True Repentance

Yea, I would that ye would come forth and harden not your hearts any longer; for behold, now is the time and the day of your salvation; and therefore, if ye will repent and harden not your hearts, immediately shall the great plan of redemption be brought about unto you (Alma 34:31, my emphasis added).

And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people; neither am I mighty in writing, like unto speaking; for when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men (2 Nephi 33:1, emphasis mine).

He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever (D&C 88:41).

Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death.And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains no more; yea, I was harrowed up by the memory of my sins no more.And oh, what joy, and what marvelous light I did behold; yea, my soul was filled with joy as exceeding as was my pain!Yea, I say unto you, my son, that there could be nothing so exquisite and so bitter as were my pains. Yea, and again I say unto you, my son, that on the other hand, there can be nothing so exquisite and sweet as was my joy (Alma 36:18-21).

O God, Aaron hath told me that there is a God; and if there is a God, and if thou art God, wilt thou make thyself known unto me, and I will give away all my sins to know thee, and that I may be raised from the dead, and be saved at the last day. And now when the king had said these words, he was struck as if he were dead (Alma 22:18, emphasis mine).

I love the scriptures, particularly these few I have included. I don’t read them enough. I certainly don’t feast as I should. They give me hope when I make them my focus.

At the end of the day, it’s not about what we think we know, it’s about WHO we know.  The scriptures testify of redemption through the atonement of our Savior.  All things point to Him. The only way out of this creation is through Him.

No matter where we are we can turn to Him. He is our Redeemer.  I don’t think He cares so much if we are a liar, fornicator, drunk, or hypocrite.  He simply wants us to seek His redeeming grace, come unto Him, and to be healed of our sins and tendencies.

I’m overwhelmed to think that we can give Him our baggage. That He has already paid the price.

I spoke to a Christian minister this week who runs a bookstore. He is convinced that Mormons will go to Hell simply because they believe that they must “work out their salvation.”  I guess I agree that we must somehow figure out how to receive His grace, rather than His justice, BUT I cannot wrap my head around the idea of simply “accepting” His grace.  In his mind, just accept His grace and don’t worry about the rest.

I offered the idea that maybe our “work” is to surrender to Him, He rejected the idea of anything that involved “work.”

I don’t know about you, but “working” out our salvation — to me — seems require some effort on our part and takes an enormous amount of the sweat of the brow.

Look at the comments on this blog as an example: So many ideas and voices for how it works.  Bishops, former bishops, leaders, lay members: people of all persuasions and nationalities, effectively disagreeing on what is and what isn’t. All of us trying figure out how it works.  What ideas are correct and incorrect.  Who is a fraud and who is sent.

When it comes to the idea of works, here’s where I am today — I think it all comes down to what does our faith produce?

Do we have works that follow after our faith?  Do we possess the fruits of the Spirit of God?  See Galatians 5:22-26:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

Are you loving?  I don’t care if you think you have some important position or reputation, if you do not show me love, perhaps you do not possess the Love of God or the Spirit as you may suppose.

Are you joyful?  Despite the trials?  Despite the pain?  Is your pain swallowed up in your joy?  (I struggle with all these but this one in particular.  My lack of joy at times seems to mirror my lack of trust in God)

Do you have peace?  Despite your longsuffering?  What do you know about suffering?  Do you often wonder what tomorrow will bring?  Do you feel vulnerable?  Have you been falsely accused?  Falsely slandered? Mocked?  Brought to the tribunal by your enemies?  Have you suffered pain beyond description? Unsure if you will make it?  Unsure if you will be able to provide for those you love?

Are you gentle?  Or are you quick to injure?  Do you retaliate when you feel threatened?  Or do you respond with kindness and humility?

Are you temperate?  Have you overcome the passions of the flesh?  Or do you define yourself by what your flesh still yearns for?  Falling into the trap of assuming your desires and appetites are greater than who you really are.

In my opinion, IF YOUR IDEAS DO NOT BRING FORTH THE FRUITS OF THE SPIRIT, then your seed just might be dead, your faith non-existent, your works of no worth.  The only thing that seems to matter is whether we obtain faith unto salvation or not (1 Peter 1:5).  Notice FAITH comes before repentance.

We can all talk a good game and we can hold onto our gospel hobbies and ideas, BUT if we do not REPENT of our sins, WITH FAITH preceding REPENTANCE, then we will remain in our present state, with no redemption, experiencing no true change in our nature.

We will remain self-righteous and pompous — sounding good (sounding brass), BUT WHO KNOW NOT GOD.

I’m humbled by these ideas.  I’m not there yet.  But somehow I believe that the scriptures can help us learn true repentance. Not repentance by the definitions we often employ.  But a true change in disposition.  A rebirth.

I think that learning to distinguish between truth and error is a key.  We must discern between true and false messages and messengers.

I also believe our faith will come as a result of our willingness to sacrifice.  In some cases that sacrifice may come as a result of our having chosen to believe an obscure witness, as did Alma with Abinadi.

“A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has the power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation”  (Lectures on Faith, Joseph Smith, Prophet, Seer, and Revelator).

26 thoughts on “True Repentance

  1. Mary Jane

    As always, words well worth reading. I love every post you share because they do reflect the Love of God. It makes me sad, however, when a few commenters ruin the whole thing by posting contrary, opinion-laden gasps for attention. I wonder about these people. Are they lonely? Angry? Delusional? My advice to those who contend and disagree with AB, Snuffer, and the remnant movement: If you aren’t winning anyone over to your way of thinking, maybe you need a new audience.

    Reply
  2. Gramma

    I have enjoyed this post, and found it left lots of room for personal observations and interpretations, that allow readers an opportunity to discern for themselves their repentance process.

    I’ve found, like with many gospel principles, repentance may evolve somewhat as our relationship with the Savior and Heavenly Father improves and is strengthened.

    When I read/study Enos’ repentance process, I love that he hears clearly that his sins have been forgiven (at that point in time). Like Joseph, I anticipate his repentance process was incorporated frequently (as cited in the D&C). As Joseph, or Enos or Gramma learns “precept upon precept”, we become more aware of sins and errors we might not have noted previously.

    I feel compelled to share an example. I’ve made long road trips with my 44yr old dependant adult son. He is aphasic, and tends to repeat single words or questions ( also single words) as much as 30 times in 15 mins. ” Mom, team?” He’ll ask… He’s referring to he and I and the Savior ( whose photo is on our dashboard). I’ll say “yes”, smile and continue focusing on my driving. After he asks the first 5 times, I respond verbally to reassure him, then as the question is repeated again and again I may ask… ” Nat, what did mom say before?”. He”ll hang his head but say ” yes”…. Then I’ll reiterate, that now I know he’s understood, but he’ll continue repeating the same question another 20 times. During that process, I’ll often be silent until he changes the topic or I’ll try to initiate a new topic.

