The sealed plates

[ElectofGod]

How do you feel this has already been fulfilled? I'm also calling for references for this quote. You didn't give credit to it.

I did give credit but here is another.

http://www.lds.net/forums/scripture-study-forum/41201-heber-c-kimball-prophecy.html

Its also quoted by Benson in his talk Be Not deceived. A partial version of it. Read that thread it will answer your question.

[Just_A_Guy]

So they received the prophets yet it says they rejected the prophets.

Indeed. If you track the allusion back to 1 Corinthians 3, they were also "carnal". Rather like the Jews Jacob spoke of, who got so bound up in mysteries and "looking beyond the mark" that they, too, rejected the true prophets of the God they claimed to honor (Jacob 4:14).

The questions of whether true, modern prophets exist at all--and, if so, who fits this bill--is not Mormon theological rocket science. That a Utah lawyer whose booking photo remains online, has been able to muddy the waters on this issue and gain acolytes even among the Church by claiming to have seen Jesus, spouting bad history, and prettily rehashing apostate dreck that originated with polygamous dissenters seventy years ago, is beyond ridiculous.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[ElectofGod]

Indeed. If you track the allusion back to 1 Corinthians 3, they were also "carnal". Rather like the Jews Jacob spoke of, who got so bound up in mysteries and "looking beyond the mark" that they, too, rejected the true prophets of the God they claimed to honor (Jacob 4:14).

The questions of whether true, modern prophets exist at all--and, if so, who fits this bill--is not Mormon theological rocket science. That a Utah lawyer whose booking photo remains online, has been able to muddy the waters on this issue and gain acolytes even among the Church by claiming to have seen Jesus, spouting bad history, and prettily rehashing apostate dreck that originated with polygamous dissenters seventy years ago, is beyond ridiculous.

I see your true agenda is to trash the same person over and over again. Your the one that keeps bringing him up. My understanding comes from entirely different sources. The one quote that goes back to that polygamous dissenters was even quoted in General Conference by Packer (Think it was him). I found that out weeks later. You defend that which you have never read or know what you are talking about.

Why do you quote things like "finding fault with the leaders leads to apostasy" when that's what you keep trying to do to some man. It applies to all. Charity is what we should all strive for.

The Lords servants is ALL who have received the savior as His friend just without the church keys. Not just the 15 men that have the keys. If you have done it unto the least of these you have done it unto me. You are so hard set on this guy along with many other men you have never taken the time to pray and ponder over the things that the Lord would reveal to you to be true. This IS the Lord's Church. He is gathering Zion and all those who will listen and cleansing the church to make it Zion. He is fulfilling HIS purposes through His Church.

Were all free to believe how we may and what we want. That is Mormonism.

Joseph Smith said: "I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." (DHC 5: 340.)

Whether its You or I that errs, the contention is not necessary. I hope you are not offended by what I have written. We will all stand at the judgment seat and be judged for rejecting men who are right before their Lord and have been sent forth by Christ to cry repentance. After all you do believe others will be judged for rejecting missionaries. We are all missionaries. The difference is some have become clean from the blood and sins of this Generation.

There are hundreds that have claimed to see Christ. Even those not of our faith. Though its doesn't matter so much about seeing him than receiving the ordinance behind it.

[Just_A_Guy]

I see your true agenda is to trash the same person over and over again. Your the one that keeps bringing him up. My understanding comes from entirely different sources.

No, EoG; my concern is primarily the way in which the Church membership views the role of its leadership. I think the factual record as expressed in these forums is abundantly clear that, to a very large extent, your ideas in this regard are a series of dots that were connected to a large extent by Snuffer's writings.

The one quote that goes back to that polygamous dissenters was even quoted in General Conference by Packer (Think it was him). I found that out weeks later.

Elder Packer cited Musser or Woolley in a conference talk? I'll need to see a transcript.

You defend that which you have never read or know what you are talking about.

Oh, I've read plenty. What I haven't done, is engage in Snuffer's game of "suspend critical thinking until I've already reeled you in".

Why do you quote things like "finding fault with the leaders leads to apostasy" when that's what you keep trying to do to some man. It applies to all. Charity is what we should all strive for.

Charity does't mean that false doctrine must go unrefuted. In a number of his assertions, Snuffer is flat-out wrong. He misreads sources, including scriptures. He misrepresents history. You demand "charity" for him, but his presentations of various Church authorities and institutions are uncharitable indeed. He quotes as authoritative, apostates who were excommunicated some sixty years ago because they wouldn't give up polygamy. We've been over this before.

