An Evening in Boise with Denver Snuffer- Part One

It has now been about a week and a half since Denver spoke in Boise.

I was in attendance.

He has posted frequently since then, including the posting of the letter he got from his stake president regarding the decision of the church court.

He seems to want to make the drama about his departure from the church quite public and to grow his following.

He seems to be convinced that his book accurately explains the correct doctrine and history of the church and how the church has gone astray.

He really knows how to work the crowd, both in person and in print.

Welcome to the Circus

I have tried to limit the sharing of many of my views about Denver’s teachings over the years for a number of reasons.

I did not believe the claims he was making about seeing the Savior and I did not want to get caught up in the eventual circus that it was apparent he was going to cause.

That circus has officially begun with his public refusal to stop publishing his controversial book, his subsequent excommunication and the beginning of his Zion speaking tour that began on September 10th (or 11th, according to how the Jews reckoning of time.)

Typological of  Jim Harmston

I had a front row seat on the Jim Harmston affair as Harmston transitioned from faithful member and supporter of the brethren to a self proclaimed and self appointed prophet that was going to set things in order and usher in Zion.

I believe that Snuffer and his loyal disciples may be heading for the same train wreck  that was experienced by many of Harmstons Zion-bound followers.

Creating Doubt about Section 110

The other day one of Denver’s passionate followers graced my comments section with a diatribe composed of Denver Snuffer quotes from his book (PTHG) about section 110.

On another blog, another one of Denver’s followers presented the following challenge:

“The arguments and analysis presented in PTHG deserve a substantive rebuttal, if an honest rebuttal is possible.”

I think it is rather remarkable that a disciple of Denvers is so sure that his writings are infallible.

Furthermore, it is remarkable to me that Denver is so confident.

Here is his reaffirmation after being excommunicated, that his controversial book is accurate.

“The problem with Passing the Heavenly Gift has not been its accuracy. The issue raised in the notice I received from the stake president does not say the book is false, contains errors or makes mistakes in history. Rather, it “contains content which must be withdrawn.” That is not an indictment of the book’s accuracy.”

I think it is unfortunate that the Stake President did not provide clarity as to the false doctrine that is contained in the book.

However, I am not sure the church is as concerned with false doctrine as they are with loosing  credibility and maintaining the reputation of its leaders from Brigham Young to Tom Monson.

I think the following statement really sums up what the major concern was regarding the book:

The book’s thesis is in direct conflict with church doctrine. In your effort to defend the restoration, you have mischaracterized doctrine, denigrated virtually every prophet since Joseph Smith and placed the church in a negative light.”

I am personally conflicted about the Snuffer drama because on the one hand, much of Snuffer’s criticism of the modern church leaders is well founded and accurate in my opinion.

In my opinion much of the documentation that he provides about the latter day apostasy of the church is true.

For years I have been declaring that the church has been condemned, rejected, and cursed, and providing scriptural and historical documentation.

Denver also addresses these topics and in some instances provides a more thorough and compelling case than I do, even though he typically concludes his narratives by saying that the scenarios presented are possibilities and that he does not necessarily personally take a stand on many of the scenarios and issues that he presents in the book.

On the other hand, in my opinion, Denver teaches his share of false doctrine in the book and I have come to believe that he has an underlying agenda of his own that is potentially detrimental to those that put their trust  in his teachings.

After doing a little soul searching about my silence regarding Denver’s claims, I have decided to accept that challenge tendered by Denver’s disciple and I am going to do a critique-rebuttal on his book, Passing The Heavenly Gift.

It is only recently that I was made aware of the fact that Denver questions the authenticity of section 110 and the associated doctrine of Elijah. I believe some of his writings on this subject are creating doubts in the minds of his followers regarding it.

Having studied and written about section 110 and the doctrine of Elijah for years, I passionately believe section 110 documents a true historical event that literally took place as described.