    On our last road trip and during the 20 more times phase, I was praying while driving. I begged the Lord to help me understand the lesson I was to learn from Nat’s habitual repetitious statements or questions. I prayed for hours, in-between Nat’s conversations.

    Finally, when I must have come to a humble prayer spirit, the Spirit, whispered, nearly laughing, ” Don’t you realize how you behave with me, day after day and prayer after prayer!”

    I knew instantly that was true. I’m not a “vain repetition” pray-er. But when I’m insecure and begging for clarity from the Lord, I must use 10-15 differing phrases day after day to express myself.

    Immediately I wanted to apologize, “repent”… I cried as I drove, telling the Lord how gracious he was to me and how patient he was through my process of learning that shortfall in faith lesson.

    Repentance is ongoing. Our individual efforts to repent are not always as integrity filled as they ought to be, partly because we don’t realize how imperfect we really are, and in turn, how much the Lord puts up with while evidencing his long suffering love for each of us.

    We may want ultimate eternal rewards and Celestial visitations, but we don’t want to be Moses with a millionaire or so ” children of Israel” to lead, or to be Abraham, knife in hand, ready to sacrifice Issac. Nor do we want to be Isaiah preaching the gospel naked for three years and eventually killed in a horrific manner, nor Abinadi burning at the stake for preaching the gospel or Samuel”the Lamanite” preaching the gospel of repentance from atop a wall as rocks and arrows and name calling was my only reward.

    We have so much to learn and so much repenting to do.

    Reply
  3. MC

    AB,

    I just have to say I think you’re making a big mistake in putting your head in the sand about Denver Snuffer.

    I thought you wanted dialog and are searching for the truth, and yet you block any voices that don’t agree with what you want to believe. What your doing is no different than LDS folks refusing to consider the issues with the state of the church, because it goes against what they want to believe.

    The truth can’t be found in following a false prophet. Following a false prophet can only ultimately lead to damnation.

    Why are you unwilling to admit to yourself that their huge problems with Denver’s claims in spite of how “good” his teachings make you “feel”?

    This new “revelation” of Denver’s purporting to be the complete Testimony of John the Beloved is the most damning evidence yet that Denver is a false prophet.

    Just look at the side by side comparisons of Denver’s Testimony of John compared to the KJV and JST. The contradictions are plain as day. Denver basically wrote his version to fit his own teachings and views. I actually think he was inspired when he wrote it, but not from God.

    Just answer this one question for yourself. Why does Denver’s Testimony of John contradict the JST of John? Joseph Smith was a true prophet, seer, revelator, and translator. The Lord commanded him to do a revision of the Bible. If Joseph Smith’s translation is correct how can Denver’s contradict that and also be true? It’s one or the other.

    Not to mention the fact that the record of John spoken of in D&C 93 is 100% referring to the record of John the Baptist being revealed in a future day. We already have the record of John the Beloved. What we don’t have is the record of John the Baptist.

    You can put your head in the sand if you want to and pretend that Denver is a true messenger/servant/prophet. You can believe that the Lord is setting his hand again the second time through Denver. That is your choice. Heck you can even try to lead people to Denver. That is your right. Just be warned that it will likely lead your soul to damnation, especially the leading other people to Denver part.

    I’ll give you some advice. Try to take your emotion out of it. You don’t need Denver to find Christ and repent. Compare what Denver is teaching to the scriptures. Open your eyes. Based on this new Testimony of John alone Denver cannot be a true prophet, and that’s only one of many reasons why he can’t be what he claims.

    I hope you will eventually see the light and stop blindly following Denver before it is too late. I know you don’t know me from Adam, but if you ever get to a point were you can admit to yourself that something is off with Denver feel free to email me or make a comment on my blog ldsawakening.wordpress.com about page and we can chat about it. I hope that you will find the courage keep searching for the truth and not be content with what you have received through Denver. The search for the truth can be scary, but its why we’re here on this earth.

    Take care.

    Reply
    1. Underdog

      My impression of AB is that he’s not what you allege.

      You: “I thought you wanted dialog and are searching for the truth, and yet you block any voices that don’t agree with what you want to believe.”

      But AB’s approved your critical comment. Keeping in mind he does have the right to edit comments that get obnoxious or become circular/ repetetive in nature.

      You: “What your doing is no different than LDS folks refusing to consider the issues with the state of the church, because it goes against what they want to believe.”

      I’ve found AB to be very open and willing to listen and consider different viewpoints.

      You: “The truth can’t be found in following a false prophet. Following a false prophet can only ultimately lead to damnation.”

      AB would completely agree. You speak the truth and AB has said the same thing in his blog.

      You: “Why are you unwilling to admit to yourself that there are huge problems with Denver’s claims in spite of how “good” his teachings make you “feel”?”

      AB testifies he’s been brought to repentance and has been refocused on Christ because of Denver’s testimony and writings.

      You: “This new “revelation” of Denver’s purporting to be the complete Testimony of John the Beloved is the most damning evidence yet that Denver is a false prophet. Just look at the side by side comparisons of Denver’s Testimony of John compared to the KJV and JST. The contradictions are plain as day. Denver basically wrote his version to fit his own teachings and views. I actually think he was inspired when he wrote it, but not from God.”

      You’ve spoken your peace. You believe Denver is of the devil. You’ve got things figured out and boldly claim you’ve received great wisdom from God, but it seems like you want to be heard — you crave the attention. You go around advertising your site on other blogs to get people to listen to you, but yet you have no “thus saith the Lord” testimonies. You testify not that you’re a messenger sent by God. You are sharing your opinions, and are very intolerant of those who oppose your ideas and conclusions. You don’t let it rest.

      As for the rest of your remarks, http://www.totheremnant.com covers the questions you’ve raised. Some good questions you’ve asked, I believe.

      You: “You can put your head in the sand if you want to and pretend that Denver is a true messenger/servant/prophet. You can believe that the Lord is setting his hand again the second time through Denver. That is your choice. Heck you can even try to lead people to Denver. That is your right. Just be warned that it will likely lead your soul to damnation, especially the leading other people to Denver part.”

      Your confusion is exposed here. AB doesn’t glorify or idolize Denver. AB points to Christ. Denver ridicules and harshly condemns those who would be “Snufferites”. He always meekly points to Christ. Your tone is one of priestcraft.