I know it's tempting to want to be the smartest, or most spiritual guy in the room--to be part of a super-secret "in-group" that, in one's own mind, excludes even those we call apostles and prophets. To monopolize the meat, to know the hidden path that circumvents the plain and prosaic "correlated" curriculum. That's the instinct Snuffer appeals to, cultivates and flatters, and I repeat:

It's spiritual porn.

The Lords servants is ALL who have received the savior as His friend just without the church keys. Not just the 15 men that have the keys.

Have you forgotten that Snuffer has suggested those "15 men" don't really have the keys? That he alleges that the visit of Elijah to the Kirtland Temple never happened and that D&C 137 is a forgery? That Snuffer has openly stated that his teachings about the Church as expressed in his books prior to Passing the Heavenly Gift are presupposed in an assumption (that the Church fundamentally is what it claims to be) that he may or may not accept at this stage?

If you have done it unto the least of these you have done it unto me. You are so hard set on this guy along with many other men you have never taken the time to pray and ponder over the things that the Lord would reveal to you to be true.

So, questioning Snuffer is questioning Jesus (but questioning Tom Monson, Boyd Packer, or Orson Pratt, apparently isn't); and the fact that I disagree with Snuffer (or you) just shows that I haven't gotten the right revelations yet.

Friend, can you not see why I think this guy's teachings--and the way his fans view him--are so problematic?

This IS the Lord's Church. He is gathering Zion and all those who will listen and cleansing the church to make it Zion. He is fulfilling HIS purposes through His Church.

. . . the majority of which (even among the active membership) are doomed to burnings at the Second Coming, and thereafter no more than a telestial glory, because they won't hop onto Snuffer's Second Comforter hobby-horse.

Again, we've gone over much of this before.

Were all free to believe how we may and what we want. That is Mormonism.

Indeed. But we are not free to teach apostasy. We are not free to try to drive wedges between the First Presidency/Quorum of the Twelve, and the membership at large. We are not free to take a person the Lord has sanctioned, and the Church has sustained, as a "prophet, seer, and revelator", and assert that he is actually none of the three.

And the fact that Smith was responsible for, or sanctioned, the excommunication of dozens if not hundreds of people--including two of the three witnesses--kind of undercuts the notion that the early Church was some kind of theological free-for-all.

Whether its You or I that errs, the contention is not necessary.

Just so we're clear on terminology, what do you perceive to be the difference between contention and disagreement?

We will all stand at the judgment seat and be judged for rejecting men who are right before their Lord and have been sent forth by Christ to cry repentance. After all you do believe others will be judged for rejecting missionaries. We are all missionaries. The difference is some have become clean from the blood and sins of this Generation.

Is Snuffer one of those who has become clean from the blood and sins of this generation? Is Monson? Is Packer? Is Holland?

Are you?

There are hundreds that have claimed to see Christ. Even those not of our faith. Though its doesn't matter so much about seeing him than receiving the ordinance behind it.

You'll note, perhaps, that I have been fastidious as to not pass judgment on whether Snuffer has, or hasn't, seen Christ. I wasn't there. I don't know.

What I'm concerned about, is what Snuffer does with that experience and the way he uses it to bolster his teachings. Sidney Rigdon was also a party to the vision recorded in D&C 76, you know. But after the succession crisis, those who followed him did so to their spiritual detriment.

[ElectofGod]

I had stuff written up and deleted it. I don't wish to have this conversation again.

I kept some of it anways.

I know it's tempting to want to be the smartest, or most spiritual guy in the room--to be part of a super-secret "in-group" that, in one's own mind, excludes even those we call apostles and prophets. To monopolize the meat, to know the hidden path that circumvents the plain and prosaic "correlated" curriculum. That's the instinct Snuffer appeals to, cultivates and flatters, and I repeat:

You already defined spiritual porn as not need the church or prophets. Both of which Denver have never stated.

It's spiritual porn.

Have you forgotten that Snuffer has suggested those "15 men" don't really have the keys? That he alleges that the visit of Elijah to the Kirtland Temple never happened and that D&C 137 is a forgery? That Snuffer has openly stated that his teachings about the Church as expressed in his books prior to Passing the Heavenly Gift are presupposed in an assumption (that the Church fundamentally is what it claims to be) that he may or may not accept at this stage?