I believe it is foundational to the history and doctrine of the church and provides a prophetic context to the doctrine of Elijah and the mission of the restored gospel.

I am concerned that once a person rejects that revelation from God and the doctrine of Elijah associated with it, a chain reaction of disbelief could take place.

I am concerned that it could possibly, ultimately cause one’s faith in the restoration to collapse.

At first I was simply going to address the topic of section 110, but now I have decided I will also review and critique the book, Passing the Heavenly Gift.

Because of the continued warnings that his followers have made that I should not be critical of his teachings until I have read his book to get the full context of what he is saying, I have obtained a copy of PTHG, the controversial book for which he has been excommunicated.

I have read it and I believe it contains numerous serious doctrinal and historical errors.

I shall report on it much like I did on the book “the Savior in Kirtland ” that Karl Anderson wrote.

My critique will not be exhaustive, I am only going to briefly touch on about 20 major issues, claims, and interpretations that I consider to be hugely problematic.

This critique is done for, and directed primarily at, readers of my blog that may have erroneously assumed that Snuffer and I are similar in our beliefs and ultimate conclusions.  Secondly, it will be written for followers of Snuffer that are looking for a critical review of Snuffer’s teachings to help them better determine just how inspired and doctrinally accurate his writings really are.

Not Intended for Mainstream Members that are Content in their Faith

If you are a mainstream member of the church that has come across this series from a random search, this series containing a critique of Snuffers book is not written for you.

I suggest you leave this site NOW..

It will be disruptive to your faith. You may want to wait until FARMS, FAIR, The Interpreter, or some independent LDS apologist does a book critique on PTHG based on the viewpoint of the corporate church.

I have largely ignored Snuffer in the Past

Way back when I first became aware of Denver Snuffer and his claims of having multiple audiences with Christ and all of the other associated implications having to do with him having sacrificed all things (See LoF 6:7), being pronounced clean, receiving the second comforter (John 14:16, Doctrine and Covenants 88:3 and having his calling and election made sure, etc., I had no interest in following his blog or reading his books and I just ignored him.

This is because I have a very strong personal belief based on my personal study of the scriptures, that this type of endowment is not currently taking place in the earth.

I believe the scriptures are quite clear about the current collective status of the latter day saints with God.

I believe that the scriptures are clear about why the fulness of the Gospel and associated endowments are not currently being enjoyed by anyone. They clearly identify when they were taken away and even specify when the endowments will be restored to the Gentiles.

I believe Lectures on Faith when it states that one must sacrifice all things before they are counted worthy to be sealed up to eternal life.

I don’t think there is anyone currently living, that has sacrificed all things according to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

When studied in context, I am not sure it is possible to sacrifice all things without participating in group consecration, once the true church has been restored and the commandment to consecrate has been given.

The Lord warned the saints several times that if the saints did not receive and live the law of the gospel containing consecration, they would be cut off from the fulness.

After the failure took place, the Lord revealed that as a consequence of failing to successfully consecrate and live the law of Zion, the saints must wait a little season for the redemption of Zion.

It is obvious that not only Zion must wait a little season, but also the saints must wait a little season for the  “residue” of the “second ordinances” .

I believe that this type of sacrifice is not currently possible since the saints broke the everlasting covenant in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah.

They collectively failed to live the law of consecration, which was given for the express purpose of protecting the saints.

A secret combination was was plotting the destruction  of the church in the secret chambers. ( Regarding the breaking of the everlasting covenant, see Isaiah 24, and Sections 104:4, 104:52, 105.)

Modern revelation is quite clear about the fact that the restored Church was coming out of the wilderness in section 5, and had fully come out of the wilderness by the time section 33 was given.

It also documents that the restored Church of Christ had fled back into the wilderness and would need to come forth out of the wilderness at a future time by the time section 109 was given.

The return of the restored Church of Christ back into the wilderness, is documented by countless historical  events, including the official removal of the name of Christ from the name of the church in 1834.

