I am an under-educated country boy with severe learning disabilities. I want to thank the attorney and the scientist that tried to give me a lesson on grammar, spelling and punctuation as well as giving me feedback on the first portion of the article.
I apologize to them and to the readers of this paper, for not integrating all of the suggestions and corrections provided, I just got worn out trying to clean things up.
I just don’t see why periods and commas and intelligible sentences are all that important. I have always felt sorry for anyone that only knows one way to spell a word.
Anyway, for those that are interested in reading the rebuttal, click here onA Controversy in Zion- Part One and Two and Three and Four Final 10 or the rebuttal paper for the book , Passing the Heavenly Gift.
If time and motivation permit, I will try to clean things up a little more later as the series progresses.
I hope to post the updated paper with the next five rebuttal points within a week or two
Watcher
Because I am Watching 
Hi Watcher,
I’ve just started reading the paper and noted that although the link to Elijah Reconsidered does appear to be broken from the comment on LDS Anarchist, it is still available on Denver Snuffer’s blog. Here’s the link:
Thank you KH for bringing that to our attention. Even the scribed posting was down when I tried it but apparently it is working now, unless this is a different scribed posting that the one shown in the article.
Watcher
I’m fairly certain that the link I provided above is indeed the article the commenter on Anarchist’s site had linked titled “The Mission of Elijah Reconsidered”. I’m not sure why that link isn’t working, perhaps it was moved from one location to another after the Anarchist commenter posted his link? As to the second link, “History of Elijah Doctrine”, I don’t know, I’m unfamiliar with that article.
Just finished the paper detailing the first five rebuttal points. Very compelling stuff. Thank you for sharing your perspective. This is an extremely valuable conversation. Looking forward to reading more as it comes. I’ve spent quite some time reading many of your other posts and am amazed at how much things are starting to make sense…though some of it is a bit mind-blowing.
Thanks again!
Thank you KH
and Praise God!
3 Nephi 16: 10
10 And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall sin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and murders, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.
I have to imagine that you believe this prophecy and commandment of the Father was fulfilled early in LDS church history.
I would ask you to consider the wording…..BRING the fulness of my gospel from among them.
And that this event was to be at a time when these Gentiles are lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations and people of the whole earth. That could hardly describe Kirkland, Ohio saints. Would be more apt for today’s Mormons. But I have noted you intend for a re-restoration now in the forth generation. But why bring back Joseph and Sidney, I still wonder.
Plus I hardly think that the early saints had time enough to be filled with all manner of lyings, deceits, mischiefs, hypocrisy, murders and priestcrafts and whordoms and secret abomination…eh?
“I have to imagine that you believe this prophecy and commandment of the Father was fulfilled early in LDS church history.”
I most certainly do
“I would ask you to consider the wording…..BRING the fulness of my gospel from among them.”
Yes I have considered it and I have demonstrated for you within the pdf what the fulness of the gospel is, when it was delivered to the saints, how it was delivered to the saints, and when they rejected it, or, in other words, when it was taken from them.
“And that this event was to be at a time when these Gentiles are lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations and people of the whole earth. That could hardly describe Kirkland, Ohio saints.”
Are you serious?
Have you familiarized yourself with the true history of the Kirtland Saints?
Are you familiar with the Kirtland apostasy that resulted in the Lord making the following pronouncement of doom:
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, darkness covereth the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the people, and all flesh has become corrupt before my face.
24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.
25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;
26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.”
Are you aware that at the very time when the Lord had promised that all of the pure in heart would see God in the temple in 1836, that virtually nobody saw God?
Are you aware that Joseph had told the Twelve Apostles in preparation for the dedication of the temple that their minds were so dark that the angel Gabriel would not be able to teach them anything?
Are you aware that within months of that sobering event at the dedication of the temple, a fight broke out within the Temple, defiling it?
Are you aware that two factions of the priesthood brethren threatened to kill each other inside the Holy Temple of God?
“Would be more apt for today’s Mormons”
That might be true if todays Mormons had been given the fulness of the priesthood/Gospel and then rejected it, but that is not the case, hence your statement is really just not true.
You have never actually had or personally experienced the fulness of the Gospel James.
“But I have noted you intend for a re-restoration now in the forth generation.”
If you will visit threewatches.blogspot.com you will find over 50 evidences from the Holy Word of God and from the words of Joseph Smith verifying that the first laborers of the last kingdom would have a second commission in the third “watch” or “dispensation”.
They are definitely going to return if they are not here already
Praise God.
There is definitely going to be a last restoration. In fact, if you will re-read the apostasy scriptures that our missionaries use to validate the New Testament apostasy, in their proper context, most of them are really speaking of the apostasy that took place with the restored, Gentile, “Church of Christ”, beginning in Kirtland, not the New Testament Church.
“Plus I hardly think that the early saints had time enough to be filled with all manner of lyings, deceits, mischiefs, hypocrisy, murders and priestcrafts and whordoms and secret abomination…eh?”
The fruits of the saints in Kirtland caused some to leave the church in Kirtland. They caused many of those that remained in the church to create a secret combination that did commit atrocities against the unbelieving Gentiles during the Far West era, and the secret abominations that they committed during the Nauvoo era, and the murders they committed during the Utah era.
It all started with and grew out of the rejection of the fulness in Kirtland.
Now, let’s finish the three part prophesy that you began your comment with James-
And then will I remember my covenant which I have made unto my people, O house of Israel, and I will bring my gospel unto them.
12 And I will show unto thee, O house of Israel, that the Gentiles shall not have power over you; but I will remember my covenant unto you, O house of Israel, and ye shall come unto the knowledge of the fulness of my gospel.
What happened directly after the Gentiles defiled the temple of God and eventually had to flee Kirtland?
Joseph whispered into Heber C Kimbals ear and told him that God had told him that “something new must be done for the salvation of the church.”
Apparently an intercessory plan was needed.
He then sent Heber and eventually others of Twelve to establish foreign missions.
Why?
To fulfill the words of Christ’s prophecy.
To take the “knowledge of the fulness of my gospel” to the “House of Israel!”
Notice, that according to the prophecy, the House of Israel would not get the “fulness” but rather they only would get the “knowledge of the fulness”.
The converts of the church from overseas that Joseph Smith referred to as the “dispersed of Judah” and the “outcasts of Israel” that began flowing into Nauvoo and later to Utah, were not getting the fulness of the gospel that had been rejected by the gentile church of Christ, they were only getting the “knowledge of the fulness”
They were getting the Book of Mormon and the D&C that contained an explanation of what the fulness is.
For the last four generations Mormons have only had access to the “knowledge of the fulness” not the actual fulness.
You, James, have never had the fulness of the Gospel, but you have the privilege of reading about it in the Book of Mormon and in the Doctrine and Covenants.
You have the privilege of preparing your heart and your mind to receive it when the Marvelous Work begins and the Dispensation of the Fulness of times is finally successfully ushered in.
Now for the third part of the prophecy-
“But if the Gentiles will repent and return unto me, saith the Father, behold they shall be numbered among my people, O house of Israel.”
Thank goodness the Gentiles are going to have the opportunity to repent.
In the third watch, there will be a few of the believing gentiles that will repent. Some are returning from the dead, and others of us are living now. We will have a very short window of opportunity to avoid the wrath of God by repenting and learning from the mistakes of past generations.
Praise God
I have yet to read enough of your blogs to understand exactly what you have in mind about the fulness of the gospel/priesthood. It is most refreshing to have someone who cares about these things. I like that. If you could clarify simply for me how it is not more or less than coming unto Christ and receive the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost. And more what you accept for that promise of the Father in the earnest of gospel experience. Thanks
I would like to return the compliment James.
It is most refreshing to have someone who cares about these things. Thank you for caring enough to read and get engaged.
One of the things that makes the gospel appear so complicated is the fact that God has put blindness over Israel and it does not fully come off of us until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in for the last time. (Rom 11:25)
I am of the opinion that, that is going to happen pretty soon and that many people are beginning to have a spiritual and doctrinal awakening that is currently preparing their hearts and minds for what is about to take place.
Once the light shines forth and the final restoration ushers in the dispensation of the fulness of times, the blindness will be taken off of the minds of God’s elect.
At that time, the weak and simple” servants from the second watch will come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, and proclaim the fulness of the Gospel. At that time the everlasting covenant which has been broken, will once again be re-established and faith will increase in the earth”. (D&C 1:17-23)
At that time, the gospel, and the act of “coming unto Christ” will actually be a simple process for those who recieve the election of grace, which, in this stage of action, begins with faith and the other “first ordinances” and is eventually followed up by the “residue” of the higher ordiances. (see section 53 for a very simple listing of first ordiances and for the referring to a “residue” of ordiances)
Technically we all still struggle from blindness right now, but, in my opinion, while in my state of blindness, I believe the higher ordiances, have to do with recieving the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost and in having the heavens opened and proving our faithfulness until the Father ratifies the covenant that the recipient made through baptism. At baptism the recipient makes their covenant. Upon faithfulness, the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost takes place and the Father makes his oath and covenant promising the recipient eternal life.
In a sense coming unto Christ is a simple process with regard to “steps”
Being able to consecrate everything to Christ (which is what someone does when they they lay down their life and are raised in Christ through the baptismal covenant) and accept the persecution and enduring to the end, can only be done if a person has become a new creature through the spiritual rebirth.
Again, some of these concepts may be difficult to internalize if one has not experienced it.
We have the KNOWLEDGE of the fulness, as contained in the scriptures, but we are not experiencing the fulness yet. It is all theory right now.