Unless Joseph Smith is Elijah than Elijah still needs to come. The role of Elijah is to be the forerunner to Christ. He is the FUTURE SERVANT to prepare the way. Just like Elias and Elijah preceded Christ's first coming they will do so again. AS PEOPLE.

So, questioning Snuffer is questioning Jesus (but questioning Tom Monson, Boyd Packer, or Orson Pratt, apparently isn't); and the fact that I disagree with Snuffer (or you) just shows that I haven't gotten the right revelations yet.

You got this backwards. I never said its wrong to disagree with any of these men. I disagree with all of them in certain points. In fact we should question ALL these men.

Friend, can you not see why I think this guy's teachings--and the way his fans view him--are so problematic?

No you apply this view onto others even if its not true including myself. You think anything I say is because what I have learned from Denver. That is the problem. Can I see how things could be problematic yes I do also. The problem is they won't apply this same logic to the leaders of the church because they think they are perfect. Admitting others are not perfect does not mean its not the Lord's church. The reason why so many leave the church is they realize the problems that ARE REAL and get shunned as apostate for ever bringing them up. So what do they do? Just leave.

. . . the majority of which (even among the active membership) are doomed to burnings at the Second Coming, and thereafter no more than a telestial glory, because they won't hop onto Snuffer's Second Comforter hobby-horse.

How about studying Joseph Smith and D&C than perhaps you will realize what is really being said.

Again, we've gone over much of this before.

Agreed. I don't mind if you don't like his teachings and think they are false. That is fine. It does not prove anything because we differ in our opinion that either of us are bad people or will be denied entrance into heaven.

Just so we're clear on terminology, what do you perceive to be the difference between contention and disagreement?

Contention is when you purposely bring up something that has nothing to do wtih the threads at hand. For the purpose of getting your point across of how much you don't like something or disagree with hit. Disagreement is to share what you feel is correct and leave it at that without saying others are wrong.

Is Snuffer one of those who has become clean from the blood and sins of this generation? Is Monson? Is Packer? Is Holland?

Snuffer yes, if his claim is correct that he has seen the savior he has been sanctified. Monson? I have prayed on it many times whether he has received Christ and never received an answer yet that he has. Packer? I believe he has. Holland? I have not prayed about it.

Are you?

No.

You'll note, perhaps, that I have been fastidious as to not pass judgment on whether Snuffer has, or hasn't, seen Christ. I wasn't there. I don't know.

What I'm concerned about, is what Snuffer does with that experience and the way he uses it to bolster his teachings. Sidney Rigdon was also a party to the vision recorded in D&C 76, you know. But after the succession crisis, those who followed him did so to their spiritual detriment.

Thats the problem. They followed a man. All true prophets point to Christ and none else. Thats how you will know if one has fallen. Do they seek a following or to get gain or only point to Christ?

Quotes: I PM'd them to you.

[ElectofGod]

People forget how answers to prayers do not neccesarily carry over when they gain new knowledge. For example.

If I prayed (and I have) to know if the church is true. I have both got a YES and a NO for an answer. How is that so?

You have to be very specific in your quesitons according to the context givin. For example if I prayed to know if I should date a girlfriend. The lord wants to tell me that I should date her but not marry her.

So I ask in prayer. Should I date her? But my context of the question, my understanding, if I date her I will marry her. The lord tells me NO.

If I ask instead a very specific questioin, should I date here with out any other preconceived thoughts getting in the way. The Lord can give me a yes. Than I should pray if I should marry her and the Lord can tell me no.

So if I pray to know if the church is true, it depends on context. What is my definition of True? What do I mean by that? If I have no knowledge about that than most likely the Lord can give a yes because I have no preconceived notions about it. One I develop knowledge of what true means than I have to readjust my question. The same for everything else in the gospel. This is the process of separating traditons of men with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Seminarysnoozer]

People forget how answers to prayers do not neccesarily carry over when they gain new knowledge. For example.

If I prayed (and I have) to know if the church is true. I have both got a YES and a NO for an answer. How is that so?

You have to be very specific in your quesitons according to the context givin. For example if I prayed to know if I should date a girlfriend. The lord wants to tell me that I should date her but not marry her.

So I ask in prayer. Should I date her? But my context of the question, my understanding, if I date her I will marry her. The lord tells me NO.

If I ask instead a very specific questioin, should I date here with out any other preconceived thoughts getting in the way. The Lord can give me a yes. Than I should pray if I should marry her and the Lord can tell me no.