At that time the name of the church was changed to the “Church of the Latter day Saints”.

I realize that some people, including Denver, believe that God continues to deal with each person independently in bestowing the second ordinances, despite the group condemnation and the categorical   rejection of the entire church that God has pronounced upon the saints.

But I reject that notion.

I believe it mocks the declarations and pronouncements of God and I believe His pronouncements to the collective body of saints would be of no effect if that were the case.

Critics of  the above evidences use several of the Book of Mormon  passages  to support the belief that the heavens are always open and that all spiritual blessings are always  available predicated on faith.

What they don’t seem to realize is that the greater faith necessary to part the heavens is a spiritual gift of God that is withheld when the Lord withdraws  his spirit  from the inhabitants of the earth.

To be continued….

Click here for part two

Advertisements

52 Responses to An Evening in Boise with Denver Snuffer- Part One

  1. Brett says:

    I am anxiously awaiting your rebuttal. I’m thrilled someone took the challenge.
    However, I have now personally met seven people who’ve been ministered to by Christ. That overcomes your interpretation of scriptures.
    And frankly, your interpretation seems more like unbelief now, than it does a valid interpretation of scripture.
    Please do as thorough a rebuttal as you can. But then you may want to pull your head out of the books a minute and recheck (Jame 1:5) your position on Christ appearing to individual gentiles.

  2. Calleen says:

    First of all. Who care about what you or any other individual thinks or what your or their opinion is. This is your failing. Any individual who is in love with their own thoughts or opinions is deemed a natural man and is not to be to taken seriously in any circumstance.

    In my case just because it comes out of a persons mouth and sounds good because of my wants in being grouped with one group or another doesn’t hold any value, but when one leaves ones thoughts and feelings, and turns to God and relies completely on the Spirit of the Holy Ghost to be their guide and teacher, then one has value.

    Some of Denver Snuffers listeners/readers are those who are the humble followers of Christ and are doing nothing more than gathering information. We are not a bunch of groupies.

    Also just because you have not had a personal visitation by our diety, doesn’t mean others haven’t. You are showing your ignorance and lack of faith and revelation.

  3. Vince says:

    I’ve enjoyed your blog in the past and come back to it every once in a while to read certain posts about subjects you have researched thoroughly. I’ve also very much enjoyed Denver’s blog and books. Since discovering Denver I believe I have come to the realization of how much unbelief I have had. One wouldn’t need to converse with the Lord in the flesh to be able to make that distinction though I believe Denver does in fact converse with Christ in the flesh.

    I am looking forward to your analysis of PTHG. I have read random chapters from it. I have also read his “Second Comforter” and “Come, Let us Adore Him” which the second is my personal favorite. I know at least one person, not a lot I know, who has returned to activity in the Church because of Denver’s writings.

    I think it is interesting what you are saying. That the cursings or what have you apply to every individual and not the Church as a whole. So do you believe that any man or woman on the earth converses with Christ in the flesh or that currently it isn’t possibly?

    Again, looking forward to your analysis.

    Thanks.

  4. Fusion says:

    Hi Watcher,

    I am really looking forward to this- I think what Denver has done is certainly helping people awaken and that is good…extremely good. From what I hear he has brought people to look at Jesus, and even better, he has indirectly helped the Church ‘corporate leaders’ (in my opinion, the ‘Corporate Gadiantons’) to show their true colours and insecurities, and top-down corporate style agenda. I always felt attending and being active in the LDS church was like being in a staff meeting with the Human Resources department constantly hanging around to return and report to the managers at the top who never showed their faces.