      You: “I’ll give you some advice. Try to take your emotion out of it. You don’t need Denver to find Christ and repent.”

      Why do you create a straw man argument. That’s lying in my view. You are trying to deceive others. Obviously AB agrees you don’t need any man to find Christ and repent. Please stop your deception.

      You: “I hope you will eventually see the light and stop blindly following Denver before it is too late.”

      Good advice, but I certainly wouldn’t characterize AB as “blindly” doing anything. Doesn’t this blog communicate AB is very thoughtful, with ideas of his own? Far from appearing “blind”. You are attempting to mislead people by your attacks. Could it be that you are possessed with a lying spirit, as Korihor was? The Mote – Beam teaching may be in order for you?

      I know it’s in order for me. I, for one, am grateful that I’ve been warned of my idolatry by somebody that appears to be a true messenger. Adam sought true messengers, but encountered many willing to preach to him their philosophies, mingled with scripture. You seek to teach Adam’s descendants, don’t you? The scarcest gift today, and perhaps the most needed, is the ability to discern truth from error. The counterfeits are so good today. If you want to ruin a country’s economy, the best way to do that is with counterfeit money. If we are in God’s economy, being tested and tried to see whose voice we will follow, it makes sense to have an abundance of counterfeits, and those counterfeits will demand our attention, seeking to get people to listen to them, while attacking the true currency.

      It seems you fall into the category of those who draw attention to themselves (priestcraft), while seeking to undermine somebody (Denver) who does the exact opposite of you. Denver goes out of his way to tell the truth in a meek manner, always testifying of Christ and pointing people to Christ.

      Reply
      1. MC

        Underdog,

        I don’t crave attention, but perhaps you are right that I am a bit overzealous in my attempts to open people’s eyes to the Denver Snuffer deception. I’m a flawed human being. I’m nobody special. I am not a prophet or a messenger from the Lord in any way shape or form.

        I don’t set myself up as a light that should be followed. Your charge of priestcraft is unwarranted.

        I actually have a lot of respect for AB. He is obviously trying hard to follow Christ. He’s very likely a better man than I am. Since I am certain that Denver Snuffer is a false prophet and AB continues to point people in Denver’s direction, even if indirectly, I’m merely trying to provide a voice of warning and reason by pointing out the reasons why Denver cannot be what he claims.

        As far as AB blocking comments that are aggainst Denver Snuffer, he has in fact blocked a few of mine, including one yesterday that was not at all abrasive or aggressive. I know of at least two other people who have had comments against Denver Snuffer blocked by him.

        I actually sent the above comment to him, believing that he would not post it since he had just removed a comment of mine on this thread addressed to Mary in which I had asked her if it was delusional to carefully evaluate Denver’s fruits. I wanted him to think about what he was doing by blocking dialog that goes against Denver being a true messenger and offer him a chance to discuss is outside of his blog where all the world can see what he says.

        Also I am not trying to advertise my blog. I only have one post on there. I only have it as a way of discussing the gospel with people without people having to leave their email addresses on blog comments for all the world to see.

        Let me ask you this underdog and you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to. Can a true messenger give a false revelation and teach false doctrine? If the answer is no, then how can Denver be a true messenger? If the answer is yes, then how can one tell who is a true messenger and who is a false one?

        Reply
        1. Underdog

          MC,

          The question of Denver Snuffer has been discussed ad nauseam at other sites for quite a while. Like http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=39941. That might be the place to state your case rather than take your zeal to multiple sites to grind your ax.

          I do agree it is an important question (whether he is legit or not), but the more important question to me is, Am I getting personal revelation? Am I able to discern a false revelation from a true one, no matter if it comes to me directly or through another person. Am I seeing angels? That’s a good intermediate step I believe. Because I regretfully fear I might get burned alive if brought back into Christ’s presence now. But perhaps I could entertain an angel. I pray for stronger faith and a firmer mind (Moroni 7:30).

          If you, MC, don’t claim to be a true messenger, then I am not as motivated to hear what you have to say, compared to say a Joseph Smith or Denver Snuffer. Denver, like Joseph, has caused me to seek Jesus. Moroni’s testimony too has the same effect on me (See Ether 12:39-41). What they have in common (and I think it not a coincidence) is that they have seen Christ face to face. They have an actual knowledge of Christ. So their words deserve more attention, than say yours, or AB’s.

          As to your question, “Can a true messenger give a false revelation and teach false doctrine?” Isn’t the answer an absolute YES? Man is fallible. Now, as far as I understand, the 10 talks Denver gave were approved of the Lord. So if you want to pick a fight, I’d stick to what Denver says is formally approved by the Lord. Otherwise, I’m quite sure Denver has taught some false things (by mistake, as I don’t perceive he is an intentionally deceptive man) through the years. I also realize, like Nephi, “I do not know the meaning of all things.” (1 Nephi 11:17).

          If Denver is a deceiver, we are all in very grave danger, as it’s hard to imagine a more legit messenger. He’s an outsider, he is meek, he’s ridiculed immensely by his own, he’s been cast out (receiving the ‘death penalty’ by his Church) and is heavily persecuted, and yet he holds a steady course, despite the great cost to him and his family and his reputation. Which means he is either crazy, a clever and master deceiver, or he is a true messenger sounding a final warning voice before the apocalypse. His alleged counterfeit teachings have the effect of bringing people to Christ. Very strange, don’t you think? And if the devil is whispering in his ear what to say, then that seems to be a house divided against itself.

          I have to go on record and say that Denver doesn’t fit the mold of a deceiver. He takes no money, he sacrifices, he strongly condemns anybody who follows him, is as anti priestcraft as you can possibly get, and pursues a steady course, testifying of Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I don’t perceive that he is a shyster. I don’t discern fraud in the man. He looks to be a good man to me (see Helaman 8:7). “Those things which he saith will surely come to pass except we repent,” is my view on the question of Denver Snuffer.

          Could I be wrong? Perhaps. I have no credibility. I can’t deny that I thought the Kingdom of God was the LDS Church for almost 3 decades. And I was sure of it! I’m humbled by that confession. Quite humbled.

          I choose repentance. And hopefully true repentance.

          Reply
          1. MC

            Underdog,

            Perhaps you are correct and I shouldn’t use so much boldness in denouncing Denver as a false prophet. I have been a bit contentious from time to time. I’m not perfect. Perhaps pointing out the reasons for why he fits the mold of a false prophet on sites were the Snuffer faithful congregate is not the most appropriate place to warn people. Then again perhaps it’s the perfect place.