So if I pray to know if the church is true, it depends on context. What is my definition of True? What do I mean by that? If I have no knowledge about that than most likely the Lord can give a yes because I have no preconceived notions about it. One I develop knowledge of what true means than I have to readjust my question. The same for everything else in the gospel. This is the process of separating traditons of men with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Or separating the carnal mind from the spiritual mind.

[Just_A_Guy]

EoG -

Many thanks for the response. With regard to "spiritual porn"--not needing prophets and the Church is part of the equation, the larger aspect being the notion of trying to get something without going through proper channels. What I've seen of Snuffer's writings, particularly post-2011, indicates a positive contempt for the modern, correlated Church rife with accusations that the keys are lost (or were never held) and comparisons between the LDS Church and the spiritual decay of Israel and its hierarchy at the time of Christ. The thesis of Snuffer's arguments boils down to: The correlated teachings of the LDS Church cannot do for you what the teachings of me, Denver Snuffer, can do for you.

And, sorry, but Snuffer's dead wrong. Elijah has come (he may or may not have a future visit in store; but he did appear, Snuffer's accusations of forgery notwithstanding), and you can live a life without receiving the Second Comforter and yet somehow avoid the telestial kingdom. If we want to branch out: his characterization of D&C 137 as a later addendum to the Kirtland Revelation Book is demonstrably false. His allegation that the Nauvoo Temple was rejected of the Lord due to its slipshod construction (a conclusion he reaches because of reports of weakness in the attic floor as hundreds of Church members were receiving their endowment) completely ignores the fact that the temple wasn't designed with the endowment in mind and that the attic wasn't built to take the kind of use the Twelve were putting it through. Mischaracterization, innuendo, unwarranted conclusions and unfair accusations--it's the stuff of run-of-the-mill anti-Mormonism; and it's extremely disturbing to see it popping up in the writings of a guy who claims he's seen Jesus and therefore, presumably, should know better than to play the kinds of games he's playing. Let's assume for a moment that Snuffer really did see what he claims to have seen that day in February of 2003. Is it possible that he is one of the very elect to have been thereafter deceived, as the scripture warns?

This mindset you have displayed here, to the degree that anyone who doesn't agree with you or Brother Snuffer obviously just hasn't studied it hard enough, is exactly the mindset I've been warning you about. It's the one Snuffer is teaching you to justify and even cultivate; and I'll be blunt: it's the mindset that will, sooner or later, lead you out of the Church when the GA's fail to see things your way.

Agreed. I don't mind if you don't like his teachings and think they are false. That is fine. It does not prove anything because we differ in our opinion that either of us are bad people or will be denied entrance into heaven.

If you agree with Snuffer, and you hold yourself to be right, then the above just isn't true. You do believe that I will be "denied entrance into heaven"--at least, for a thousand-year-period during which I will be suffering the pains of hell along with the rest of the telestial Church.

Contention is when you purposely bring up something that has nothing to do wtih the threads at hand. For the purpose of getting your point across of how much you don't like something or disagree with hit. Disagreement is to share what you feel is correct and leave it at that without saying others are wrong.

Then why did you feel the need to respond when Finrock and I posted some relatively straightforward and, by most LDS standards, authoritative statements regarding the safety of staying with the Church records and the majority of the Twelve? Were you contending? Why are you allowed to point out the weaknesses (as you perceive them) of the conventional LDS view, but if I point out the weaknesses of Snuffer's view I'm suddenly spurring "contention"?

Snuffer yes, if his claim is correct that he has seen the savior he has been sanctified.

Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery also saw the Savior. It didn't do Rigdon a heckuva lot of good, and arguably didn't keep Cowdery completely safe either.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[ElectofGod]

EoG -

Many thanks for the response. With regard to "spiritual porn"--not needing prophets and the Church is part of the equation, the larger aspect being the notion of trying to get something without going through proper channels. What I've seen of Snuffer's writings, particularly post-2011, indicates a positive contempt for the modern, correlated Church rife with accusations that the keys are lost (or were never held) and comparisons between the LDS Church and the spiritual decay of Israel and its hierarchy at the time of Christ. The thesis of Snuffer's arguments boils down to: The correlated teachings of the LDS Church cannot do for you what the teachings of me, Denver Snuffer, can do for you.