Because the true, full, gifts of the spirit and the true “endowment” and associated ratifications revealed at the Morley Farm and documented in the D&C left the church way back in the Kirtland era, and the saints had blindness put over their minds, the church became infiltrated with a counterfiet Masonic endowment that actually has its roots in the original covenant between Satan and Cain. Salvation cannot be gained by swearing by ones neck and swaping secret handshakes and all of that foolishness.
We have been commanded to never swear by our necks in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Yet we do that and refer to it as an “endowment”.
Okay, rather than step on your toes at the moment I will set aside your comments about the temple endowment. I fully admit it has nothing to do with our salvation, which is in Christ Jesus and our personally coming unto him in faith at all hazards allowing no hypocrisy but with a full purpose of heart we must take his name upon us, fully putting all things upon the alter, to be subject to the kingdom of God by way of his Christ and the entering into Zion. As I also admit the Church rejected what I call the real gospel and never gained the skill or experience to see to it rightly. Which I believe Joseph Smith lamented much even to want out of this life according to his prayers. I have reason to know that the gospel has been available since the time of Joseph unto all those who bring forth the fruits thereof. So I am having some problem with the door being shut awaiting a new restoration before anyone CAN come in. If that is what you are saying.
I completely understand and respect where you are coming from James. It used to be part of my religious world view as well.
I appreciate the fact that you are not afraid to evaluate a different perspective.
Watcher
I enjoyed your rebuttal. Many enlightening scriptural references to consider.
Some things that I would like to submit for your and anyone else’s consideration regarding your 5 rebuttal points.
#1-) I believe that Joseph Smith possessed the fulness of the Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. That is one Priesthood. There are different appendages to it. We can give those appendages names but it is all just one Priesthood. That’s what matters. As far as the Abrahamic/Patriarchal Priesthood goes you have not shown (at least in this article) a correct knowledge of what it nor how it is conferred. You have stated that it is conferred by the administration of Angles, yet where is your foundation for that? Section 110 talks about a “dispensation of the Gospel of Abraham” but it does not specify this is where Joseph gained the Priesthood of Abraham or the Patriarchal Priesthood.
You have pointed out in a different rebuttal that in PTHG, Denver acknowledges the presence of the Patriarchal Priesthood yet you didn’t want to acknowledge that in your first rebuttal? I ask, could it be that in an effort to help drive home an overall point about Priesthood’s function in our lives, Denver was only treating the matter in a form that can fit with the constructs of our current church doctrinal system so as not to unnecessarily aggravate The Church by pontificating upon a proposition of which they have chosen to remain silent, (or at least reserved as to it’s definition?)
I agree with your point that there are 3 Priesthoods. Denver has shown an acknowledgment of the Patriarchal Priesthood. Yet I give him the benefit of the doubt as merely stifling his personal opinion on this controversial matter (at least as far as the Church is concerned) for the sake of the individual. I applaud your effort to effectively show that there are 3 levels/appendages of the overall Fullness of the Priesthood. But you have done this anonymously, where as Denver wrote this book openly.
So should I fault your point because it was not worded correctly (three priesthoods when there is actually just one?) Of course not. Surely we can not fault PTHG for not taking on every single doctrinal problem that might exist within The Church in one book? Such a course would not only be impractical but I believe that anyone- short of someone who is in the administrative position to do so, would be mislead. That is not to say that we shouldn’t try to rectify wrongs, but to take on every error in a single undertaking would be less than ineffective.
Therefore your great point is noted but I do think that it should be added that any who believe your rebuttal is some sort of strong refutation of the books premise, is mislead.
#2-) I believe Rebuttal #2 falls under the same requirement for the addendum that I stated in the last paragraph of my last point. The point PTHG is trying to make in this chapter is not a doctrinal position as to the source of the Melchizedek Priesthood, but rather a similar demonstration that you made in your PDF that the Fullness of the Priesthood was rejected. In dealing with this large and very important issue I can not fault a books author for following along the line of current Church Doctrine as to the Priesthood’s origin in order to make a final point as to its current position.
Additionally in the Elijah talk (the same one in rebuttal #3 you said you had read, and therefore should have included this into your rebuttal) that Denver gave as an addendum of sorts to PTHG, he demonstrated the same understanding of the source of The Fullness of the Priesthood after the Order of Melchizedek as you did. This talk was given in late 2011. So it’s not like he was recently influenced by your PDF and retroactively changed his position. I believe your article should be updated and this Rebuttal point should include that fact. So as not to intimate to any that Denver was lacking in this important doctrinal knowledge but obviously for convenience of maintaining a un-intimidating volume that addressed the issues that he sought to address in it. (Primary among them: that as a Church we had transgressed against the covenants given to us, and in consequence of that had been rejected by God in a similar manner that ancient Israel did at the Mount where Moses received the law.)
#3-) In my humble opinion I find that you are quibbling here. There is an acknowledging that there are 3 levels/appendages to the Fullness of the Priesthood. Yet you have chosen to read into his statement a declaration of the Author’s intention, which I don’t believe fits what you are trying to characterize them as.
First you pull a quote from pg 58 of PTHG. In it he notes that there is a third order of the Priesthood referred to as Patriarchal Priesthood. Due to the lack of its presence, clarity and understanding of this order/level/appendage many within the church have wide ranging views about it. Some hold based upon the Endowment and Sealing ceremony given in the temple that the Patriarchal priesthood must portend to things referenced there and therefore must be higher than the Melchizedek. This is only further emphasized by Bruce R. McKonkie’s unintelligble declaration of it posited in his “Mormon Doctrine” postulating that it has to do with the order found in Heaven.
Then you have Boyd K. Packer’s statement that leads many to believe that it really isn’t a priesthood at all, but rather just a understanding of family within the constructs of the Melchizedek Priesthood.
Therefore when PTHG dictates that a “Third Order of Priesthood referred to as Patriarchal Priesthood” exists. I understand that to mean that it is only be referenced as a separate (third) order that the Church or its members largely don’t recognize in order to show his knowledge of its presence without having to increase its volume size with a speculative diction of its place in the Gospel. He leaves it open to the reader to search for an understanding of it because it is not a doctrine that has been clarified by the Church. However revealing about his intentions is that on that page he references the same talk, further demonstrating that he acknowledges its existence but will not be dealing with it directly in that work.
In the second quote that you pull from his Elijah talk, he demonstrates once again his knowledge of the Patriarchal. However here he groups the 3 orders into 2 groups. The ones we don’t have verses the ones we have. Additionally he is once again only using the doctrinal constructs used by the Church. I notice that he doesn’t dictate which one is the one we don’t have. He only uses the premise that in the Church we teach and perpetuate through ordinance the Levitical and the Melchizedek; but we do not demonstrate a capacity or knowledge through ordinance for the Patriarchal.
To say then that he is making some sort of doctrinal exposition on the value or standing of the Patriarchal priesthood, I believe is premature and indemonstrable without further clarification from him. That being your point I believe it is, at this current time, a unwarranted rebuttal.
#4- Once again the fault of PTHG is one of just going along with the current understanding of origin in order to make an larger point of personal standing before God for the reader.
It seems that you are consistently throwing the baby out with the bath water for trying to reduce the size of the volume. Your point is a controversial, if not a well argued one. PTHG makes some bold declarations about our current standing before the Lord. Its work is definitely cut out for it in the content it already contains. I see that bringing up speculative albeit important propositions would only further complicate its goal.
Not that your point shouldn’t be made. However in demonstrating it as you have, I find that you are attempting to nullify PTHG effect in the minds of its readers. Even using the word “Rebuttal” indicates that you don’t agree with its overarching premise.
Whether it is true or not it seems that you feel threatened by Denver. This is magnified by the fact that in your debate on the Anarchists original post with “Log” that started this whole “Rebuttal” process, you intimated that you haven’t read any of Denver’s books despite being very aware of them through the urgings by a number of people who have urged you to do so. Why is that? Are you afraid? I do not ask that mockingly. I ask that in a tone that suggests that such is the only conclusion that I can come too. Especially when I consider that you are rebutting a books stance when you are really not rebutting but only helping to clarify the positions as you see them. Yet you insist on stating that you are REBUTTING these points as if the books conclusionary premise is wrong. Clarifying would be a more accurate portrayal being that the author has effectively shown to you in the two works of his that you have read that he has a consistent understanding of the principles that you are rebutting. Yet you don’t seem to want to acknowledge that. Why? Why not be charitable to the books overarching premises? That is not to say that there are no elements that need clarification. However the context in which you have written this whole diatribe, has intimated a rock hard blindness to something that could easily be seen and demonstrated with a little charity.
That’s not to say that you don’t have charity in what you do. You obviously spend a lot of time researching and submitting for public consumption your understanding of the Gospel. I appreciate that. I just ask for a little more consideration in your acknowledgement of what it is that PTHG is trying to do and how this work of yours goes along with it.
I realize that you don’t believe Denver has seen the Savior as He has said happened. That is going to have to be a rebuttal due to his testimony in PTHG. That is for you to decide and contend with when you get there in this expose. I am interested to hear that rebuttal. As for these, “rebuttals” I am disappointed to find you label them such.
#5- I do not see that the point in PTHG’s is that the Priesthood is not necessary, but rather whether there is a mortal officiator with authority from God.
The point is that there wasn’t an authorized mortal officiator of the ordinances for Joseph. Yet Heaven found a way to redeem him. Nobody need despair if they believe that all of the officiators of the Church are wicked and gone out of the way. If we are faithful, Heaven will find a way to redeem us. The Lectures on Faith teach the attributes of God. Jacob tells us that the Lord counsels in Wisdom, Justice and GREAT MERCY.