            There are lots of people out there who claim visions and even seeing Christ. That doesn’t make them legit. There have been many so called prophets and messengers on the fringes of Mormonism calling people to repentance and to prepare fot the apocalypse. They can’t all be legit. In fact I would suspect that they are all false.

            I understand why my position about Denver being a false prophet is threatening and uncomfortable for people who believe he is legit. Believe it or not I actually wish Denver was a true messenger. That would be awesome. For a time I thought he just might be the real deal, but then I found too many falsehoods and contradictions in his teachings, not to mention a lack of the spirit.

            You’ve obviously made up your mind. Good luck with the Denver thing. I guess we’ll see soon enough what the end result is of the remnant movement once the Temple is built in Idaho or wherever. Take care.

        2. Librium

          MC,

          You have made an argument against Denver Snuffer, but what I would like to hear is your argument for Pres Monson and the current 12 being prophets, seers and revelators. I feel as strongly as you do about Denver that you “pretend” that they are prophets. What “fruits” show you that they truly are? Thank you.

          Reply
    2. Robin Hood

      Thank you for this.
      I have posted a couple of comments recently regarding Snuffer and his pretended gift, including his “new scripture”.
      AB has removed both of my posts.
      The plain truth is that Snuffer is an imposter. Many people are now beginning to see this, even if they didn’t to start with.
      AB can remove this or any other post but it won’t alter the fact that Snuffer Boulevard is a dead-end street.

      Reply
      1. Bishop Anon Post author

        Okay – looks like I need to clarify something here. My goal is to promote healthy dialogue. I’m not opposed to engaging with people who disagree with me. BUT, Robin Hood and MC, when you are broken records and simply throw out blanket statements with no argument to back it up, AND specifically to RH, when you ignore my thoughtful comments to you and don’t show me the courtesy of offering a response – then I am much less inclined to let you throw out your cutesy, frankly arrogant and snobby, comments. Persuade me. Give me actual examples. Be kind. Don’t just be the dudes in the balcony on the Muppet Show. It doesn’t help you make a case and I’m not inclined to let this blog become a cesspool of insults from people offering nothing to further the dialogue. I would ask you or anyone else to lay out specific examples from Snuffer’s latest writing of how it contradicts JST or John himself. That, I would find more interesting. But to simply throw out insults about a man you admit you’ve barely studied, I will not allow. You can do that somewhere else. I hope you’ll stay and engage, but if not, peace be with you.

        Reply
        1. Robin Hood

          AB, you disappoint me somewhat.
          I had written that I had read Snuffer’s “new scripture” and didn’t feel it would fool anyone. This was in reply to iterry54’s comment about it clearly not being of God because it didn’t follow scriptural language “rules”. I was agreeing with iterry54.
          Did you not spot that?
          Did you not see my comment in it’s proper context?
          Must say AB, you surprise me. I would have thought that you, of all people, would want to understand context before passing judgement.

          Reply
  4. Sam

    One of my favorites is Alma 37:9, which reads in part: “these records and their words brought them unto repentance; that is, they brought them to the knowledge of the Lord their God, and to rejoice in Jesus Christ their Redeemer.”

    To me, that is the most beautiful definition of repentance in all of the standard works.

    Reply
  5. Kathryn

    My goodness MC, you do not make a good case for yourself in the gentle persuasion sphere. Whether one heeds any of Snuffer’s works or not, you certainly don’t do yourself any favors by your unkind words and malicious attack. Perhaps, a review of D&C 121: 40-42 is in order for a more appropriate and appealing approach.

    On the subject of Repentance: I think, as Latter-day-Saints, we get caught up in the “do” or the “outward” expressions of discipleship and often neglect the quiet service and inward changes which ultimately leads to salvation. The scripture that suggest, “after all we can do” seems to have come to the forefront by way of open, showy presentation. Actually there is nothing we can “DO” to gain salvation because we cannot do enough to earn it. I suggest the “Do” is our personal repentance, as we are commanded to do over and over again in the scriptures. After that, then following HIS other commandments as outlined in the scriptures, not the handbook.

    In my study, I found that most of the commandments are relationship based, either refining our relationship with the Father and Son or our relationships with each other. So many of the “Do’s” we are encouraged to participate in cannot compare to the commandments such as: bear each others burdens, to mourn and comfort. acknowledge and attend to the poor, give to him that asketh, be merciful. I could go on and on.

    As members, we seem to get caught up in those do’s we can check off from a list. Tithing, temple attendance, home and visiting teaching, etc. Although they may be important for the administration of “Church” business, I don’t think these outward duties reach the inner heart and change us like the do’s, or commandments, that are administered, or the most part, quietly, unannounced and unchecked.

    Thanks AB for this post and the counsel to take repentance seriously. It is a quiet and personal journey we all need to take seriously. I, like you, have much to attend to.

    Reply
  6. MC

    Kathryn,

    D&C 121:43 states that there are also times when we are to reprove with sharpness.

    I am not making any malicious attacks against AB or anyone else. I am trying to reason with AB.

    I believe AB to be a good man trying very hard to follow Christ.

    I think we can all agree that false prophets lead people to damnation. Boldly denoucing false prophets is not a malicious attack. It is what we are supposed to do. We are to warn our brethren of spiritual pitfalls. There is no point in beating around the bush on matters that have eternal consequences.

    With this new Testimony of John scripture Denver Snuffer has just produced he has officially removed all doubt as to whether or not he is a prophet, either true or false.

    Read Denver’s testimony of John. Compare it to the JST of John. Compare it to other scriptures. This new “revelation” is a fake. There is no question about it.

    Producing false revelations is the number one mark of a false prophet. Which means Denver is a false prophet no matter how good his words make people feel.

    Reply
      1. MC

        Librium, Great question.

        As far as I am aware Monson has never issued a prophecy or revelation. Nor has he ever translated any ancient record. So I agree that he doesn’t exhibit the fruits of a true prophet, seer, or revelator.

        However having said that because he is the properly appointed President of the church he is called to be a prophet, seer, revelator, and translator. That’s what the D&C says. The Lord’s house is a house of order. As long as the church is in existence the president of the church is our prophet, whether he exhibits the fruits of one or not. No one else besides the president of the church has the right to receive revelation or even inspiration for the church until the Lord sees fit to destroy the church, or until the one mighty and strong appears (which will likely happen at the same time).

        It’s also worth noting that back in the 1830s Joseph Smith had the church sustain the quorum of the 12 as prophets, seers, and revelators, even though none of them had exhibited those fruits. They were unanimously sustained as such by the church.