And, sorry, but Snuffer's dead wrong. Elijah has come (he may or may not have a future visit in store; but he did appear, Snuffer's accusations of forgery notwithstanding), and you can live a life without receiving the Second Comforter and yet somehow avoid the telestial kingdom. If we want to branch out: his characterization of D&C 137 as a later addendum to the Kirtland Revelation Book is demonstrably false. His allegation that the Nauvoo Temple was rejected of the Lord due to its slipshod construction (a conclusion he reaches because of reports of weakness in the attic floor as hundreds of Church members were receiving their endowment) completely ignores the fact that the temple wasn't designed with the endowment in mind and that the attic wasn't built to take the kind of use the Twelve were putting it through. Mischaracterization, innuendo, unwarranted conclusions and unfair accusations--it's the stuff of run-of-the-mill anti-Mormonism; and it's extremely disturbing to see it popping up in the writings of a guy who claims he's seen Jesus and therefore, presumably, should know better than to play the kinds of games he's playing. Let's assume for a moment that Snuffer really did see what he claims to have seen that day in February of 2003. Is it possible that he is one of the very elect to have been thereafter deceived, as the scripture warns?

Again you don't know what your talking about. Denver is not talking about the keys that elijah did give to Joseph Smith. He is talking about the sealing power mentioned in helamen 10. There are dozens and dozens of people think that the church is under condemnation for that same situation. You can state they are wrong but you have no proof likewise they don't either. Either side is just pointing fingers. Also the church still is under condemnation. You know who agreed? President Benson.

Could he have been deceived since? Absolutely. Who will be the great anti Christ? Only time will tell. But a servant will also come to restore Zion. So where will the saits gather?Quoting Hugh Nibley, they will be where the eagles flock. For they will be gathered as the egales. (new testament scripture about the eagles and teh caucuses)

This mindset you have displayed here, to the degree that anyone who doesn't agree with you or Brother Snuffer obviously just hasn't studied it hard enough, is exactly the mindset I've been warning you about. It's the one Snuffer is teaching you to justify and even cultivate; and I'll be blunt: it's the mindset that will, sooner or later, lead you out of the Church when the GA's fail to see things your way.

I did not say because you disagree with me you have not studied hard enough. I was referring you to quoting things you think he has said which are blantantly comepletly false. Its like investigators who have never read the book of mormon and call it false. Cast judgment after one reads it. However, if you still think he is saying the same thing after you have read it than that is perfectly fine.

If you agree with Snuffer, and you hold yourself to be right, then the above just isn't true. You do believe that I will be "denied entrance into heaven"--at least, for a thousand-year-period during which I will be suffering the pains of hell along with the rest of the telestial Church.

Uh no. This is entirely false. I doubt Snuffer would agree with this. Also to add to your corrections, Terrestial people will make it as well. These are they who enjoy the presence of Jesus Christ. Celestial kingdom are those who enjoy the presence of Christ and God. If you don't believe this you should read D&C 76. Even this is taught plainly in gospel principles handbook.

Then why did you feel the need to respond when Finrock and I posted some relatively straightforward and, by most LDS standards, authoritative statements regarding the safety of staying with the Church records and the majority of the Twelve? Were you contending? Why are you allowed to point out the weaknesses (as you perceive them) of the conventional LDS view, but if I point out the weaknesses of Snuffer's view I'm suddenly spurring "contention"?

First were did I point out the Contending LDS view? Its like your making things up. Besides 2 Nephi 28 I agreed with Finrocks Posts.

I've already answered this. Because THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM. How many times do I have to say that. BUT YOU have made it about him. This entire thread nobody brought up anything and than you came around and wanted to make your point. "This guy is apostate".

Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery also saw the Savior. It didn't do Rigdon a heckuva lot of good, and arguably didn't keep Cowdery completely safe either.

Did they fall? Are they damned? Did they commit the unpardonable sin?All you have shown is ALL are able to fall. Each and every one of us. Or did they still make it to the celestial kingdom because they received their calling and elections?

it's the mindset that will, sooner or later, lead you out of the Church when the GA's fail to see things your way.

You don't know my mindset. According to you the entire church sees things different than I do. And LOOK! I'm still here. But hey thats not true. I have had several people PM me and thank me for confirming things that they have started to learn through the spirit. Men and Women who have never read Denver.

Honestly that's probably the only reason why I stick around forums anymore. How do I know Denver has not fallen yet? Because one the spirit has told me and two I have met many people who have become converted to the LDS church and others who have seen the savior from reading the Second Comforter book and doing the principles Denver expounds on in the book of mormon. One of these men are in my Ward who was converted by the Holy Ghost during one of Denvers book of mormon study sessions. His fruits lead one into the church to Christ and those with keys.