As far as his reference in section 20 goes, the point is where baptism is referenced as necessary for the individual, it does not state in the “Commandment to the Church concerning the manner of Baptism” that one with authority must be present.
Now you have made a strong case by presenting evidence later on in section 20 and also section 13 and 22 that authority is necessary. However the question needs to be pondered: “WHY DIDN’T THE LORD INCLUDE THAT IN VERSE 37 OF SECTION 20?” This is the commandment for the mode of Baptism to our modern day Church of Christ!
My pondering does not lead me to the conclusion that authority isn’t necessary, but rather it does indicate to me something of the authority of the person who can baptize.
The Levitical priesthood is the order administered by the cursed! If the man who baptizes you only has the Levitical Priesthood, he has no promise in and of that Priesthood to receive a glory any higher than the Telestial.
Therefore I see that PTHG is making a case for all those who find fault with leaders of the church, and say that they should not be officiating, are mislead. Providing you have a testimony of Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God who at a minimum restored the Levitical order of the Priesthod; any with that testimony who might question whether their baptism can be valid in the modern church, need not look any further than verse 37 of section 20. It is your faith and not their righteousness that matters.
Perhaps PTHG went too far in its insistent plea for us to individually repent and to take the revelations that came through Joseph Smith more seriously, by teaching that we need not worry whether the priesthood is in the church but rather we should worry whether it is in us. However I am more comfortable with that plea to repent than I am with a thousand people who teach that all is well in Zion. Or even another who teaches that there is nothing that can be done right now because God is angry at us and therefore we just need to wait and watch for God to send another Prophet.
If I have misunderstood your position, I apologize. If I mischaracterized your intention, I apologize. If I have offended you, I ask your forgiveness. If you have made it through this long, boring comment, God bless you!
Thank you for your diligent example of searching and treasuring up the words of life.
Edwin
I disagree with several things you have said and I will detail what they are.
But first, I want to thank you for responding and for sacrificing a nights sleep to make the response.
I think it is fantastic that you have provided the response that you did because, whether I agree with it or not, you have shown that you read the article and you have provided reasons why you disagree with my conclusions.
I really appreciate and respect that.
It is doctrinal exchanges like this that are helpful for those that desire greater clarification of the issues and greater understanding of the doctrines of the Gospel and the events of history.
“As far as the Abrahamic/Patriarchal Priesthood goes you have not shown (at least in this article) a correct knowledge of what it nor how it is conferred. You have stated that it is conferred by the administration of Angles, yet where is your foundation for that? ”
I have demonstrated that the patriarchal priesthood is defined in the Book of Abraham as the seedline from Abraham that has the mandate and privilege, by right of lineage, according to the promise of God to Abraham, to take the gospel of Jesus Christ to the nations of the world. See Abraham 2: 6-11.
I have also pointed out that Joseph’s discourse on the three degrees of priesthood is consistent with the Book of Abraham in identifying the second priesthood as the priesthood that was named after Abraham.
By process of elimination it is not difficult to identify it as the priesthood that PJ& J were dealing with when they ordained Joseph and Oliver because the Aaronic is clearly defined as the first priesthood conferred by John the Baptist and the third and highest priesthood must be delivered according to the voice of God out of heaven, according to .JST Gen 14:29.
This passage and protocol is consistent with what happened at the Morley Farm and verified historically by the testimony of at least five witnesses that explained how the Melchizedek priesthood was administered at the special conference That leaves, by process of elimination, the Abrahamic, or Patriarchal priesthood as the one that PJ&J were dealing with when they ordained Joseph and Oliver to be the first elders of the church.
I actually did demonstrate that the offices within the patriarchal priesthood are restored to the earth through the administration of angels on page 16 by providing the statement of Joseph Smith in his personal journal. Additionally, you have the testimony of Joseph and Oliver that angels were involved in the administration of the first and second priesthoods.
“Section 110 talks about a “dispensation of the Gospel of Abraham” but it does not specify this is where Joseph gained the Priesthood of Abraham or the Patriarchal Priesthood.”
I agree .
I don’t recall saying that Joseph obtained the patriarchal priesthood during section 110.
In fact I think I have pointed out that the patriarchal priesthood that was governing the church in Nauvoo was the same patriarchal priesthood that was governing the church in Kirtland, before the Melchizedek priesthood had been restored.
On page 7 and In footnote 15 I discuss the fact that “ordination” to the office of elder was done by an angel or angels, but the actual “conferring” of patriarchal priesthood is difficult to document. I speculate that it is very possible that Joseph and Oliver did not need to have the patriarchal priesthood conferred since they held it by right of lineage.
“You have pointed out in a different rebuttal that in PTHG, Denver acknowledges the presence of the Patriarchal Priesthood yet you didn’t want to acknowledge that in your first rebuttal?”
I explained why, based on the two statements Denver had made, one in the book and one in an online article, that Denver believed that the patriarchal priesthood pertained to ancient times and not to the priesthoods that Joseph restored to the earth. Hence, no need to mention it in the previous rebuttal since it did not pertain to the previous rebuttal.
“I applaud your effort to effectively show that there are 3 levels/appendages of the overall Fullness of the Priesthood. But you have done this anonymously, where as Denver wrote this book openly.”
Does the fact that I don’t take personal credit for the things I write discredit the sources I have provided?
You have the testimony of Joseph, Lyman, John and two other testimonies of people that the event took place. I didn’t make these testimonies up. They have been around long before I was born. Why do you try to discredit the evidence I have provided by pointing out that I post articles anonymously?
What is the logic in that?
There is an interesting dynamic at play that differentiates me and Denver.
I boldly take hard stands on doctrinal and historical issues but do it anonymously (for reasons I have expressed many times)
Denver, on the other hand Boldly proclaims who he is but is unwilling to take a bold stand on anything.
Virtually every major controversial scenario that he has presented in his book has had the disclaimer attached to it that he does not know for sure if the scenario is true or that he does not take a public stand on the issue.
I find this a little amusing that I am discredited for writing things that can be easily documented because I don’t take personal credit for accumulating the documentation provided.
The section 110 controversy that he has created , and the rejection of the church with their dead, and the passing of priesthood keys from Joseph Smith to a successor are three very good examples of controversial issues that he promotes but will not take a bold position on.
What is so noble about attaching one’s name to a book if one if not willing to take a bold stand on anything?
“In dealing with this large and very important issue I cannot fault a books author for following along the line of current Church Doctrine as to the Priesthood’s origin in order to make a final point as to its current position.”
We can agree to disagree on that point Edwin.
The only thing that is important to me is the truth.
The fact that a teaching is the “current Church Doctrine” is no excuse to teach it as truth.
One of the major points of the book is that things have gone wrong. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Denver cannot pick and choose which false doctrines being taught in the church he wants to promote and then default to the church as a valid reason for promoting a false teaching.
“#3-) In my humble opinion I find that you are quibbling here. There is an acknowledging that there are 3 levels/appendages to the Fullness of the Priesthood. Yet you have chosen to read into his statement a declaration of the Author’s intention, which I don’t believe fits what you are trying to characterize them as.
First you pull a quote from pg 58 of PTHG. In it he notes that there is a third order of the Priesthood referred to as Patriarchal Priesthood. Due to the lack of its presence, clarity and understanding of this order/level/appendage many within the church have wide ranging views about it.”
I don’t view this as quibbling. It is very significant.
Demonstrating that one understands the three orders of priesthood is critical, not only for doctrinal reasons, but because the author has publicly stated that there are no incorrect teachings in the book.
None of the quotes that you provided from modern authorities are relevant to this discussion because the article is a critique of the errors of the author, not the errors of the general authorities. Denver and I agree on the fact that there are serious problems with how the current church is interpreting priesthood and other issues.
“In the second quote that you pull from his Elijah talk, he demonstrates once again his knowledge of the Patriarchal. However here he groups the 3 orders into 2 groups. The ones we don’t have verses the ones we have.”
Yes but that is the problem. He is claiming that we have (or had) Melchizedek priesthood in the church, at that particular time, when in fact, it was the patriarchal priesthood that we had.
Joseph clarified section 107:1 in his Nauvoo discourse stating that the greatest power that had been experienced in the condemned church was the patriarchal, NOT the Melchizedek priesthood.
This is extremely significant.
The author got it wrong.
“#4- Once again the fault of PTHG is one of just going along with the current understanding of origin in order to make an larger point of personal standing before God for the reader.”
Again, you can’t just go along with the “current understanding” of the condemned church only when it is convenient.
“Not that your point shouldn’t be made. However in demonstrating it as you have, I find that you are attempting to nullify PTHG effect in the minds of its readers. Even using the word “Rebuttal” indicates that you don’t agree with its overarching premise.”
I think you bring up an interesting and at least partially valid point here Edwin. I am using the word rebuttal in reference to the claim that there are no inaccuracies in the book.
That is my intention.
It was not my intention to imply that the entire premise of the book is wrong.
If I implied that anywhere, I apoligize and am willing to make the correction in the paper.
I tried to point that out in my opening remarks that there were some central points that I was challenging, not the entire book:
“The purpose of this white paper is to suggest that PTHG is not without error and to provide what I consider to be formidable challenges to some of the central doctrines espoused by the author…. It is important to note that
I agree with much of the information contained in PTHG
. Many of the concepts and observations are true, in my opinion
Indeed, at times I felt as if I were reading my own blog posts. The author’s research is admirable. He has compiled a veritable treasure of scriptural references and historical documentation. For this reason alone the book is worthy resource material..”