        I’m not sure what to make of President Monson. Is a true false prophet for not receiving any prophecies or revelation?

        Has he ever referred to himself as a prophet and told people to follow him? Others say that about him and he doesn’t correct it, but has he ever said it himself?

        The scriptures are clear that in the last days the sheppards of Israel will be leading the people astray. It says that they will be hypocrates who say and do not. I think it is very likely that Monson is included in this, but I will let the Lord judge that.

        As for Denver’s revelation on the Testimony of John, that is 100% a false revelation. No doubt about it. There is no metaphorical language in it. It reads like several other false revelations I have read, like the 2nd Book of Commandments. The clincher is that it blatantly contradicts the JST of John in multiple places. That alone makes it 100% false.

        Reply
        1. Bishop Anon Post author

          Why does it have to be metaphorical? Please provide better examples of how you think it contradicts the JST “in multiple places.” I simply did not get that in reading it.

          Reply
          1. MC

            Why don’t we start with John 1:1-5
            Joseph Smith made substantial changes to John 1:1-5
            JST
            1 In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.
            2 The same was in the beginning with God.
            3 All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made which was made.
            4 In him was the gospel, and the gospel was the life, and the life was the light of men;
            5 And the light shineth in the world, and the world perceiveth it not.
            KJV
            1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
            2 The same was in the beginning with God.
            3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
            4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
            5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

            Denver Snuffer Testimony of John (I broke it down into comparable verses)
            In the Highest Council of Heaven there was One who spoke out. And the One who spoke out was among the Gods, and He was a God.
            He was in the Council of the Gods,
            and the creation of the cosmos was organized through Him. And without Him does not exist one thing that has come into existence in the cosmos.
            In Him was the power of life and this power was conveyed into the cosmos as the Light in men and everything.
            The Light shone in the chaos and those in darkness have not been able to grasp it.
            There are some pretty substantial differences between the JST and Denver’s version. I honestly don’t know what to make of Denver’s version. It’s very bizarre. The language is strange and seems to more closely follow the KJV than the JST.
            Let’s take a closer look.
            The JST says “In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.”
            The KJV says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
            Denver’s says “In the Highest Council of Heaven there was One who spoke out. And the One who spoke out was among the Gods, and He was a God.”
            Both the KJV and JST say “in the beginning”. For some reason Denver felt the need to change this to “In the Highest Council of Heaven”. Is he just clarifying here or did John actually say what Denver says and not what what the JST says. I realize this is a minor thing, but with the substantial change that Joseph made to this verse you would think that he would have made this change if it was wrong in the KJV.
            In the JST Joseph clarifies that the word is not the Son (Christ), but that that the word is the gospel, which was preached through the son. The word (gospel) was also with the Son (Christ).
            Denver’s version muddies this up by saying that “there was One who spoke out.” The clarification is lost here. What did this “One” speak? It no longer says that the word is the gospel. Denver’s wording is bizarre and makes no sense.
            The JST now says that the Son was with God (singular) and of God (singular). This is a clarification that clears up the confusion of the trinity that can be supported by the KJV here. The Son and God are two separate beings. The Son was with God and was created by God. The Son is not the word and the word is not God. This is a substantial clarification.
            Denver’s version again muddies this up by saying that “the One who spoke was among the Gods (plural), and He was a God.” There is no mention that Christ is the Son of God and that He was created by Him, and was with Him in the beginning. Instead we are left with an ambiguous statement that the One (whoever he is) among the Gods and a God himself. Now this may or may not be false doctrine that Denver is saying here, but it’s certainly a different meaning than what the JST is saying. It adds the doctrine of the plurality of the God’s, but takes away the doctrine of the Son being created by the God the Father and being with Him in the beginning.
            Verse 2 is more of the same.
            The JST and the KJV both say that “The same was in the beginning with God.”
            Denver’s says “He was in the Council of the Gods”
            If this was translated wrong in the KJV you would think JST would have made a correction or clarification here. There is a different meaning in being with God in the beginning verses being in the council of the Gods. Denver may or may not be teaching false doctrine here, but he’s clearly saying something quite different than what the KJV and JST are saying.
            Verse 3 is identical in the KJV and JST “All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made which was made.”
            Denver’s says “and the creation of the cosmos was organized through Him. And without Him does not exist one thing that has come into existence in the cosmos.
            Here we see another deviation from what the JST is saying. Instead of the Son making everything, Denver says that “the creation and the cosmos were organized through Him (the One).”There is a difference between making and organizing. What is this cosmos? That term is not found anywhere in the scriptures to my knowledge. It appears Denver has pulled this word out of thin air. Denver may or may not be teaching false doctrine here, but there appears to be a shift here in Christ being the creator of heaven, earth, and worlds without number to Him being the organizer of everything in the cosmos.
            In verse 5 the JST clarifies that the life which is in the Son (Christ) is the gospel. Joseph Smith essentially defined what was meant by the life being in Him in this verse, instead of leaving it open to interpretation.
            Denver’s says “In Him was the power of life and this power was conveyed into the cosmos as the Light in men and everything.
            This is completely different than what the JST says. The JST says that the life that is in the Son is the gospel and the gospel is the light of men.
            Denver’s version doesn’t mention the life being the gospel (apparently Denver decided to ignore this definition given by Joseph). Instead he says that the One has the power of life and that this power is conveyed into the cosmos as the light in men and everything. Again Denver may or may not be teaching anything false here, but the meaning of this verse is completely changed from the way it is clarified in the JST.
            In verse 5, Denver appears to be reverting to the KJV and then twisting it.
            JST says “And the light (gospel) shineth in the world, and the world perceiveth it not.”
            The KJV says “And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”
            Denver’s says “The Light shone in the chaos and those in darkness have not been able to grasp it.”
            Denver uses the past tense shone instead of shineth. I have no clue why he would do that. It makes it sound like the light of the gospel stopped shinning after the creation or organization of everything. Joseph Smith removed the word darkness and replaced it with the world. Denver instead renders the first darkness chaos (no idea why he changed this or where he got it from) and the second darkness he changes to those in darkness (again not sure where he got this change from). Again Denver may or may not be teaching false doctrine here, but he’s clearly changing and distorting the meaning of this verse the way Joseph rendered it.
            There are obviously some contradictions here between what the JST says and what Denver’s rendition says.
            These problems are throughout the entire Testimony of John as revealed through Denver.
            Another major problem is the conversation between Jesus and his mother Mary at the wedding feast were he turned water into wine. Another one is in Denver’s version saying that Jesus had the locks of his hair cut because of his vow (implying that Jesus was under a Nazarite vow). This is not supported by the scriptures anywhere and in fact can be proven false, but I won’t do that right now other than to say that the scriptures say that Jesus was a Nazarine (from Nazareth) not a Nazarite. Also if his head and beard were shaved just prior to the time that He was betrayed in the garden, then there would have been no point Judas having to kiss him to identify Him. Judas would have just told them to seize the bald guy without a beard. This coincidentally also disproves the common belief that Jesus had long hair. He had to have had the typical short hair that the men at the time wore, as well as likely a well-kept beard.
            I’ll discuss the metaphorical language issue another time.