Do I chastise or condemn any of the brethern? No I don't. I have great respect and love for President monson. He grew up with my grandpa and I have had the privledge of meeting him at his funeral and a few other times in my life. These men have helped me on my journey in the gospel and I owe my life for many of them including local leaders.

Edited August 4, 2013 by ElectofGod

[Just_A_Guy]

Again you don't know what your talking about. Denver is not talking about the keys that elijah did give to Joseph Smith. He is talking about the sealing power mentioned in helamen 10.

I would respectfully submit that either it is you who are misinterpreting Snuffer, or that Snuffer is talking out of both sides of his mouth. In his discourse on the mission of Elijah Snuffer makes much of Smith's January 1844 statement that Elijah must come (supposedly, in the future), but as you read the quote the mission and keys spoken of clearly have to do with temple work. And tellingly, elsewhere Snuffer writes:

We claim to hold keys that would allow men filled with sin to forgive sins on earth and in heaven, to grant eternal life, or to bar from the kingdom of God. Using that false and useless claim, we slay the souls of men, thereby committing murder.

In that same work he impugns the provenance of D&C 110 (I've previously misdescribed it as D&C 137; apologies for that). Because that section, which claims Elijah did indeed restore the "keys of this dispensation," is awfully inconvenient for him.

There are dozens and dozens of people think that the church is under condemnation for that same situation. You can state they are wrong but you have no proof likewise they don't either. Either side is just pointing fingers. Also the church still is under condemnation. You know who agreed? President Benson.

"Under condemnation" or "not living up to our potentials" ≠ "the presiding high priests of this Church lack the sealing power".

And, as I told you previously, "Snuffer says in other works that the Saints were brought under condemnation for their failure to timely complete the Nauvoo Temple, and for the slipshod means of construction applied thereto. . . Snuffer can't have it both ways. Either the Church was promised the patriarchal priesthood, satisfactorily completed the Nauvoo temple, and received it; or it failed to live up to the promise and those sealing keys--if we ever had them--died with Smith."

But a servant will also come to restore Zion.

And you think it's Snuffer? Or someone else acting independently of the First Presidency and the Twelve?

Uh no. This is entirely false. I doubt Snuffer would agree with this. Also to add to your corrections, Terrestial people will make it as well. These are they who enjoy the presence of Jesus Christ. Celestial kingdom are those who enjoy the presence of Christ and God. If you don't believe this you should read D&C 76. Even this is taught plainly in gospel principles handbook.

Neither D&C 76, or the Gospel Principles handbook, state that “They were sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. Those who fall short of this, and do not receive this witness from Christ in mortality but receive it afterwards, will be heirs of the Terrestrial Kingdom”. Neither of them state that "The church now markets itself as an institution that will “strengthen families.” It does not inform its members, or prospective converts that the day will come they will be burned up unless they have connected to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob through Joseph Smith as the Dispensation head, in a necessary priestly ordinance”.

First were did I point out the Contending LDS view?

Right here.

Because THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM. How many times do I have to say that. BUT YOU have made it about him. This entire thread nobody brought up anything and than you came around and wanted to make your point. "This guy is apostate".

Your hinting (with all due plausible deniability, naturally) that modern LDS leaders aren't "prophets, seers, and revelators" in the true senses of those words, and that identifying "God's true servants" is some sort of mystery, had Snuffer's fingerprints all over them. So, yeah. I called you on it. Interesting how, even though you maintain "it's not about Denver", you seem so quick to rally to his cause with a zeal that I have never seen you display for--say--Brigham Young or Orson Pratt.

Did they fall? Are they damned? Did they commit the unpardonable sin?All you have shown is ALL are able to fall.

Q.E.D.

You don't know my mindset.

We'll see, won't we?

I have had several people PM me and thank me for confirming things that they have started to learn through the spirit. Men and Women who have never read Denver.

*shrug*

. . . a few, who are the humble followers of Christ; nevertheless, they are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.

How do I know Denver has not fallen yet? Because one the spirit has told me . . .

Hmm. The Spirit has told me something else. Agree to disagree.

. . . and two I have met many people who have become converted to the LDS church and others who have seen the savior from reading the Second Comforter book . . .

This is logical fallacy. Even assuming, arguendo, that The Second Comforter really is being used as an effective missionary tract and that many people really have decided to tell you about their personal experiences with the Lord--the fact that someone wrote something good and true in 2004, does not mean that that person remains reliable in 2013. I mean--surely you don't mean to imply that every Mormon who was ever baptized or preached to by Rigdon, was bound to follow him rather than the Twelve in the wake of the succession crisis?