I believe that above statement reflects the fact that I don’t disagree with nor am I trying to discredit the entire premise of the book.
“Whether it is true or not it seems that you feel threatened by Denver. This is magnified by the fact that in your debate on the Anarchists original post with “Log” that started this whole “Rebuttal” process, you intimated that you haven’t read any of Denver’s books despite being very aware of them through the urgings by a number of people who have urged you to do so. Why is that? Are you afraid?”
Does it look like I feel threatened by virtue of the fact that I am providing a rebuttal?
Let me assure you, I am anything but afraid or threatened.
You just gave me a great idea. I think I may just show up at Denver’s office after this series is done and buy him lunch… and chat with him, just to demonstrate that I am not afraid of him and that in fact, I really quite like him. In fact, I love him…. but, I digress, on with my responses.
Furthermore, I am more interested in learning the truth, than in being right. I made that clear from the beginning. Show me where I am wrong and I will make the correction.
I am on a learning curve just like everyone else and I don’t claim that I got my doctrinal knowledge from personal visits with the Savior.
The reason I am doing this is because I love you and I am concerned for you Edwin.
I want to make sure that people like you that seem to have totally embraced everything that the author has stated, will end up making some bad decisions down the road based on some incorrect beliefs. I believe we are currently entering into an incredible time mentioned in prophesy wherein there is a great deception that is going to take place.
All I am doing is providing an alternate view for people like you to consider.
It is none of my business what you finally decide to believe. But I want to present an alternative view for your consideration because I love you and I am concerned for you.
“Clarifying would be a more accurate portrayal being that the author has effectively shown to you in the two works of his that you have read that he has a consistent understanding of the principles that you are rebutting. Yet you don’t seem to want to acknowledge that. Why? Why not be charitable to the books overarching premises?”
Perhaps some of what I am suggestion is more accurately described as “clarifying” you can be the judge of that.
I don’t agree with you that the author has a consistent understanding of the principles I am rebutting. If you disagree after evaluating my rebuttal, then more power to you.
I feel I have tried to be charitable considering the situation and what is at stake here. It is very difficult to always appear charitable when one is contending for the truth and passionate about it. I am trying to be as respectful as possible as I point out where the author and I disagree with each other.
“#5- I do not see that the point in PTHG’s is that the Priesthood is not necessary, but rather whether there is a mortal officiator with authority from God.
The point is that there wasn’t an authorized mortal officiator of the ordinances for Joseph. Yet Heaven found a way to redeem him. Nobody need despair if they believe that all of the officiators of the Church are wicked and gone out of the way.”
If that is really the point the author was making he should have stated it the way you did.
But that is not what he was actually saying in my opinion.
I believe he was suggesting that all we need is faith to administer the ordinances.
I don’t see how you can refute that interpretation of what he said.
“As far as his reference in section 20 goes, the point is where baptism is referenced as necessary for the individual, it does not state in the “Commandment to the Church concerning the manner of Baptism” that one with authority must be present.
Now you have made a strong case by presenting evidence later on in section 20 and also section 13 and 22 that authority is necessary. However the question needs to be pondered: “WHY DIDN’T THE LORD INCLUDE THAT IN VERSE 37 OF SECTION 20?” This is the commandment for the mode of Baptism to our modern day Church of Christ!”
Edwin, I kind of feel like you are being disingenuous here.
By your own acknowledgement, the Lord had already taught the church about the importance of priesthood authority.
The reason that section 20 doesn’t need to include the obvious in verse 37, is because the Lord had already made the point about the importance of authority.
Furthermore, verse 37 was not addressing the issue of authority, it was addressing the issue of what the “manner of baptism” relative to the responsibility of those that are coming forth to be baptized.
It was giving the protocol for the person being baptized, not for the administrator.
It was emphasizing that they are to humble themselves before God by witnessing to the church that they have repented of their sins. (By the way, the church does not do this anymore, yet the author makes the claim that all ordiances are still performed in the same manner as originally commanded. More things for you to consider in upcoming parts of the paper when you can’t sleep at night)
“My pondering does not lead me to the conclusion that authority isn’t necessary, but rather it does indicate to me something of the authority of the person who can baptize.”
I appreciate you clarifying that you agree with me and not with the author on that point.
“The Levitical priesthood is the order administered by the cursed! If the man who baptizes you only has the Levitical Priesthood, he has no promise in and of that Priesthood to receive a glory any higher than the Telestial.”
Actually I think you are mischaractorizing what Joseph said.
He was not saying those that hold the Aaronic priesthood were cursed.
He was saying that if the church only has access to the Aaronic priesthood, they cannot transcend the letter of the law to the spiritual rebirth and are therefore subject to the cursings that come from the law of justice.
This is the plight of the Saints when the fulness of the Gospel is not available to save us through grace and faith and the full saving ordinances, etc. .
“If I have offended you, I ask your forgiveness. If you have made it through this long, boring comment, God bless you!
Thank you for your diligent example of searching and treasuring up the words of life.”
You have certainly not offended me, indeed, I am really appreciative that you have read part one and that you would speak up and defend your beliefs.
We may not agree on everything but we can share our perspectives with each other and thereby provide a platform for others to consider the issues.
Although I don’t agree with much of what you have said, I can see where you are coming from and I rejoice in your agency to believe what you want to believe.
Thank you again for responding
Watcher
Watcher,
I don’t care whether you post this comment, it’s for you. Just to make you aware, your points of rebuttal suffer from some serious issues. Many of the points you are rebutting are not actually points taught by Denver, and you are in fact frequently supporting and agreeing with his teachings when you believe you are rebutting them. There appears to also be quite a penchant for misrepresenting or ignoring many things he says which in fact clarify many of the statements to which you voice objection.
Examining your rebuttals, beginning with #1, “Joseph Smith was Instrumental in Restoring Three Priesthoods not just Two”:
You rebut the following quote from PTHG “Joseph clarified through revelation that there are two orders of priesthood which reckon from the time of Moses. One is called Aaronic, the other Melchizedek”. To better understand the position from which he speaks, I suggest you read here- http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2012/01/fullness-of-priesthood.html, http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2010/08/2-nephi-31-21.html, http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2010/07/1-nephi-14-1-2.html, http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2010/06/alma-1314.html.
As some of these were written before PTHG and some after, it is evident that PTHG was not in fact teaching this assertion, and the comment extracted from the book cannot be meant as it has apparently been taken. Reading the quote in context actually provides an entirely different understanding of this statement, unless one is looking to make it mean something predetermined. You are actually in agreement with his teachings on there being three priesthoods restored through Joseph, though there may be disagreement in details if you were to get into it. But as to rebuttal point one, “Joseph Smith was Instrumental in Restoring Three Priesthoods not just Two”, you actually stand in agreement.
Concerning rebuttal point two, “Peter, James, and John did Not Restore the Melchizedek Priesthood”:
You assert he teaches they did? Really? The lightest viewing of the page you quoted (p.312) reveals that what you’ve pulled from is a block quote originating with Joseph Fielding Smith, being used to discuss an entirely different point. You’ve also apparently missed other content within the book declaring otherwise, including content on one of the very pages you quoted from for point one: “The church’s official explanation is Joseph received Melchizedek Priesthood from Peter, James and John nine years later [after the First Vision]. The church’s narrative cannot reconcile the appearance of the Father and Son to Joseph Smith in 1820 with the necessary precondition of holding higher priesthood explained in D&C 84:19-22.” (p. 30). You are again in agreement with him on your stated rebuttal point.
Concerning rebuttal point three, “The Patriarchal Priesthood is NOT the “third order of the Priesthood””:
This negates rebuttal point one, as it acknowledges the author’s teaching that there are three orders of priesthood taught by Joseph Smith.
That aside, the very footnote you refer to on page 58 within the author’s book states the three Priesthoods in order from first to third, as Melchizedek, Patriarchal, and Aaronic. So he is obviously not ignorant on this point, and reference to it as the “third” order is as easily understood as third in mention, having mentioned two priesthoods prior to that point, rather than third in order and power.
The preface of PTHG states “Some terms are not clarified in this book…Terms are not clarified unless it is necessary to the book.”
He has also stated on his blog “We have named a portion of the priesthood after Melchizedek. (It is not, however, the form which Melchizedek held. That is another topic I am not going to address here now. This area is complete mush in the minds of Latter-day Saint writers and commentaries. I can’t straighten that out on this blog. I might take it up in a book and go through it methodically there.)” – http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2010/06/alma-1314.html. To my knowledge he has yet to undertake this.
It is more likely that he is using vocabulary in the forms the average member is familiar with to get the current topics taught, leaving specific vocabulary alone for the moment when it isn’t necessary to correct. He has done it before, and admits to doing it within this very work. In the end you may or may not still disagree about the Patriarchal Priesthood, but at present there isn’t much of a real argument in rebuttal point three.
Concerning point four, “The First High Priests were ordained in June of 1831 NOT 1832”:
First, an assertion is made misrepresenting his teachings: “The book PTHG perpetuates the modern church’s misunderstanding of the event at the special conference at the Morley Farm as simply ordaining elders to the “office” of “High Priest” within the order of priesthood that had been restored by Peter, James, and John. As documented in the Melchizedek Priesthood Primer, that is not correct.”