          2. Bishop Anon Post author

            MC – thanks for the energy and effort in expressing your point of view. I’ve not had time yet to read and contemplate all of this but this is so much more helpful to the discussion than just a blanket statement. One quick thought for you… I don’t think Denver is suggesting this is a new translation of John. I think he’s saying it’s a revelation. So perhaps a better comparison would be Joseph’s Book of Moses compared to other stories of Moses found in the Old Testament. There are many things “new” in Joseph’s revelation in the Book of Moses, which as you’ll recall also did not come from any translation of any text although there are clearly parallels and common expressions when placing the texts side by side AND came as result of Joseph re-translating the Bible. See here for one example of such parallels: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/01/four-accounts-of-the-creation?lang=eng .

            A critic (Mormon or not) might argue that Joseph could not be inspired if he made no mention of the burning bush or whatever other detail found in Genesis. Of course many also find fault in JS’s translation of Abraham where Joseph is accused of making stuff up and changing the accuracy of the original account. And then the Book of Mormon, which many argue contradicts the Bible in so many ways. To the views of many, this prophet farm boy is a flimsy witness at best.

            As a person who believes in the three above mentioned Books, all coming through Joseph Smith, I can tell you that while I have entertained anti-Mormon opinions and have read their arguments and prayed about many of them — I keep coming back to the words being delicious to me. When I read them with a sincere heart full of prayer and try the experiment so to speak, I am filled with light and truth. BUT HERE’s the KICKER – are we doomed as LDS because we have a Bible, a Bible? And will not receive another? Interesting — until now it never occurred to me that this expression may uniquely be referring to us Mormons who have more than one Bible already — else why not just say “A Bible! We already have a Bible!” It’s almost as if the Lord wants to refer to us directly who have not one new Bible, but two new Bibles or more. 🙂 My guess is that our willingness as LDS to do what we ask of our investigators is nearly non-existent. I don’t say this to personally criticize you – in fact – I point the finger at myself because I recognize this baggage we possess. More like DNA. Hence why false traditions are so pernicious because we view our traditions as good and as WHO we are.

            IMO, the best way to approach the alleged new revelation of John is precisely how we’d want a non-member to consider the Book of Moses. Prayerfully. Fasting. Feasting. Open minded. Open hearted. I can promise you MC, that you and the entire world can write books as to why this in not from God. But is this not the same thing that has already been done with Joseph and his writings? IF you approach the experiment as the scriptures invite us to, and still come to your conclusions, I cannot criticize you anymore more than I would an investigator who just did not get the same response I did when reading the BOM. The matter is between you and God. As for me, it’s been a delightful experiment and I believe it’s inspired.

  7. Dan

    MC.. thank you for you comments and you make some very good points. I agree with you that the book of John that we are promised is John the baptists and not John the revelators. If this was the book of John that we are promised from the D&C it would contain D&C 7 since chapter 7 was taken through the Urim and Thumim directly from this John’s testimony. When Denver wote the book called The Second Comforter everything in it was 100% doctrinally sound from the LDS church. Therefore Denver has not presented anything that has not been available through the Mormon church and the Mormon church does not have the power or authority to part the veil for any of its members. Joseph Smith held the keys to mysteries of heaven and his keys remained with him after his death. Therfore the Mormon church does not have the ability to part the veil for someone else in the same way that Denver doesnt. I will be forever grateful to Denver because many of his writings were instrumental in allowing my eyes to begin to be opened. However i do not beleive that Denver is the end time servant that many people believe he is. Denver has not to my knowledge ever taught the true points to the doctorine of Christ. He has simply taught the doctrine of Christ. Which is faith, repentance, baptism, the holy Ghost and enduring to the end. This is the same as what the church has taught and the way that the church and Denver present this will always end in a partial offering to the Lord and a partial offering is not acceptable and never will be, much like how a partial atonement or a partial resurrection would not meet the ends of the law. According to the Book of Mormon the end time servant will be the one who spells out the true points to Christ’s doctrine and that these true points have everything to do with revealing who the true remnant of Lehi’s seed are today and where they are located along with the revealing of this end time servant. This is partly what is meant by the priesthood being revealed by the hand of Elijah. It will be revealed simply because it has remained through “the lineage of your fathers, for ye are lawful heirs, according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God”. D&C 86. The priesthood has remained and will remain through certain lineages to bring about the restoration of all things spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began. From my observations of the Denver movement people have substituted Denver as their new Tom Monson. People have not rested their scriptures like the mormon church has done but they have take their scriptures and are forcing them to fit into the paradigm that they have recieved from Denver even when it directly contradicts the scriptures. My advice to people who have placed their trust in Denver is to simply knock it off and wake up. Denver is a good man but quit putting your trust in another man. Take whatever light and knowledge you can from any of his writings and get back into the scriptures. The only way that a person is going to get through the things that are coming is to have a very good understanding of the scriptures, not having placed their trust in the arm of flesh.

    Reply
    1. MC

      Thanks Dan.

      I totally agree that Denver cannot be the one mighty and strong. As far as I can tell that man has not yet arrived on the scene. That is who I am waiting for.

      You nailed it with people having traded one idol in Thomas Monson for another in Denver. Both teach many wonderful things about coming to Christ and living a Christlike life. Neither exhibit the fruits of a true prophet.

      At least Thomas Monson doesn’t put forth false revelations. I give him a ton of credit for that. It would be so easy for him to do that, since the church membership is desperate for true revelation from him and the other apostles.

      I’m not so sure I agree with you that Denver is a good man. Perhaps he has good intentions. I’d like to believe he does. At the end of the day in my opinion his fruits point to him being a false prophet, which is not good at all.

      In my opinion Denver teaches essentially the same thing as Evangelical Christians do, with a Mormon spin of course. I would suspect that becoming a born again Christian would have about the same effect in regards to coming unto Christ as joining the remnant movement does.