Do I chastise or condemn any of the brethern? No I don't. I have great respect and love for President monson. He grew up with my grandpa and I have had the privledge of meeting him at his funeral and a few other times in my life. These men have helped me on my journey in the gospel and I owe my life for many of them including local leaders.

Naturally--bless his little, spiritually-inferior-to-Denver, "prophet-seer-and-revelator"-in-name-only soul.

[john doe]

I don't know why it is that people who trot out their hobby horses to the point of teetering on apostasy tend to fall back on the 'but I met the Prophet once' excuse. The scriptures point out that even the most elect will fall prey to Satan's grasp. It's been my experience that those claim to be the most infallible are also the most susceptible to thinking they are above or don't need to listen to the prophets and their church leaders because those leaders are beneath that person in their spiritual progression.

[ElectofGod]

Ah so you guys agree with John Doe... Wait that is what I have been saying myself...

The scriptures point out that even the most elect will fall prey to Satan's grasp. It's been my experience that those claim to be the most infallible are also the most susceptible to thinking they are above or don't need to listen to the prophets and their church leaders because those leaders are beneath that person in their spiritual progression.

Absolutely.

I don't know why it is that people who trot out their hobby horses to the point of teetering on apostasy tend to fall back on the 'but I met the Prophet once' excuse.

Yup and this is what Just_A_Guy is doing. hobby horse to state anyone that does not disagree with denver in all things is wrong. I have no clue what you are saying about met the prophet once ordeal.

Anyways I am done. Wasting my time.

Elijah

"Now for Elijah. The spirit, power, and calling of Elijah is, that ye have power to hold the key of the revelations, ordinances, oracles, powers and endowments of the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood and of the kingdom of God on the earth; and to receive, obtain, and perform all the ordinances belonging to the kingdom of God, even unto the turning of the hearts of the fathers unto the children, and the hearts of the children unto the fathers, even those who are in heaven. . . Then what you seal on earth, by the keys of Elijah, is sealed in heaven; and this is the power of Elijah, and this is the difference between the spirit and power of Elias and Elijah; for while the spirit of Elias is a forerunner, the power of Elijah is sufficient to make our calling and election sure; and the same doctrine, where we are exhorted to go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, &c." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp.337-338)

\

I guess the church is sealing up sinners to eternal life. For that is the power (not KEYS) of Elijah. Wait no there not! Again, "the power of Elijah is sufficient to make our calling and election sure". The church seals families TOGETHER, not to ETERNAL LIFE. That is up to the individual. Elijah gave us the KEYS. The keys is the knowledge of how to perform the ordinances. Its up to us to get that POWER. Yes Joseph Smith had this power ALSO. But that is because he was sealed up to eternal life and received it.

Again:

"Elijah restored the keys of the sealing power, by which the ordinances in the temple are bound in heaven as well as on earth, for both the living and the dead." (Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, 2:234)

Edited August 5, 2013 by ElectofGod

[Guest]

Do you think that Just a Guy is teetering on apostasy because he doesn't follow Denver Snuffer's teachings?

[ElectofGod]

Do you think that Just a Guy is teetering on apostasy because he doesn't follow Denver Snuffer's teachings?

Absolutely not. But it feels like he is saying I AM. Actually he already said I was on the road to apostasy due to a certain mindset I don't have. Though he probably does think I am, beccause anyone who reads denver and doesn't disagree with him is labeled apostate. That is where my zeal comes from (see his quote below). Removing the label. I already said this, just because people disagree about points of doctrine means nothing. It matters whats in the heart, love, longsufering, etc..

And to better phrase that sentence we should never follow anyone's teachings but Christ. And only the prophets, apostles when they are RECEIVING REVELATION from the Lord and the Lord confirms to you that you should obey. We should RECEIVE them not follow. Meaning not to follow blindly.

you seem so quick to rally to his cause with a zeal that I have never seen you display for--say--Brigham Young or Orson Pratt.

I've already defended Orson Pratt. He was a true disciple of Christ who was not afraid to admit his weaknesses. Brigham Young. I believe him also to be a disciple of Christ. I believe almost all he taught including many things most people don't believe.

Edited August 5, 2013 by ElectofGod

[skalenfehl]

Boy, this train went off the rails. After page two. Smithite Mormons...Denver Snuffer...