It doesn’t perpetuate this, at all. His teachings concerning restoration of Melchizedek Priesthood are found, among other places, within the Elijah talk you also reference: “This is how this priesthood is delivered. It is given by God’s –own voice calling to the man. In my view, Joseph Smith tells us when he got this Melchizedek Priesthood. And in my view (which is not the view taught in church), it did not involve Peter James and John. I think they, like others, delivered keys to Joseph, but Melchizedek Priesthood came to Joseph the same as it came to Melchizedek, and the same as it is delivered to anyone: –by the calling of [God’s] own voice as the verse above states. Joseph said he received it through –the voice of God in the chamber of old Father Whitmer, in Fayete, Seneca county. (D&C 128:21.) I am persuaded that Peter James and John like other angelic ministers came to deliver keys, but not Melchizedek Priesthood because the priesthood of Melchizedek comes only from God’s own voice. Joseph knew this, of course, because he translated the above verses of the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis Chapter 14. Just as was done anciently, –it was delivered unto [Joseph Smith] by the calling of [God’s] own voice, according to his own will. We can ordain people all day long, but the manner the ordination assumes power is through –the calling of God’s own voice. That’s the description given by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the translation of Genesis 14. Joseph mentions that event took place from the voice of God to him in the chamber of old Father Whitmer, as set out in his letter now found in D&C 128: 21. [Footnote 94:] There is an essay written by Andrew F. Ehat on this topic. He writes about the difference between conferral of Melchizedek Priesthood, by God’s voice, and a subsequent visit by Peter, James and John to deliver keys. See, The Joseph Smith 1839 Account of Restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood: A Personal Essay. The –voice of God in the chamber of old Father Whitmer is the source of the priesthood that made Joseph and Oliver apostles, as referred to in Section 18 of the Doctrine and Covenants.”
Feel free to disagree with this assertion he actually makes. But in PTHG he doesn’t say a word about Isaac Morley’s farm in relation to priesthood restoration, for or against, and he suggests that Peter, James and John did not restore the Melchizedek Priesthood. To my knowledge he has yet to write about the first calling of high priests in the church, he may have mentioned it in passing. He will also be lecturing on the very topic of Priesthood come early November, perhaps more clarity of his views could be obtained there.
Second is the assertion “Additionally, PTHG gives an erroneous date for when the first high priests were ordained: “On the third day of June 1832, the first high priests were ordained. Among the number was the Joseph Smith the Prophet.” That date is wrong by one year. It was actually June of 1831.”
Here is the actual rebuttal point. You did not cite where in the book this is said, and without an index it is incredibly hard to look into. To be off by exactly one year sounds more like a mistake or a typo than a false teaching, especially if he advances no other setting or circumstances for the event, or doctrine derived therefrom. In this you likely may be rebutting a typo, an error you express a desire to be forgiven of yourself.
Concerning point five, “Priesthood IS necessary to officiate in the Ordinances of Salvation”:
To imply that he teaches that Priesthood isn’t necessary in the ordinances is false, and a gross misrepresentation. On p. 420, two pages after your pulled quotes, he notes the obligation of ordinances being in the church, and the priesthood authority under which they are to be done. You have dismissed or ignored a great portion of PTHG discussing priesthood, not to mention a lot of work in his blog, such as http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2010/09/3-nephi-11-22.html, http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2010/06/power-or-authority.html, http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2012/07/received-of-his-fullness-part-3.html, http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2010/10/aside-about-alma.html, and http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2010/06/alma-132.html. He has also discussed it in several other books and papers.
You pulled out the quote “It does not matter whether there is an officiator with authority from God on earth or not” from p. 418.
The proper context is provided in the preceding paragraphs of the chapter, as well as within the first quote, in the words “on earth.” This is about one man not requiring anything of another man to be saved, so that a man may still be saved if he were the only righteous man “on earth.” Should a man be unable to find another who can give him what he needs for salvation, the ordinances and teachings etc., then God will provide it Himself from heaven. He did so with Adam, he did so with the baptism of Alma. Were he unwilling to do so for anyone else, he would be a respecter of persons and cease to be God. This is a very different context than you assert he makes, then subsequently rebut, which is essentially that we can just do ordinances and throw the priesthood to the wind.
You then use the quote “it would be good to have an authorized minister to perform the ordinance, but the language of Section 20 is not contingent upon authority. Rather it is the faith of the one receiving baptism which determines the ordinance’s validity.” from p. 418 as your final nail in the coffin, with quite a bit of attitude. Also misrepresented context.
First of all, the “language of Section 20” he is referring to is a block quote from the previous page, consisting of D&C 20:25-34. His introductory sentence to the block quote is “Here is a modern revelation about how we are to be saved.” This brings up the crux of much of his teachings, and the quote you pulled. Our salvation is not based in the mere performance of outward ordinances, but in the truths they teach us which can reconnect us to God. The language of that portion of Section 20 is indeed not contingent on authority as it is faith, not authority, that saves us. Concerning the baptismal ordinance in question, is a baptism “valid” if the officiator has priesthood authority, but the receiver has not faith? I suggest not, and suggest that to be closer to his intended meaning. It better fits the context of the chapter, and his teachings overall. As PTHG notes two pages later on p.420 this was the condition of ancient Israel, having authorized outward priesthood ordinances but lacking faith, which prevented salvation of souls. The priesthood authority by which outward ordinances are performed is not sufficient to save a man. Higher priesthood is required, and that comes from God’s own voice alone.
Statements have been taken from the book and offered out of context, without having read his prior works to establish an understanding of his teachings, thereby misrepresenting said teachings. He has repeatedly and expressly warned against this for the reasons of preventing undue judgments and misunderstandings of his teachings, asserting that context is assuredly important. In your works, I have noted your request and emphasis on the same, making sure things are read in there proper context, and the need to prepare to read some material before reading other. To paraphrase, “The content in this [book] will make much more sense and be more meaningful if you lay the proper foundation first.” Perhaps Mr. Snuffer’s writings deserve the same respect as you ask for yours?
In short, it seems the only points successfully rebutted have been those falsely placed on his shoulders, and a possible typo. Doesn’t misrepresenting a man teaching truth as instead teaching falsehood constitute persecution? Hasn’t the Lord warned against such conduct? Is this effort about light and truth and correcting error, or is it more about proving the dissimilarities between your views and his? Seeking light and truth and correction of errors doesn’t really allow for these kind of oversights, especially those within the content of the very work being rebutted.
I would suggest you better inform yourself of his teachings before attempting to rebut them further. I bet you would ask the same of those rebutting things you teach. You may have valid objections which would be valuable to everyone. Please share those. But this attempted rebuttal has certainly not gotten off to a good start. Perhaps also consider how your words are fanning poisonous flames against a man whose teachings are apparently not so different from yours as you supposed. Some of your fans in the comments seem to be relishing the scandal and contention being waged against a man who has many things to teach which are highly valuable, and are in fact quite in alignment with scripture.
Mike
you said-
“Many of the points you are rebutting are not actually points taught by Denver,”
Actually I usually provide the exact quote and always try to provide the page number for people to verify. I believe the points I am bringing up are exactly what the author is teaching. Your inability to provide a clear example provides further proof.
You said:
” You rebut the following quote from PTHG “Joseph clarified through revelation that there are two orders of priesthood which reckon from the time of Moses. One is called Aaronic, the other Melchizedek”.
Then you gave me four blog posts to clarify what Denver teaches.
First of all, if a book is written so poorly that one needs to read a whole bunch of blog posts, then the book must not be written very clearly. I only offered to read and critique the book, not his blog posts.
Nevertheless, to show good faith, I have read everyone of the first four blog posts that you provided. they appear to pretty much just quotes from or paraphrase parts of PTHG.
Reading them was an exercise in futility, except that I did get further clarification on some of the incorrect teachings in the book.
http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2012/01/fullness-of-priesthood.html ,
In the above article Denver makes the following statement:
“The Patriarchal Priesthood is not defined in scripture…. Joseph made a remark which referred to finishing the Nauvoo Temple, and then going into the Temple and receiving the Patriarchal Priesthood.”
That statement has two errors in it.
First, the Patriarchal priesthood IS defined in scripture. I provided the scriptural definition in my rebuttal and in the comments section to Edwin. (granted, you had commented and brought up the objection before him.)
Secondly, he misinterprets Joseph’s statement about receiving the patriarchal priesthood after the temple is finished. I have explained that in the article.
I only noticed one scripture in the entire post, the rest was conjecture on his part.
http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2010/08/2-nephi-31-21.html ,
In the above post Denver makes no statements that would indicate that I misunderstood any of the rebuttal point issues. He does, however make the following erroneous statement that he made in the book.
“It is not that the ordinances are essential, but that the purpose of the ordinances are essential”
I have already addressed the incorrectness of that statement as well as his tendency to double speak.
http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2010/07/1-nephi-14-1-2.html ,
In that post Denver quotes the passage in Abraham that actually defines what the “gospel of Abraham” is in section 110 but fails to make the connection.
He makes no mention of the ministry associated with Abrahams posterity and the associated definition of the gospel of Abraham. He then tried to connect the Abrahamic priesthood with section 132 which is a false revelation and a false doctrine.
In the comment section Denver makes the following statement
“The priesthood held by Melchizedek was Patriarchal.”
While Melchizedek no doubt held the Patriarchal priesthood of heritage before he rose up to the highest priesthood, he obtained the highest priesthood which was named after him.
Again, Denver shows that he is confused about the three orders of priesthood. He is saying that the highest priesthood is Patriarchal
http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2010/06/alma-1314.html .
Wow, thank you for directing me to this post. This really does provide with much greater clarity Denvers erroneous conclusion about Patriarchal priesthood being a higher priesthood than the Melchizedek priesthood!
“We have named a portion of the priesthood after Melchizedek. (It is not, however, the form which Melchizedek held. That is another topic I am not going to address here now. This area is complete mush in the minds of Latter-day Saint writers and commentaries. I can’t straighten that out on this blog. I might take it up in a book and go through it methodically there.)..
This prototype was so influential in the thinking of all who followed, that the high priesthood was named after Melchizedek. Even though he held Patriarchal Priesthood with its associated sealing power, he was the one after whom Melchizedek Priesthood was named in the form it was later transmitted which lacked sealing authority. (Again, another topic.)..
This prototype was so influential in the thinking of all who followed, that the high priesthood was named after Melchizedek. Even though he held Patriarchal Priesthood with its associated sealing power, he was the one after whom Melchizedek Priesthood was named in the form it was later transmitted which lacked sealing authority. (Again, another topic.)”
Denver clearly believes that the Patriarchal priesthood with its sealing power is greater than the Melchizedek priesthood which gives a person power over all things and eternal life.
You said “Concerning rebuttal point three, “The Patriarchal Priesthood is NOT the “third order of the Priesthood””:
This negates rebuttal point one, as it acknowledges the author’s teaching that there are three orders of priesthood taught by Joseph Smith.”
I have already addressed this in my comments to Edwin, although Denver acknowledges three priesthoods anciently, he teaches that Joseph restored two.
“Feel free to disagree with this assertion he actually makes. But in PTHG he doesn’t say a word about Isaac Morley’s farm in relation to priesthood restoration, for or against”
Yes I agree and that is a huge red flag because it shows he is not familiar with the history behind how the Melchizedek priesthood was restored for the first time under the instrumentality of the prophet Joseph Smith.
“To my knowledge he has yet to write about the first calling of high priests in the church, he may have mentioned it in passing.”
Yes he did briefly mention it in the book but did not give any detail information about it for obvious reasons. He did not have an understanding of what had taken place at the Morley Farm.
If I keep reading the additional blog posts you gave I’ll probably need to add some new rebuttal points to the pdf and I just don’t have time.
thanks for your response.
BTW
The reference for the wrong date of june 1832 in Rebuttal #4 is pg312. I have corrected the pdf. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
Wow. I just realized how late it is….I preemptively apologize for the unintelligible manner in which that comment was written.
Have fun deciphering it.
Some good stuff to consider!
#1- Thank you for sharing the Book of Abraham 2:6-11 reference. I didn’t notice and still I am not sure exactly where you referenced that other than in your note too me. I’m not saying it isn’t there but for whatever reason I didn’t catch that on my first take through your PDF.
#2- “By process of elimination it is not difficult to identify it as the priesthood that PJ& J were dealing with when they ordained Joseph and Oliver…”
How do we know that PJ&J restored Priesthood at all? Could it be that their function was to do as John revealed to Joseph as demonstrated in D&C 7:6-7?
6 Yea, [John] has undertaken a greater work; therefore I will make [John] as flaming fire and a ministering angel; [John] SHALL MINISTER FOR THOSE WHO SHALL BE HEIRS of salvation who dwell on the earth.
7 And I will make [Peter] to minister for [John] and for thy brother James; and unto you three I will give this POWER and the KEYS of THIS MINISTRY until I come.
Joseph tended to disclose all that he could regarding Priesthood. Yet the visitation of PJ&J is left to us as silent other than what we have in Sections 7, 27, and 128 as I am aware. They seemed to minister to Joseph and Oliver as Heaven had decided that they were to be “Heirs of Salvation.” They seem to have ordained Joseph and Oliver as Apostles of the Lord. But as Section 20 indicates an Apostle isn’t its own Priesthood. One needs Priesthood to be an Apostle but not vice versa.
My understanding is that an Apostle is one who sees/has seen Christ’s mortal ministry and His resurrected body (Acts 1:21-22.)
In Burgess’ notebook of the Aug 27, 1843 it is noted that Abraham’s Priesthood was more exalted precisely because he talked and walked with God. He was an APOSTLE! This would seem to confirm your supposition that as PJ&J were ordaining JS and OC to be Apostles, they were thus ordaining them to the Abrahamic or Patriarchal Priesthood.
However Joseph states: “the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the Holy Ghost.” Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages 149-150
Wouldn’t this indicate then that the Patriarchal Priesthood is actually conferred when one is baptized by water AND THE HOLY GHOST? Regardless of the fact that you may have Israelite blood in you (statistically there isn’t one in the world right now who wouldn’t have some portion of it) your ancestors broke the covenant. Either by forgetfulness/neglect or by willfully rebelling against the covenant, they broke the Covenant. Therefore to have the Israelite covenant alive in you, you must be baptized by water and the Holy Ghost? This is when any of us can become the LITERAL seed of Abraham? His promises become our promises (Abraham 2:9-11?) If that is when we receive his promises/covenants then wouldn’t that be when we receive the POWER to be Apostles?
So then why did JS and OC need to be ordained Apostles if they received the Power in May of 1829 to do what Apostles do?
This is one of the reasons why I believe PTHG is so important of a book. Not just to instruct people that we have actually gone far astray into worshiping the idols and traditions of men; but also in its instruction of what the Priesthood ordination that we receive is! It is an invitation! An RSVP, if you will. The Power is present in the Spirit’s reception when we receive it. However in order to bolster our Faith, God has given us (men) a specific invitation to believe in the attributes Joseph taught us about Him in Lectures on Faith, and do the thing that we are empowered to do!
What happened in June 1831 was an ordination. Joseph stated that “The AUTHORITY” of the Melchizedek Priesthood was MANIFESTED and CONFERRED for the first time. To those who had been empowered by the Spirit of God, they got what they were suppose to out of it. They received the invitation by being ordained to the office of High Priest but they also joined the party of witnesses of God [manifested]. The rest only received an invitation to join it by being ordained High Priests[conferred].
Joseph stated in his History of the Church that he received the Melchizedek Priesthood for the first time in the house of old father Whitmer. This claim is emboldened by Section 128 where Joseph states “…The Voice of God in the chamber of old father Whitmer…” was heard.
This is congruent with JST Gen 14 instruction of how the Melchizedek Priesthood is received.
All of this despite the fact that Joseph was ordained June 3, 1831 as a High Priest.
None of this negates your point but I believe it clarifies elements in our understanding of both Melchizedek Priesthood and Patriarchal Priesthood.
#3- If Joseph was already in possession of The Patriarchal Priesthood AND the ministry of Abraham which is given to his literal seed when he became the literal seed of Abraham at the reception of the Holy Ghost; then why was it necessary for Abraham’s ministry or dispensation of his gospel to be conferred upon JS and OC by Elias (Section 110)?
#4- “Why do you try to discredit the evidence I have provided by pointing out that I post articles anonymously?”
It was not my intent to discredit your evidence but to only illustrate the disparity in what PTHG was trying to do and what you are able to do.
Being that you are anonymous, you have a greater liberty to discuss elements that are seen as much more controversial without fear of reciprocity.
However PTHG was a public submitted endeavor to awaken, those who were crying from a nightmare, to their awful need of repentance.
Once again I do not fault that work for failing to address EVERY problem within the Church. That was my point in illustrating the difference between your anonymity and Denver’s public position.
#5- “Denver…Boldly proclaims who he is but is unwilling to take a bold stand on anything.”
Could this be an attempt to impede fools from worshiping him? You have seen first hand the readiness of weak ones who seek to follow him because they feel he possesses answers that they need. He very well may posses those answers. However the point for all of us as illustrated in Ezekiel 14 is for everyone man to be saved based upon his own connection with Heaven. Denver understands this and teaches it solidly throughout his books, blog posts, and articles. Yet despite this he has found, like Joseph did, that the world is stocked with fools who want an easy salvation, and will try to force another to promise it to them.
I guess that to some degree that is going to be inevitable. I am amazed at how many commentators you have that seem to want to flatter you so they can associate themselves with you because they sense that you have some truths. They flatter you much the same way Denver has many who fawn over him like rock and roll groupies believing that if they can just get in your good graces, you will reveal some secret to them that will give them greater access to God’s promise.
I do not lay fault to you or Denver for that weakness demonstrated in some. However so far I have seen that Denver is far more consistent in his message to inform all and any who listen that he can not save them nor do anything more for them than help them gain faith in God by believing that God cares and loves them.
#6- I should eat crow for some of my statements. I do not fault Denver for not taking on every issue within the church. However your stated position in this whole ordeal has been to address issues that you see as incorrect in PTHG. In that I can even admit that Denver did not address every issue: regardless of his willingness to pick and choose errors that he sought to address in his book, I must admit that you have done an admirable work at clarifying some points that he missed in his work.
“Nom, nom, nom…this crow tastes like chicken!”
#7- Thank you for your love and consideration. It is appreciated.
#8- I don’t believe I was being disingenuous. I really think that the question of why the Lord didn’t include that point in verse 37 should be pondered. I believe the answer holds powerful meaning for our understanding of Priesthood and Salvation.
As you said, verse 37 “was addressing the issue of what the “manner of baptism” relative to the responsibility of those that are coming forth to be baptized.” However if finding one with authority isn’t presented as a necessary element for the one looking to be baptized I believe its absence should be questioned.
Of course we have the instruction in other locations of the mode of HOW TO baptize. But what about the time when there are none who are clean to be found on the earth? None who are willing to follow the mode of how to baptize? If one wants to be baptized in this situation, what do they do? Verse 37 answers that question perfectly. Alma the Older’s situation answers that perfectly.