      Personally I think there are false and deceiving spirits at play with Denver and the remnant movement, just like there is among born again Christians. That doesn’t mean the people aren’t sincere and there aren’t good fruits that go along with with both the remnant and born agains. Joseph Smith taught that all the various false sects have their various spirits. I’m sure it’s all very powerful.

      At the end of the day everyone has to decide for themselves what they want to believe and in whom they put their trust.

      Reply
  8. Bro. B

    AB,

    A few scriptures to add credence to your thoughts that our “work” is coming unto Christ.

    Alma 24:7-17 (emphasis on verse 11 & 15):
    7 Now, these are the words which he said unto the people concerning the matter: I thank my God, my beloved people, that our great God has in goodness sent these our brethren, the Nephites, unto us to preach unto us, and to convince us of the traditions of our wicked fathers.
    8 And behold, I thank my great God that he has given us a portion of his Spirit to soften our hearts, that we have opened a correspondence with these brethren, the Nephites.
    9 And behold, I also thank my God, that by opening this correspondence we have been convinced of our sins, and of the many murders which we have committed.
    10 And I also thank my God, yea, my great God, that he hath granted unto us that we might repent of these things, and also that he hath forgiven us of those our many sins and murders which we have committed, and taken away the guilt from our hearts, through the merits of his Son.
    11 And now behold, my brethren, since it has been all that we could do (as we were the most lost of all mankind) to repent of all our sins and the many murders which we have committed, and to get God to take them away from our hearts, for it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God that he would take away our stain–
    12 Now, my best beloved brethren, since God hath taken away our stains, and our swords have become bright, then let us stain our swords no more with the blood of our brethren.
    13 Behold, I say unto you, Nay, let us retain our swords that they be not stained with the blood of our brethren; for perhaps, if we should stain our swords again they can no more be washed bright through the blood of the Son of our great God, which shall be shed for the atonement of our sins.
    14 And the great God has had mercy on us, and made these things known unto us that we might not perish; yea, and he has made these things known unto us beforehand, because he loveth our souls as well as he loveth our children; therefore, in his mercy he doth visit us by his angels, that the plan of salvation might be made known unto us as well as unto future generations.
    15 Oh, how merciful is our God! And now behold, since it has been as much as we could do to get our stains taken away from us, and our swords are made bright, let us hide them away that they may be kept bright, as a testimony to our God at the last day, or at the day that we shall be brought to stand before him to be judged, that we have not stained our swords in the blood of our brethren since he imparted his word unto us and has made us clean thereby.
    16 And now, my brethren, if our brethren seek to destroy us, behold, we will hide away our swords, yea, even we will bury them deep in the earth, that they may be kept bright, as a testimony that we have never used them, at the last day; and if our brethren destroy us, behold, we shall go to our God and shall be saved.
    17 And now it came to pass that when the king had made an end of these sayings, and all the people were assembled together, they took their swords, and all the weapons which were used for the shedding of man’s blood, and they did bury them up deep in the earth.

    Reply
  9. Ranae

    I believe it is possible to disagree with someone and still be grateful for their perspective.

    Several people have asked for specific, rather than general, concerns with the teachings of Denver Snuffer. Here is the beginning of a series looking at Denver’s Testimony of John. https://onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com/2017/03/04/the-record-of-john-the-baptist-deconstructing-the-denver-snuffer-revelation-on-st-john/

    I don’t post this to be controversial, but simply to respond to those commenters who have asked. I also appreciate the way the post begins:
    “I owe a debt of gratitude to Denver Snuffer.
    My understanding and clarity of many tenets of the gospel have been made greater because of him and his ministry.
    Before he emerged as a popular author with his “how to ” book on receiving the “second comforter” I had been negligent in deeply searching the meaning of the term and associated doctrines.
    Because of Denver, I felt compelled to do extensive research into the topic to see if his claims and the doctrine he teaches is true.
    After researching this doctrine as a result of his claims, I feel that I now have a much deeper and richer understanding and appreciation for the true doctrine that is taught in the scriptures and clarified by Joseph Smith.”

    I hope the perspective from this blogger will provide additional light to help anyone who seeks to discern truth.

    Reply
  10. MC

    AB,

    You make an interesting comparison between the book of Moses and Denver’s Testimony of St. John.

    In the case of the book of Moses, when taken side by side with the KJV of Genesis it is very similar. Many of the verses are either identical or nearly identical. For the most part Joseph Smith was adding new information. This information was likely missing from the original. Obviously the Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts that have survived are incomplete and corrupted somewhat. What I see Joseph doing here is filling in some gaps with vital information and make neccesary corrections. I don’t see the Book of Moses as a completely new revelation, though revelation was no doubt occuring.

    I see something very different going on with Denver’s Testimony of St. John. The departure from both the KJV and JST is substantial.

    I also find it interesting that were the book of Moses adds a ton of new information, without substantially changing the KJV, Denver has actually taken away an entire story from the JST and KJV. The account of the women taken in adultery who was brought before the savior has been removed. I have no idea why. This is not something Joseph ever did in the JST. At least not to my knowledge.

    It’s also worth noting that the Book of Moses, Book of Abraham, BOM, and D&C all use the type of language and grammatical structuring that is used in the KJV. This was not the language being spoken in the 1830s and yet it is how those modern scriptures are structured. Why is Denver’s so drastically different? His language is strange. It’s not how we speak today nor is it like the other scriptures. To be honest it’s weird.

    Another question that has to be asked is why Denver even felt the need to do another translation of John. He claims he was told to do it, but do we have a record of the revelation that Denver received commanding him to make this new translation? In Joseph’s case we have the words that the Lord revealed to him commanding him to do a translation or revision of the Bible. Can Denver produce anything similar?

    What medium did Denver use to receive this new translation or revelation? Does he have possession of the Urim and Thumim or another seer stone? Seer stones have always been the means the Lord has used to reveal new translations of previously unavailable or incomprehensible scripture.

    What new truths are contained in Denver’s new Testimony of John? All I see or some of Denver’s doctrines (like the need to find and receive true messengers) inserted in or even replacing previous information.

    As far as this “revelation” or any of the other writings and teachings of Denver being “filled with light and truth”, being “delicious”, or being confirmed true by the “spirit”, I think we have to be very careful.

    I have done just as you suggested. A while back I seriously investigated Denver and his teachings. I studied his words like a crazy person with a sincere determination to know if they were true. I have read and listened to his 10 lectures, read a ton of is blog, read one of his books, and several of his other writings. I did so with an open heart and an open mind, and with humility before God, trusting in Him to reveal the truth to me. I approached the Lord in fervent prayer over the matter many times.