[Just_A_Guy]

Yup and this is what Just_A_Guy is doing. hobby horse to state anyone that does not disagree with denver in all things is wrong.

Wow! That's a pretty egregiously incorrect statement. I fear that making it brings little honor on the sacred doctrines you seek to advance (and on which we agree more than you think. You have repeatedly accused me of denying the doctrines of the second comforter and being sealed up to eternal life, just because I disagree with Snuffer's accusations regarding the Church. Actually, I agree with much of it. Questioning Snuffer is not questioning the Gospel.)

The church seals families TOGETHER, not to ETERNAL LIFE.

Hasn't Snuffer said the temple rituals are of no eternal efficacy and will have to be redone at some future point?

Moreover, the temple sealing is not about physical togetherness. I don't blame you for making that over-simplification--the Church's own basic curriculum and PR does likewise--but I think the tutelage you've received has made you entirely too eager to discount what the Church really offers.

[ElectofGod]

Moreover, the temple sealing is not about physical togetherness. I don't blame you for making that over-simplification--the Church's own basic curriculum and PR does likewise--but I think the tutelage you've received has made you entirely too eager to discount what the Church really offers.

Discount? No. The ordinances are very real.

Hasn't Snuffer said the temple rituals are of no eternal efficacy and will have to be redone at some future point?

Ask Him. I know he said his family members visited him and told him to do theirs.

Either way I heard this from Hugh Nibley. That all temple ordinances will have to be done again. I just remember him relating a story of his mother? grandmother? speaking to the apostle or maybe it was the president and stated "you know all this (endowments) will have to be done all over again... but this does not mean we shouldn't do it"

However I did find a variation of that quote:

The types in the temple prepare us for the world beyond.

If we don’t get the ordinances now we won’t get them later.

Endowment means having something which will come to fruition at a certain time when conditions are met.

(Everything in the temple is a type of things to come—it is a rehearsal of that which will have to be done again sometime whit real meaning and understanding.)

http://sites.lib.byu.edu/nibley/1900/01/01/ancient-ordinances/

[Guest]

That doesn't mean the ordinances will need to be done again. It means we're receiving- being endowed with, if you will- things we'll need to use at some future time.

[Finrock]

Good afternoon ElectofGod. I hope you are doing well! :)

Discount? No. The ordinances are very real.

Ask Him. I know he said his family members visited him and told him to do theirs.

Either way I heard this from Hugh Nibley. That all temple ordinances will have to be done again. I just remember him relating a story of his mother? grandmother? speaking to the apostle or maybe it was the president and stated "you know all this (endowments) will have to be done all over again... but this does not mean we shouldn't do it"

However I did find a variation of that quote:

I don't know if I can describe it right, but to me the temple ordinances are training us for the real thing. It is teaching us who we really and truly are and what we should really and truly be doing here on this earth. The things in the temple are symbolic representations of real things that need to be done. The ordinances by themselves, like baptism, doesn't save us but rather us receiving those ordinances saves us. The way we receive the ordinances is by putting in to practice the things that are symbolically represented in those ordinances. The true ordinances of the gospel are what we do in life each day when alone or when we interact with other people. Do we manifest God's power in all that we do and say? If we do, then the ordinances in the temple become real and not just symbolic representations.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited August 5, 2013 by Finrock

[skalenfehl]

The things in the temple are symbolic representations of real things that need to be done. The ordinances by themselves, like baptism, doesn't save us but rather us receiving those ordinances saves us. The way we receive the ordinances is by putting in to practice the things that are symbolically represented in those ordinances.

+1

As Eowyn, mentioned, "at some future date." While this is true, it is entirely up to us based on our worthiness to the five laws, which we covenant to keep. When we go through the temple for ourselves, we are specifically told that we are only "anointed" to become kings/queens and priests/priestesses and do not become such until we have proven ourselves worthy through our faithfulness. This is a very important distinction. However, we are free, as many have done, to prove ourselves worthy; to be proven true and faithful in all things, to advance this promise early in our lives, as early as we desire. We truly are judged based on our "works according to our desires."

While most fully expect and have sufficient faith to experience this at "some future date," perhaps when Christ returns in glory, there are many who have desired and do desire to experience this fullness now rather than later. This is what most, if not all of the prophets of the Book of Mormon labored to teach. This is also what Joseph Smith labored to teach the early Saints over and over again. This is the message, which a very few still endeavor to share today. It truly is good news for those who discover that they have the same desires to receive it and begin their journey to obtain it.