Denver was addressing those who believe they find themselves in this conundrum. Therefore his instruction is applicable to help them follow the Lord. Such people need not impede themselves from being baptized. They may be baptized currently only to be baptized again by one who is dully authorized and empowered by God. We have a lot of examples of that in the Book of Mormon. That doesn’t mean that their first baptism wasn’t a commitment to God that He accepted for the time being. The Book of Mormon shows that it can be just that until the time comes in which one can be found to perform the ordinance in all of its necessary vicissitudes.
#9- “[Joseph] was not saying those that hold the Aaronic priesthood were cursed.
He was saying that if the church only has access to the Aaronic priesthood, they cannot transcend the letter of the law to the spiritual rebirth and are therefore subject to the cursings that come from the law of justice.”
How would you like to show that that is not what Joseph meant? I am not sure that I understand the difference between being cursed and being subject to a curse/cursings.
Edwin
I really want to address some of the things you said in your last comment. Unfortunately I must go out of town right now. I often hold comments until I have my responses prepared but you have some really good stuff that people may want to ponder for a while before I have the time to respond, so I am just going to post what you said now and respond later.
Regarding point number one, you may be right! I am going to have to go back and re-read part one. If I did leave it out, it is a major blunder on my part and I apologize. Furthermore, I thank you for bringing this to my attention so that I can correct the situation before the pdf is updated.
I was so hyperfocused on explaining what happened at the special conference with regard to the Melchizedek priesthood that I was not taking the time to develop what patriarchal priesthood is with proper scriptural documentation. It is very possible that I failed to provide the quote from Abraham. There is considerable more information that needs to be provided to support the doctrine as well.
I really appreciate you bringing that point to my attention and for your other thoughtful responses.
I want to address a few of your points Edwin
#1- Thank you for sharing the Book of Abraham 2:6-11 reference. I didn’t notice and still I am not sure exactly where you referenced that other than in your note to me. I’m not saying it isn’t there but for whatever reason I didn’t catch that on my first take through your PDF.”
Edwin- I have reviewed part one and I think I certainly could have done a better job of developing and clarifying the concept of patriarchal priesthood , however, I did in fact provide the general definition. Below are exerpts from part one:
On page 4 I said “I will show that PTHG classifies the Patriarchal priesthood as the third order of priesthood. I will demonstrate that in fact, Patriarchal priesthood is the second level of priesthood having to do with the promise given to Abraham that his seed line would have the privilege of bearing the patriarchal priesthood and taking the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the nations of the world. ”
On page 9 I said “From this it becomes blatantly obvious that Peter, James and John were officiating in the Patriarchal priesthood when they ordained Joseph and Oliver to be elders. Footnote 23 provides further clarification
“It is important to understand that John the Baptist “conferred” priesthood upon Joseph and Oliver while Peter, James and John “ordained” them to the “office” of “elder” in a patriarchal priesthood that they already held. Some historians have speculated or alluded to the possibility that the office of “elder” was actually part of the Aaronic priesthood that was restored by John the Baptist. It is my beliefve that Joseph and Oliver were both of the chosen line of Abraham that had been given the birthright promise of being able to preach and administer the gospel of Jesus Christ to the nations. Hence, they held patriarchal priesthood by birthright but were ordained
to a specific office with specific rights.
On the same page I said:
“This is quite a difficult concept for Latter Day Saints to accept, for it requires a bit of
fortitude to break with tradition. Their Patriarchal priesthood calling had to do with God’s promise to Abraham that a line of his posterity would have the privilege of taking the gospel of Jesus Christ to the nations of the world. Footnote 24 says, “See Abraham Chapter 2 and Reading Abraham while God Winks”
I am going to try and find an appropriate place in the paper to provide more documentation because I know this issue is a huge stumbling block for many people.
“#2 How do we know that PJ&J restored Priesthood at all?”
Yes, good point, I covered this issue in part one and noted in my response to #1
Edwin, you also said: ” Joseph stated in his History of the Church that he received the Melchizedek Priesthood for the first time in the house of old father Whitmer.”
Can you provide that quote please. I don’t remember it stating things quite that way.
“This claim is emboldened by Section 128 where Joseph states “…The Voice of God in the chamber of old father Whitmer…” was heard.”
Hearing the voice of God does not necessarily have anything to do with receiving the Melchizedek priesthood. Joseph said something to the effect that it is one thing to hear God’s voice, it is another to hear him tell you your calling and election is made sure, or something to that effect.
“This is congruent with JST Gen 14 instruction of how the Melchizedek Priesthood is received.”
I disagree. I believe I have provided ample evidence to show that June of 1831 was when the Melchizedek priesthood was received for the first time, and therefore provides the details of how God restores the highest priesthood. We now know that even though God must reveal from heaven who the candidate is, there must be a physical ordination by God’s anointed servant(s) when their are servants on the earth.
“#3- If Joseph was already in possession of The Patriarchal Priesthood AND the ministry of Abraham which is given to his literal seed when he became the literal seed of Abraham at the reception of the Holy Ghost; then why was it necessary for Abraham’s ministry or dispensation of his gospel to be conferred upon JS and OC by Elias (Section 110)?”
Although some people may not be literal descendants of Abraham, Joseph and Oliver clearly were. See Section 86:8-10
It was the DISPENSATION of the gospel of Abraham that was COMMITTED, not the conferral of the Abrahamic priesthood. Joseph and Oliver already held the patriarchal priesthood.
In my opinion, that ancient dispensation had to be ushered in as an intercessory act because the gospel dispensation had been rejected. I believe it had to do with the atonement statute (prophecy) in Lev 16 which needed to be enacted out, but needed to be enacted out under the dispensation it was estalished under. The reason for it to be usered in has to do with preventing the world from being smitten with a curse as a result of the Saints rejecting the fulness of the Gospel, as foretold by the prophet Malachi.
I can’t take the time to develop this concept now… I will do it in the last part when I explain the Elijah doctrine and prove beyond any shadow of a doubt (for those that accept the literal interpretation of the scriptures) that section 110 is true.
#9 “How would you like to show that that is not what Joseph meant? I am not sure that I understand the difference between being cursed and being subject to a curse/cursings.”
If the Aaronic priesthood is available along with the higher priesthood, the Aaronic priesthood is a blessing to the priesthood holder and to the saints. It is a blessing that prepares the way with the preparatory gospel that leads to the greater blessings and eventually salvation. Remember that 84: 33-35 is referring to all three priesthoods, not just the two that Denver says it is referring to.
Notice that those who are faithful in magnifying either one of the lineal, patriarchal priesthoods (priesthood of Aaron or priethood of Moses (Patriarchal) ) are sanctified by the spirit unto the renewing of their bodies and can receive the highest priesthood of “Election” (Melchizedek).
Hence, being a holder of the Aaronic priesthood is not a bad thing or a cursing. It is a good thing if the person magnifies their prieshood and eventually is elected by God. Additionally, it is a blessing to the church because it prepares the for the greater spiritual blessings.
The point Joseph was making in his discourse is that if a church that has all three priesthoods, then rejects the higher light and becomes condemned and cursed so that the only active priesthood left in the church is Aaronic, then the church membership is cursed because they can only recieve the preparatory baptism, but they cannot progress in getting the gift of the holy ghost and the spiritual rebirth neecessary to become Elected of God.
Edwin, you are doing a great job in trying to defend the teachings in Denver’s book. Please remember that I am not saying it is categorically good or bad, true or false, I am simply responding to his claim that the book has no inaccurasies in it.
That is all I am doing.
I am now getting ready to post five more rebuttal points concerning statements and teachings in the book that I believe are inaccurate.
I sincerely hope you will read the next part and return to explain where you think I am wrong.
I look forward to hearing your point of view as long as you stick with sound doctrine that can be documented from credible sources.
Thank you so much for you past responses
Watcher
PS to Mike Hamill, I have not had time to go through the entire diatribe you sent me but I plan on doing so. I do think you are way too angry and emotional over this rebuttal series. All I am doing is providing a platform for doctrinal issues to be discussed and to challenge the claim that the book is without errors.
After re-reading my comment (something I guess I should do before I submit it for review to be posted) I wanted to address my Point #5.
In the end of that point I am not trying to say that you advocate people worshiping you or instruct anyone that you can save them. I am only illustrating that Denver constantly makes that statement. Something that I am yet to find directly written in your materials. That is not a discredit to you, but rather just an observation. Perhaps you have fewer people who want to worship you than Denver and therefore have not sensed the need to clarify these points as he has as consistently as he has.
However I just want to note that my last paragraph isn’t a condemnatory one directed at you.
Almost done reading it Watcher. Well done and thought out.
I have to say that after reading almost all of your other blog posts that this second time through the concepts you are presenting are sticking a little better. 🙂
After reading your footnote about JST Gen 14:29, Helaman 10:4-10 came to mind. I used to think, based in the chapter heading, that the power that Neohi was given was ONLY the sealing power.
However, after a more careful reading I see that it was the same power that Melchezidek had to move mountains, divert rivers and defy armies. In other words, the Highest Priesthood.
Thanks again.
Amen to that
In response #1 you said: “It is important to understand that John the Baptist “conferred” priesthood upon Joseph and Oliver while Peter, James and John “ordained” them to the “office” of “elder” in a patriarchal priesthood that they already held.”
Where are we instructed that PJ&J ordained them to the office of Elder?