    What I discovered in my search were many holes, contradictions, and outright falsehoods in Denver’s teachings and claims. I believe that the Lord allowed me to see these things so that I would not be deceived by Denver. I should also mention that I felt the absense of the Holy Ghost in Denver’s teachings. I did feel “A SPIRIT” in his writings, but not THE SPIRIT. The spirit I feel when I read the scriptures is very different than the one I feel when I read Denver’s stuff.

    Anyway, this is why I think it’s best to carefully examine Denver’s teachings and now revelation, and not trust in our feelings. Things have to add up logically for Denver to be true prophet. Inspite of the many attempts to discredit Joseph Smith, I have found that the BOM, D&C, and the POGP square with the Bible and are confirmed by both the Holy Ghost and logic.

    I can’t say the same thing for Denver’s writings or this new “revelation.”

    Let me ask you this AB, at this point what would Denver have to do to make you question him as a true messenger? Is there anything he could do or teach at this point to make you rethink what you feel when you read and apply his teachings?

    You don’t have to answer that. Just think about it. What would it take for you to question Denver being a true messenger?

    Reply
    1. Bishop Anon Post author

      MC: I was finally able to read your thoughts. Without responding to each point, let me just make a few general comments.

      I don’t see any example above that you’ve provided where JS or DS are contradicting each other. I read your examples and think how nice it is to see the added meaning. If DS is a fraud, it’s not to be determined by this, in my view. Furthermore, as I have mentioned, DS is not stating that this is a translation, but rather a revelation.

      A critic of JS could make the same arguments against him that you make against DS. JS in The Book of Moses takes tremendous license with whole chapters being added to the narrative. Enoch is not even included in Genesis with any detail. The Book of Moses tells his entire story. Moses’ encounter with Satan. No burning bush. And JS changes the language of Genesis, albeit slightly at times, to provide a much fuller context of meaning. JS’s critics will say he changed its meaning by having the audacity to change the words at all.

      It could also be said that JS uses the same language of KJV of Genesis at times, including colons, semi colons, commas, and periods. Does this suggest that God so inspired King James as to help him place each point of punctuation perfectly? If KJ was so inspired, then why mess with his translation at all? Or is it more likely that JS simply kept portions of KJ, including the punctuation, because he was either not inspired to change it or changing it would not make a significant difference or it was simply something he missed.

      JS does the same with Isaiah from the KJV in Nephi. Are we to assume that Nephi’s account was word for word, and comma for comma the same as is found in the KJV? Or did JS simply use it because it would suffice?

      By the way, I love the account of Jesus’ hair being shorn. It’s very much like the Narnia account of Asland. It pains me to visualize that idea with our Lord just as it does to think that He may have been gang raped and/or hung on the cross naked as part of the mockeries not totally mentioned in scripture. But to say Judas would not have recognized Him simply because He was shaven does not resonate for me. I’m guessing there were plenty of other features that would have distinguished Him for Judas to recognize Him. In fact, what if Judas went to Him with a kiss to point Him out to those who may not have readily recognized Jesus by night, with His hair cut?

      The story of the woman caught in adultery is also a favorite story or mine. But it is interesting that NO other Gospel mentions this account. Perhaps it was added many hundreds of years later? Christ makes no mention of this story in the D&C or in the PoGP or in the BOM. This fact actually solidifies the new version of John for me. Add to that the boldness of adding some word for a thorny plant that as far as I know is A) NOT found in scripture and B) represents a green leafy and thorny plant that the Romans look to have used in the Olympics. Say what you will, but at a minimum, Snuffer, like Smith, is bold.

      If your concerns are also that Thee and Thou is not used enough or at all then one could argue that the Bible, the BoM, D&C, etc should never contain the word You or Your in it. A cursory word search shows there are thousands of Yous and Yours in those books of scripture. Why use both forms of the same word? I don’t know the answer, but the fact that the BoM uses You or Thee OR has had errors in grammar does not change for me that it is scripture that has profoundly affected me.

      Look, I’m no Hugh Nibley, nor am I some Dude Who Is Watching, but like you I wish I could spend a lot more time studying the Gospel and analyzing these works. I appreciate your time and thoughts. For me, I have read nearly every word written by DS. I too have prayed and have gone through much darkness in this journey. But I have also experienced more light, more virtue, and more knowledge in these past 8 years than in any time in my life. Those who are kind will say I was a good bishop. If I was a good bishop, it was because I applied the truths I received while studying DS and because he inspired me to come unto the Lord and to repent of not taking the BOM seriously. I don’t worship him and I don’t place him above anyone. But I do believe him.

      As I said in my last post, I think it’s especially hard for us LDS (ironically) to recognize truth from error. And to recognize a servant coming from outside the ranks of the Church is even harder. What would he or she look like? Sound like? Where would they come from? How would we KNOW they are true or false prophets? My gosh, hardly anyone recognized Joseph or any true prophet in history. Or even the Savior of the World. Will we do better?

      The fact that there is someone making such claims, who has written a mountain of material, which as I tried to explain to Robin Hood, I took the time to read, who for me with each book brought new light. More importantly, each day seemed to bring a greater desire to come unto the Lord and to repent. Now he has claimed to receive a revelation which btw DOES bring a new record of John the Baptist. As I see it, it would appear that John the Beloved HAD or KEPT the record of John the Baptist. This new revelation clearly begins with the Baptist’s record. And what better way to offer it to the world than together with the Beloved’s? The first and the last. Both with the same name. Both with a special relationship with their Friend Jesus. Both coming to restore Priesthood to Joseph Smith.

      Sorry to make this response so long. I’d say to you MC, don’t give up yet on Snuffer. Great darkness always comes before great light. He is not important, but I believe his words are. His invitation to come unto Christ certainly is. Our ability to discern whether he is from God or not, is perhaps most important of all. Choose right and we are blessed to move forward. Wrong, and we are set back.

      I love your skepticism. I think it can be healthy. But in my view, what you’ve highlighted can also be used against Joseph. For me, what prophets do is always romantic when time has passed. When their works have been codified. When apologist scholars have added credibility with their theses and supporting works. But in the moment, it’s not so pretty. The weakness is more easily focused upon, to the point where we go into something with our minds made up. I think it becomes hard if not impossible for us in such a state to be soft hearted enough to allow the message to change our hearts – to speak to us. Thanks again for joining the conversation. I think I would enjoy meeting you. I hope God blesses us both in our journeys.

      If you should want to talk offline, you can email me directly at info@anonymousbishop.com

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *