comparable to our general authorities, along with the Church did not recognize Jesus as anything other than a man. He wasn't the presiding high priest. He wasn't a general authority. It was only the humble few who recognized Him for who He really was.

Don't you find it ironic that the Jews of Jesus' time where the "chosen" people, had a Temple, the priesthood and occupied the promised land?

Are there any parallels with us to them?

I understand what you are trying to get at although I don't agree with the explanations and examples.

Our General Authorities do not compare to the chief priests, and other authorities during Christ's time.

Our General Authorities would compare well to Peter, James, and John, and the other apostles.

As not to offend others, the chief priests are comparable to the minister Joseph Smith approached about his first vision who said his experience was of the devil. The chief priests were leaders after 400 years of apostasy between Malachi and the new testament. They did not have the authority they assumed they had.

As according to our time, if we compare accurately, the chief priests would be comparable to any organization having the form of godliness but denying the power thereof.

[Vort]

The chief priests, whose ranks or positions would be comparable to our general authorities, along with the Church did not recognize Jesus as anything other than a man.

This is wrong. At best, it's a very naive comparison. The ancient Hebrew religion was not a "church" any more than modern Judaism or Islam are "churches". The authorities you reference were not recognized as prophets, but were appointees to ecclesiastical positions, in many cases put there as political appointments by non-Jews. The whole religion was corrupted and apostate. Faithful Jews continued to recognize the appointments, even knowing they were corrupt and often given to wicked men, because they had nothing better.

A slightly better comparison, especially from an LDS viewpoint, would be to the Catholic Church's appointments of ordained clergy to church positions based on political expediency: A corrupt and apostate system removed from its divine origins, but with faithful people still following it because they had nothing better. That comparison is still far from perfect, but works better than comparing Jewish temple authorities and the Sanhedrin to modern-day General Authorities.

[kayne]

Please quote any scripture -- ANY scripture at all, from any book of scripture -- that "flies in the face" of what I have written. Anything.

Jesus was not "the epitome of one who had no priestly authority as far as the Church was concerned." When the scribes and others demanded his authorization, it is because he taught doctrine that they did not recognize. As Jesus explained, the fact that they did not recognize their own doctrine was due to their own hard-hearted misinterpretations, not because he was telling them anything Moses had not already told them.

As for the rest, such as his own status as the Christ, that was revealed in private to those who followed him. Remember, he WAS the prophet, seer, and revelator on the earth. In addition to his position as Redeemer and Savior, he also filled the slot of being the head of his dispensation, just as Adam, Enoch, Noah, Moses, and Joseph Smith (among others) were the heads of their respective dispensations.

Correct. If I follow what God wants of me as revealed through his prophets, I cannot possibly fail. This belief is common to all followers of Christ, regardless of religious sect.

the thing is in addition to Christ He has repeatedly without fail for the most part called prophets from weird strange places. in fact you'd have to be a very blind fool to not expect it to happen again heck this dispensation started off from the weird obscure place of a young a boy praying in the woods. in fact the entire the senior apostle becomes prophet by default has never happened before ever. yes he has the title of prophet but only because we put him their by sustaining him this does not mean under any circumstance he is actually a prophet. however God has said in this era all things are by common consent so God goes with it because of that and He lets us act freely. God has also said His work will not be frustrated in these latter days so we can be sure the priesthood will not get taken from the earth and the heavens will not be sealed. also latter day prophecies do state children will even have visions and dreams so we should not be expecting the head of the church to have some monopoly on this. so if God follows His pattern(and He almost always does) we can expect somebody from the realms of obscurity come out of the clear and be Gods true prophet who He called in a dream and/or persona visitation. i suspect this will be a great test of the members of the LDS church.

i would wager 99% of all prophets in the history of earth did not come from a line of priestly authority. they at best have the priesthood from the church but very rarely are in the elite group of priests and if by some chance they are like Alma the older(the first Alma) they instantly get cast out and kicked out.

furthermore all prophets need to have their election made sure in a vision. God tells this to moses point blank. furthermore each prophet you read about in the scriptures by and large says The Lord called me. they seem to have some sure fire knowledge that God personally made the call. again you cannot just senior your way into the role of prophet as God must call you

the other thing is to be a prophet one must act like a prophet well using scripture logic if we test the prophet powers of the current GAs they sort of fall short. ive been looking(and maybe someone can link this if they have the answer) but they have a total lack of prophecies, revelations, translations, and seering. ive looked but i cant find them doing any of this. and scripture tells us to test things by their fruit so a prophet should bear the fruit of a prophet.