In response #2 you asked for the quote in History of the Church made by Joseph regarding Melchizedek Priesthood. In my edition it is located on page 60 (chapter VII): “We now became anxious to have that promise realized to us, which the angel that conferred upon us the Aaronic Priesthood had given us, viz., that provided we continued faithful, we should also have the Melchizedek Priesthood, which hold the authority of the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. We had for some time made this matter a subject of humble prayer, and at length in order more particularly to seek of the Lord what we now so earnestly desired; and here, to our unspeakable satisfaction, did we realize the truth of the Savior’s promise- “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you”-for we had not long been engaged in solemn and fervent prayer, when the word of the Lord came unto us in the chamber, commanding us that I should ordain Oliver Cowdery to be an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ; and that he also should ordain me to the same office; and then to ordain others, as it should be made known unto us from time to time.”
Make of it what you will. It seems to be stated in no unclear terms at least to me by the above verse that Joseph was convinced and unspeakably satisfied (at least as late as 1838) that being ordained an Elder was attached to the Melchizedek Priesthood. (also see D&C 84:29)
You said: “We now know that even though God must reveal from heaven who the candidate is, there must be a physical ordination by God’s anointed servant(s) when their are servants on the earth.”
If seeing the face of God and living afterwards is impossible without the Melchizedek Priesthood.(D&C 84:19-22) How do you explain Joseph’s first vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ? Additionally if 1831 is when the Melchizedek Priesthood was received for the first time, why did Joseph state in the aforementioned quote from HC that he was unspeakably satisfied that the answer to his prayer of receiving the Melchizedek Priesthood, as he had been promised by John the Baptist, was then fulfilled in 1829?
You said: “Notice that those who are faithful in magnifying either one of the lineal, patriarchal priesthoods (priesthood of Aaron or priethood of Moses (Patriarchal) ) are sanctified by the spirit unto the renewing of their bodies and can receive the highest priesthood of “Election” (Melchizedek)”
This seems to be a leap by the desire to connect interpretations of the scripture in an unrevealed manner. You may, like David Whitmer, state that only those with the spirit may understand it; and in turn I may be proving myself to be without the Spirit. However whether I have the Spirit or not, it does not read the way you are reading it, to me.
Both Moses and Aaron were literal descendants from Abraham. Yet their difference was one received the new and everlasting covenant from God for himself and the other did not. If then Moses’ Priesthood being referred to here was different from Aaron’s; is not the difference then that Moses saw God and not only lived but received the new and everlasting covenant from Him? Would Moses’ priesthood not be then the one after the order of Melchizedek? Verse 34 seems to refer to all three priesthood’s. Yet 33 states the success of 2 Priesthoods -Aaron[Levitical], and Moses[Melchizedek]- is what qualifies us for the renewing our bodies. It leaves out the Abrahamic. Could this be due to the fact as I stated before that the Abrahamic is received when one is properly baptized and receives the Holy Ghost. If then, the one who is reading Section 84 has proceeded properly in their path before God, they will have received before hand the Priesthood of Abraham before they receive either. Thus the question then becomes whether they will receive the remaining two.
Is it not revealing that never do we find ANY instance of anyone, in all of scripture being ordained to the Abrahamic Priesthood? Yet we have Joseph tell us that when one receives the Holy Ghost, they receive the literal promises of Abraham, whether they are his literal seed or not, they are now exactly as if they were Abraham’s literal seed.
You said: “Edwin, you are doing a great job in trying to defend the teachings in Denver’s book. Please remember that I am not saying it is categorically good or bad, true or false, I am simply responding to his claim that the book has no inaccurasies in it.”
I believe you. It’s sometimes hard to correspond online, because nuances of speech are lost as well as facial expressions, body language and temperament.
At this point I am proceeding with the intrigue of making sure I understand your points as I understand sound doctrine.
Thanks for your efforts. Even if I end up being unpersuaded by them. They sure have given me much to think about. For that I am grateful.
“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you”-for we had not long been engaged in solemn and fervent prayer, when the word of the Lord came unto us in the chamber, commanding us that I should ordain Oliver Cowdery to be an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ; and that he also should ordain me to the same office; and then to ordain others, as it should be made known unto us from time to time.”
That is clearly referring to patriarchal priesthood. With all of the documentation I have provided, if you can’t see that, then we just need to disagree and leave it at that.
“If seeing the face of God and living afterwards is impossible without the Melchizedek Priesthood.(D&C 84:19-22) How do you explain Joseph’s first vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ?”
This will be addressed when I address the Elijah doctrine.
I don’t know that the words you put in my mouth about having to have the spirit to understand the passages in section 84 is the real issue. I think that anything we read is colored by our current understandings and beliefs. That is the problems here. You have some beliefs you are not willing to let go of… that is fine.
It is now obvious to me that after all of the testimonies and documentation that I have provided about the Melchizedek priesthood being first restored at the special conference at the Morley Farm, you simply don’t believe it. That is fine, but I am not going to keep quibbling with you over all of the issues you continue to have relating to the paradigm you cannot let go of.
It frankly mystifies me that you are rejecting Joseph’s and four other people’s testimonies about what actually happened, particularly when it provides the answers to so many other dilemmas and connects the dots relating to numerous other issues, but, that is fine. Lets just agree to disagree.
“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you”-for we had not long been engaged in solemn and fervent prayer, when the word of the Lord came unto us in the chamber, commanding us that I should ordain Oliver Cowdery to be an Elder in the Church of Jesus Christ; and that he also should ordain me to the same office; and then to ordain others, as it should be made known unto us from time to time.”
That is clearly referring to patriarchal priesthood. With all of the documentation I have provided, if you can’t see that, then we just need to disagree and leave it at that.
“If seeing the face of God and living afterwards is impossible without the Melchizedek Priesthood.(D&C 84:19-22) How do you explain Joseph’s first vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ?”
This will be addressed when I address the Elijah doctrine.
I don’t know that the words you put in my mouth about having to have the spirit to understand the passages in section 84 is the real issue. I think that anything we read is colored by our current understandings and beliefs. That is the problems here.
It is now obvious to me that after all of the testimonies and documentation that I have provided about the Melchizedek priesthood being first restored at the special conference at the Morley Farm, you simply don’t believe it. That is fine, but I am not going to keep quibbling with you over all of the issues you continue to have relating to the paradigm you cannot let go of. It frankly mystifies me that you are rejecting Joseph’s and four other people’s testimonies about what actually happened, particularly when it provides the answers to so many other dilemmas and connects the dots relating to numerous other issues, but, that is fine. Lets just agree to disagree.
Watcher
Like many of your readers, I have looked forward to your rebuttal of PTHG. Much of what you have written has been a synopsis of your many posts, reviewing your view of church history. I enjoy reading it but I keep asking myself, when are you going to get around to the rebuttal.
Your rebuttal to Denver’s book is surprising. You appear to be pointing out flaws in the brush strokes without analyzing the painting as a whole. You have written a small book without addressing the books BIG claims. If you want to REBUT THE BOOK you need to focus on the books BIG CLAIMS. From my perspective, the books BIG CLAIMS are:
1-The mission of Elijah is future, wasn’t fulfilled in 1836 and critically important to the survival of the inhabitants of the earth OR the earth will be wasted at His coming and whatever happened in Kirtland didn’t fulfill the mission of Elijiah.
2-The church didn’t meet the deadline The Lord gave in Section 124 and true to the Lords word, the church was rejected with their dead, not abandoned, not forgotten but not accepted.
3-Sealing power only comes from God to man and can’t be passed from man to man. Brigham never had it and none of the subsequent presidents have held it. Apostles don’t hold it by virtue of their apostolic keys. It has to come from God.
4-Brigham Young was not the Lord’s choice to replace Joseph nor was Brigham Young, Brigham’s choice. Succession has proceeded without revelation from God on the matter.
5-The church has drifted far from the foundation The Lord laid through Joseph.
6- Then THE big claim, made first in Denver’s first book and reiterated in PTHG. You the reader can return to God in mortality. I did, you can too.
If you don’t rebut these BIG points, I suspect your critique will fall flat with those who care about such things.
McKay Platt
McKay
I am not trying to refute the book. The book has a huge amount of information in it and much of it is very good and correct.
I am simply taking exception to the claim that it is without error. I am simply pointing out what I think are some very significant errors. I am surprised that you find none of the first ten rebuttal points to be significant.
I am not concerned about my rebuttal falling flat. I don’t have anything to prove other than the fact that there are some pretty significant errors in my opinion. I feel I am proving that.
If you don’t think any of these issues are significant, then perhaps my review will prove to be a testimony builder of what the author has written.
Regarding your statement on Elijah-
“The mission of Elijah is future, wasn’t fulfilled in 1836 and critically important to the survival of the inhabitants of the earth OR the earth will be wasted at His coming and whatever happened in Kirtland didn’t fulfill the mission of Elijiah.”
I have stated that the prophecy is a dual fulfillment. Elijah did come and Elijah will come.
I am afraid that topic is the last one I will be covering, but I think it will surprise you to find that Elijah did come…
“2-The church didn’t meet the deadline The Lord gave in Section 124 and true to the Lords word, the church was rejected with their dead, not abandoned, not forgotten but not accepted.”
I pretty much agree with the scenareo the author paints on that topic, I hate to disappoint, but there will be not rebuttal concerning that issue.
“4-Brigham Young was not the Lord’s choice to replace Joseph nor was Brigham Young, Brigham’s choice. Succession has proceeded without revelation from God on the matter.”
While I think the author does a poor job of detailing what really happened during the crisis in Nauvoo, I don’t disagree with his assessment that the church can elect whoever they want to through common consent.
“5-The church has drifted far from the foundation The Lord laid through Joseph.”
Yep, Denver and I are on the same page there.
“6- Then THE big claim, made first in Denver’s first book and reiterated in PTHG. You the reader can return to God in mortality. I did, you can too.”
I’ve already addressed that issue outside of this rebuttal series… 🙂