as a final point....follow the prophet is a false philosophy. follow the prophet only if they point back to Christ is the correct phrase. but there are two things that must go on in that phrase for it to work.....one the person must actually be a prophet(scriptures tell us it would be great if we could all be prophets so i dont necessarily mean THE prophet)....and the person must use this prophet power to point back to Christ. in essence he will never ever say follow me. he will say follow Christ.

so when you get people saying follow a man even THE prophet....you can be sure they are wolves in sheeps clothing. Nephi puts out some very stark warnings against trusting man and the arm of the flesh.(2 Nephi 28-29 i think) he is also quite clear in his condemnation of ALL churches of the latter days. D and C also puts the church under condemnation. the point here is i wouldnt really be so quick to

1. dismiss non prophet revelation

2 think all is well in zion.(again Nephi seems to condemn those that think this way)

3. think the GAs are above falling. Judas fell, the early apostles in the Joseph smiths day fell, and im sure others.

so you really shouldnt dismiss Denver just because he is not a GA. such logic flies in the face of all scripture im not saying Denver is a good or a bad guy. i am saying The Lord has often called others outside of the line of priestly authority to teach. and why can The Lord do this? because this is His church, His earth, and He can do whatever he darn well pleases and He is the ultimate authority and can give it to whomever He wishes and is no respecter of men.

[Smeagums]

This is wrong. At best, it's a very naive comparison. The ancient Hebrew religion was not a "church" any more than modern Judaism or Islam are "churches". The authorities you reference were not recognized as prophets, but were appointees to ecclesiastical positions, in many cases put there as political appointments by non-Jews. The whole religion was corrupted and apostate. Faithful Jews continued to recognize the appointments, even knowing they were corrupt and often given to wicked men, because they had nothing better.

A slightly better comparison, especially from an LDS viewpoint, would be to the Catholic Church's appointments of ordained clergy to church positions based on political expediency: A corrupt and apostate system removed from its divine origins, but with faithful people still following it because they had nothing better. That comparison is still far from perfect, but works better than comparing Jewish temple authorities and the Sanhedrin to modern-day General Authorities.

I wrote something but would rather not publish it on the open forum. I will send you a PM shortly Vort.

[Vort]

in fact the entire the senior apostle becomes prophet by default has never happened before ever.

Peter was Jesus' senior apostle. He headed Jesus' Church after Jesus was crucified. That took place two thousand years ago. I'd say that qualifies as happening "ever before". Two thousand years is a reasonably long time to establish a practice.

however God has said in this era all things are by common consent so God goes with it because of that and He lets us act freely.

Please tell me you're not riding that "common consent" hobby horse.

also latter day prophecies do state children will even have visions and dreams so we should not be expecting the head of the church to have some monopoly on this.

No one has suggested they do. However, children who have dreams and visions are not then authorized to instruct everyone else on truths of the gospel and eternal life, based solely on their dreams and visions.

so if God follows His pattern(and He almost always does) we can expect somebody from the realms of obscurity come out of the clear and be Gods true prophet who He called in a dream and/or persona visitation. i suspect this will be a great test of the members of the LDS church.

Nonsense. God's pattern is clear, and he has established it in these latter days.

furthermore all prophets need to have their election made sure in a vision. God tells this to moses point blank.

Call for reference. I disbelieve this.

the other thing is to be a prophet one must act like a prophet well using scripture logic if we test the prophet powers of the current GAs they sort of fall short.

I do remember a portrayal of someone demanding that those called of God and possessing true authority exhibit their power by doing some great miracle as a sign. As I recall, the origin of that demand was, let us say, not a righteous source.

ive been looking(and maybe someone can link this if they have the answer) but they have a total lack of prophecies, revelations, translations, and seering.

Those who have ears to hear have been hearing for generations. Those who have no ears to hear will insist that the prophets have been silent.

[Smeagums]

@ Kayne

Abinidai and Samuel the Lamanite are two great examples of what you, and I, are trying to get across. NO! a prophet among the Saints who say is also called to be a librarian doesn't have authority to tell Monson how to run the Church but he can definitely tell the Saints they lack or they are faltering.

Helaman 13:

2 And it came to pass that in this year there was one Samuel, a Lamanite, came into the land of Zarahemla, and began to preach unto the people. And it came to pass that he did preach, many days, repentance unto the people, and they did cast him out, and he was about to return to his own land.

3 But behold, the voice of the Lord came unto him, that he should return again, and prophesy unto the people whatsoever things should come into his heart.

4 And it came to pass that they would not suffer that he should enter into the city; therefore he went and got upon the wall thereof, and stretched forth his hand and cried with a loud voice, and prophesied unto the people whatsoever things the Lord put into his heart.

5 And he said unto them: Behold, I, Samuel, a Lamanite, do speak the words of the Lord which he doth put into my heart; and behold he hath put it into my heart to say unto this people that the sword of justice hangeth over this people; and four hundred years pass not away save the sword of justice falleth upon this people.

3rd Nephi 23:

9 Verily I say unto you, I commanded my servant Samuel, the Lamanite, that he should testify unto this people, that at the day that the Father should glorify his name in me that there were many saints who should arise from the dead, and should appear unto many, and should minister unto them. And he said unto them: Was it not so?

10 And his disciples answered him and said: Yea, Lord, Samuel did prophesy according to thy words, and they were all fulfilled.

11 And Jesus said unto them: How be it that ye have not written this thing, that many saints did arise and appear unto many and did minister unto them?

Samuel the Lamanite was an obscure, maybe even hated by the Nephites, LAMANITE! He wasn't the prophet/president of the Church.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Smeagums

[ElectofGod]

Call for reference. I disbelieve this.

The testimony of Jesus means your a prophet. The testimony of Jesus is your C&E at the minimum. (I have had no witness exactly what yet but for now think its C&E only)

Joseph Smith stated in teh kindle edition of Words of Joseph smith.

In a general sense a prophet is anyone who has a testimony of Jesus Christ by the Holy Ghost, (Kindle Locations 227474-227475

I shall have Eternal life. that is the more sure word of prophycy. 31 Peter was writeing to those of like precious faith with them the Apostles First to be sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise that is the testimony of Jesus

Widtsoe, John A.; Whitney, Orson F.; Roberts, B. H.; Smith, Joseph Fielding; Smith, Joseph; Ehat, Andrew; Smith, Lucy Mack; Cannon, George Q.; Taylor, John (2012-02-25). Words of Joseph Smith - Deluxe Study Edition including the LDS Standar Works, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Lectures on Faith, History of the Church, History of Joseph by His Mother, and More (Kindle Locations 2768-2770). Packard Technologies. Kindle Edition.

Now I don't know if I agree with people who say another prophet will come out from the authority of hte church, (The mighty and strong one/Davidic Servant) but I feel instead the church will collapse (major earthquake in SLC) and no-one will be around for awhile to run anything THAN the leaders left will get together to establish order. This will be the great TEST. But I choose not to speculate as it can go 1000's of ways.

Infact manny of or leaders (if not all) have their C&E. Holland I am absolutely postive. Eyring I am too. Others are just more calm in their talk so I don't want to take their words out of context so won't speculate.

Edited May 1, 2013 by ElectofGod

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

Young said that if a man called him a prophet, that man would be blessed for it. He was sustained as a prophet, seer, and revelator multiple times during his lifetime, at meetings which he attended. He certainly did not see himself as a prophet like unto Joseph (naturally--Joseph was head of the dispensation); but to act like Young wasn't a divinely appointed prophet and never thought of himself as such would be to flirt with dishonesty.

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.

The guy claims to have seen the Lord for the first time in February of 2003. In that intervening time he has published (I believe) eight books.

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.

That just isn't true. As I've already mentioned in this thread, in 3 Nephi 23 the Lord is remedying the lack of a record of the fulfillment of the prophecy, not the lack of a record of the prophecy itself. And as I've also already pointed out, Samuel's converts recognized the authority of the Church and went straight to Nephi for baptism. And as I've also already pointed out: if you really want to compare Tom Monson to Caiaphas or the Twelve to the priests of Noah or Denver Snuffer to Jesus Himself . . . good luck with that. You aren't the first Snuffer fan to do so; and encouraging rhetoric like that among his followers could well be the reason that one of Snuffer's most ardent admirers has recently noted that the Church's investigation of him is "coming to a head", and why Snuffer himself first lashed out at his critics as lacking "testicular fortitude" and then stopped updating his blog in March.

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.

Within the bounds as set out in D&C 28 and D&C 43. There is a difference between receiving a revelation, and teaching that revelation or writing that revelation for the use of third parties.

NO! a prophet among the Saints who say is also called to be a librarian doesn't have authority to tell Monson how to run the Church but he can definitely tell the Saints they lack or they are faltering.

We have no information as to whether the Saints of Samuel the Lamanite's day had a similar injunction to our D&C 28 and 43. We don't even know exactly what Samuel the Lamanite's background was, whether he was affiliated with some branch of the church among the Lamanites, and the degree to which that church was or wasn't in communion with the church in Zarahemla. There is an assumption that Samuel was a complete outsider, but the basis for that assumption is quite flimsy. We simply do not know. To state that Samuel the Lamanite had no ecclesiastical authority is to build inference upon inference--something I see rather a lot of in Snuffer's writing.

And how is saying "you need to change the way you live your life in a way that even the Church isn't requiring, and if you don't, you risk eternal burning", not teaching "by way of commandment"?

Edited May 1, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[ElectofGod]

Here is the full quote to not take it out of context. There are more direct quotes I think just can't find them at the moment.

James Burgess Notebook

First Chapter second Epistle of Peter. The first four verses are the preface to the whole subject. There are three grand Keys to unlock the whole subject. First what is the knowledge of God,

Second what is it to make our calling and election sure. Third and last is how to make our calling and election sure. Ans, it is to obtain a promise from God for myself that I shall have Eternal life. that is the more sure word of prophycy. 31 Peter was writeing to those of like precious faith with them the Apostles First to be sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise that is the testimony of Jesus Second how is he to get that Holy Spirit; Ans except a man be born again he cannot see the Kingdom of God; second except a man be born of water and the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. 32 Ques. What is it for a man to obtain salvation Ans, It is to triumph over every foe or ascend far above all enemies for the last enimey to conquor is death and untill that is done you have not obtained salvation J. Smith Prophet. Nauvoo. Wilford Woodruff Diary

Widtsoe, John A.; Whitney, Orson F.; Roberts, B. H.; Smith, Joseph Fielding; Smith, Joseph; Ehat, Andrew; Smith, Lucy Mack; Cannon, George Q.; Taylor, John (2012-02-25). Words of Joseph Smith - Deluxe Study Edition including the LDS Standar Works, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Lectures on Faith, History of the Church, History of Joseph by His Mother, and More (Kindle Locations 2765-2773). Packard Technologies. Kindle Edition.

Edited May 1, 2013 by ElectofGod

[ElectofGod]

I think the greatest test will be those who disagree so much over points of doctrine whether they can still get a long.

LOL :)

[Smeagums]

Denver makes a whopping $0 if that is what you are trying to get at. The company that publishes the book makes money and all of the proceeds Denver receives he donates to the general missionary fund. If that was not your point, I'm sorry. Yes, he has written 8 books. Have you read any of them? Just because one writes 8 books doesn't mean he is violating any covenants he has made or sharing things he shouldn't be. The 15 brethren have written numerous books too.

I am not saying that Monson is Caiphas. What I am saying is that you are to follow no man. The scriptures tell us to follow no one but Christ. If you follow Monson and expect eternal mansions of glory you may be very, very disappointed. I am also saying that I believe that some of the 15 have seen Christ and that others haven't. I won't place that obligation on them unless they say so themselves.

Denver from a blog post from 2010:

I've said several times in several ways that we have an obligation to support the church's leaders and the programs of the church. I believe that with all my heart. The Lord is going to hold us all accountable. No one is going to be relieved from their respective responsibilities.

Pay tithes, attend your meetings. Keep a current temple recommend and use it. Serve when asked to do so. You will have a great influence on others for the good when you provide service. Not merely by what you say, but by the example you provide.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Smeagums

[Vort]

The testimony of Jesus means your a prophet. The testimony of Jesus is your C&E at the minimum. (I have had no witness exactly what yet but for now think its C&E only)

Your original statement was as follows:

furthermore all prophets need to have their election made sure in a vision. God tells this to moses point blank.

Please establish this claim. I disbelieve it. The reference you provided does not establish or even touch on this point.

[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.

The baptismal prayer is not new.

D&C 20:77

"...and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son..."

Wouldn't that be easy if we could simply take upon us that title and we then become the Son? This is obviously false and that is not what I have stated as my opinion.

The literal meaning of our covenant to take upon us the name of the Son, is that we take upon us the title of the Son. Do we magically become the Son when we take on this title? Of course not! At baptism we covenant that we are willing to take upon us the name of the Son. It doesn't mean that we will be worthy of that title, only that we are willing to do it. There is obviously still some work for us to do after baptism.

When I was on my mission Elder Condy from the Quorum of the Seventy taught at one of my zone conferences. He drew a picture of a triangle and said that this triangle represents the principles of the gospel. He said our goal in life is to conform our lives as perfectly as possible to the principles of the gospel. He further stated that although the principles are perfect, we are not and neither are our earthly conditions perfect.

Sometimes in life we may think we are Circles or Squares or Whatever. We may even have the form of a Circle or a Square or Whatever. Baptism is kinda like realizing that we aren't Squares or Circles, but that we are Triangles. Once we recognize that we are actually Triangles and not whatever shape we were before, then we need to start shaping ourselves that our form can match who we really are (Triangles). We will never be able to conform and shape ourselves to be perfect Triangles alone, but because the First Triangle provided a way for all Triangles, all Triangles can become perfect Triangles as well by following in the path of the First Triangle.

From Elder Oaks:

"Willingness to take upon us the name of Jesus Christ can therefore be understood as willingness to take upon us the authority of Jesus Christ. According to this meaning, by partaking of the sacrament we witness our willingness to participate in the sacred ordinances of the temple and to receive the highest blessings available through the name and by the authority of the Savior when he chooses to confer them upon us.

Another future event we may anticipate when we witness our willingness to take that sacred name upon us concerns our relationship to our Savior and the incomprehensible blessings available to those who will be called by his name at the last day.

King Benjamin told his people, “There shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.” (Mosiah 3:17; see also 2 Ne. 31:21.) Peter proclaimed “the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth” to the leaders of the Jews, declaring that “there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:10, 12; see also D&C 18:21.)

The scriptures proclaim that the Savior’s atoning sacrifice was for those who “believe on his name.” Alma taught that Jesus Christ, the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, would come “to take away the sins of the world, yea, the sins of every man who steadfastly believeth on his name.” (Alma 5:48; Alma 9:27; Alma 11:40; Hel. 14:2.) In the words of King Benjamin, “Whosoever doeth this shall be found at the right hand of God, for he shall know the name by which he is called; for he shall be called by the name of Christ.” (Mosiah 5:9.)

Thus, those who exercise faith in the sacred name of Jesus Christ and repent of their sins and enter into his covenant and keep his commandments (see Mosiah 5:8) can lay claim on the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Those who do so will be called by his name at the l

last day...

Those who are found worthy to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ at the last day are described in the great revelations recorded in the ninety-third and seventy-sixth sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. Here the Savior revealed to Joseph Smith that in due time, if we keep the commandments of God, we can receive the “fulness” of the Father. (D&C 93:19–20.) Here the Savior bears record that “all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the [Father], and are the church of the Firstborn.” (D&C 93:22.) “They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things. … Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods” who “shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.” (D&C 76:55, 58, 62.) “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3; see also D&C 88:4–5.) This is the ultimate significance of taking upon us the name of Jesus Christ (Emphasis mine)."

I haven't read the whole talk yet through and through, but there is some good stuff in there and I intend to. Here is the link: Taking Upon Us the Name of Jesus Christ

Regards,

Finrock

[Anddenex]

Maybe some people are forgetting Numbers 16: 32, people who knew better than Moses, the Lord's anointed prophet?

"And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?"

[Just_A_Guy]

Denver makes a whopping $0 if that is what you are trying to get at. The company that publishes the book makes money and all of the proceeds Denver receives he donates to the general missionary fund.

So he says. But no, that's not what I was trying to get at. What I'm trying to get at is that if you claim to see Jesus and then write, on average, a book every sixteen months for the next ten years (plus publishing five volumes of your collected blogs), the argument that you're still holding the initial experience sacred and saying only what you must, wears a little thin.

I am not saying that Monson is Caiphas. What I am saying is that you are to follow no man. The scriptures tell us to follow no one but Christ. If you follow Monson and expect eternal mansions of glory you may be very, very disappointed.

That's a bit of a straw man, methinks.

Denver from a blog post from 2010:

Have you read what he published in 2011, or thereafter?

our original statement was as follows:

furthermore all prophets need to have their election made sure in a vision. God tells this to moses point blank.

Please establish this claim. I disbelieve it. The reference you provided does not establish or even touch on this point.

Possibly from Numbers 12:6

And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.

[Vort]

Possibly from Numbers 12:6

If that is indeed the justification, then it is very thin. I see nothing about calling and election in that verse, unless you want to read it into the wording "make myself known". God has made himself known to me, but I am sorry to admit that my calling and election has not been made sure -- or if it has, I haven't been told about it.

[Smeagums]

I have read much of his blog from 2011 and on. I have read "Second Comforter", "Ten Parables" and "Come Let Us Adore Him".

Is it impossible that Christ could commission a man to write a book?

[ElectofGod]

Your original statement was as follows:

furthermore all prophets need to have their election made sure in a vision. God tells this to moses point blank.

Please establish this claim. I disbelieve it. The reference you provided does not establish or even touch on this point.

It was the other persons statement but I was defining what the testimony of Jesus IS.

Peter was writeing to those of like precious faith with them the Apostles First to be sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise that is the testimony of Jesus

What is the Holy Spirit of promise? As the quote above I quoted stated its the sure word of prophecy. THAT is to be sealed up unto eternal life (D&C 132:7, 26).

E&C 88:3 Wherefore, I now send upon you another Comforter, even upon you my friends, that it may abide in your hearts, even the Holy Spirit of promise; which other Comforter is the same that I promised unto my disciples, as is recorded in the testimony of John.

4 This Comforter is the promise which I give unto you of eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom;

Or am I jumping the gun here? I really don't know.

The question is. Do we get this promise from our C&E or from the SC? I don't know.

[Vort]

It was the other persons statement but I was defining what the testimony of Jesus IS.

Sorry, EoG. That was kayne, not you. I wasn't paying close enough attention.

[ElectofGod]

Wow I re-read that statement. You are right. My answer has nothing to do with it. I thought it did.

[ElectofGod]

I have decided there are two types of prophets from this discussion.

Prophet: Someone who has received the testimony of Jesus and otherwards sealed by teh holy spirit of promise. They can prophesy in his name, have visions, dreams, and able to at some point converse with Jesus face to face as its expedient for him. (Unless that is part of being sealed by the HSoP?)

prophet: Someone who has received their baptism by fire (conversion, change of heart, though to sing the song of redeeming love, gift of the holy ghost). These people are ALSO able to "preach","prophesy", "speak with the tongue of angels"... But have not been sealed up by teh holy spirit of promise yet. (3 nehpi 21:??)

Does this sound fair? I can use exact scriptures if need be. Isn't a prophet someone who can prophesy? This is why I have two context's for them. Joseph stated a prophet is someone sealed by the testimony of Jesus. If that is the only type than "prophet" is just a member who can prophesy through the spirit.

Edited May 1, 2013 by ElectofGod

[Just_A_Guy]

I have read much of his blog from 2011 and on. I have read "Second Comforter", "Ten Parables" and "Come Let Us Adore Him".

Is it impossible that Christ could commission a man to write a book?

This book?

Yes, I daresay it is.

On the whole, practicing Mormons who did not already know and love Denver Snuffer for his previous works would not put up with the assertions in Passing the Heavenly Gift, or his more recent blogs.

And he knows it.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[ElectofGod]

This book?

Yes, I daresay it is.

On the whole, practicing Mormons who did not already know and love Denver Snuffer for his previous works would not put up with the assertions in Passing the Heavenly Gift, or his more recent blogs.

And he knows it.

The person right below one of those links...

I personally dont agree with some of the conclusions you came to. I feel you are adding claims to some of his words that are not there. You have added words to his and that could be considered misleading. I dont have time to go down the list right now. But also, its not really important for me to convince you to see it my way. You should see things in your own way. I just really want others to read it for themselves regardless of what any of us say. I hope they will.

I too agree many of those claims the person wrote are false from that book. So it has nothing to do with putting up with anything. Its about understanding the purpose and context about what is being written.

Either way I don't really care. I don't agere with everything Denver writes either.

Edited May 1, 2013 by ElectofGod