    However, I find it strange that Denver continues to support two things which body the Holy Spirit and my study has shown to be in counter-point against:

    1. Church has passed the Heavenly gift, there has been no revelation since Joseph’s time or a real prophet since then, etc, but yet he says ‘stick with the Brethren’??! That’s like saying to a woman who get’s beaten and abused by her drunkard husband who is out playing with his girlfriend ‘stick with him, he’s still the one you made YOUR vows to’…

    2. He claims the Temple ceremony is doctrinal, and from Joseph, yet I see nothing of it in the fullness of the Gospel in the Book of Mormon. Far before I ever heard of the internet or anti-mormonism, I embraced the Book of Mormon as if it allowed me to access the very mind of God, and changed my life in every way, yet when I entered the Temple for the first time, I felt the SAME Spirit, the Holy Spirit, tell me that everything I was beholding was NOT of God, was contrary to the Gospel of Jesus as contained in the Book of Mormon, and that the physical signs/tokens were the very things He had warned me of not to partake…I was disgusted and frightened and wished I listened to the Holy Spirit telling me to get the heck out of there immediately. I wish I had listened. Thanks to the leaders, I tried and tried to go back and accept it, and tell myself it was of our Lord, but eventually I felt I was insulting the Lord and just decided to stop going there forever. I never felt better, and it irritated the local brethren that the Temple recommend held no sway or influence over me. I researched the Temple years later and discovered my feelings in my heart, and my thoughts in my mind, were 100% from the Lord.

    Denver saying the Temple endowment etc is true makes me feel that he has a problem before him, and found a way to reconcile it by making arbitrary parallels. Kind of like the story of the 3 blind men and the elephant.

    I have yet to find anything on the endowment we have today from before 1846, and definitely NOTHING that Joseph has written. I find that strange as he wrote of so much. I also find it alarming that when I watch hidden videos exposing the Freemason ceremony, that I get the same disgusting thoughts and feelings as I watch them go through very similar rituals. Furthermore, there was no parallels between the setup and design, and functionality between the two temples at Kirtland and Nauvoo- no celestial, terrestrial and telestial rooms. And what is worse is that no faith-filled member seems to want to question any of this! And that includes Denver. Unless of course I have got it wrong…

    ps. Would love to see Denver comment here and address these things as he never responds to anything I comment at, at his blog for some reason- funnily he calls you out on his blog post today for not saying who you are and identifying yourself, yet he allows no opportunity to stand up to those who would like to comment on his blog and take him up for something he says. He claims it is to avoid contention…but this is coming from a lawyer who by very nature accuses and in turn defends. By not allowing comments on his blog, it leaves him aloof and unapproachable by those of us who can’t meet him in a Boise or wherever, as we’re tens of thousands of miles away. Open up a dialogue, Denver…and don’t blame your moderator 😉

    Can’t wait to read the next part.
    Fusion

  5. Fusion says:

    …excuse the typo: ‘both the Holy Ghost…’ (not ‘body’…ironically I don’t believe the Holy Ghost HAS a body!)

  6. Calleen says:

    Inspirational Thoughts
    When we can speak candidly, in humility, and without shame about our ignorance, weaknesses, past dark experiences and sins without shame or fear of the crushing opinions and actions of those with less understanding, recognizing that they are in the grasps of Satan’s darkness, we loosen Satan’s grasp upon us and we strengthen our access to the healing power of Christ’s atoning sacrifice.
    Shame begets dark secrets and dark secrets shun the Light.
    _____________________________________________________________________________________
    Guilt is God’s tool to help us course correct. Shame is Satan’s twisted version of guilt.
    _____________________________________________________________________________________
    Any time an adversity comes upon us, the power of Christ is manifested in the adversity.
    If you are steadfast (you stay spiritually focused throughout the adversity) you release the power of Christ and miracles occur either in your external environment or inside of you spiritually.
    _____________________________________________________________________________________
    The definition of sin is reasoning and acting in the ignorance of God’s truth, or in total rebellion of it.
    The definition of repentance is leaving sin (your opinions, ideas, desires, etc.) to seek to be taught the truth of God through prayer and the Holy Ghost, which is the definition of Light.

  7. Kerry says:

    I have just heard about the Denver Snuffer debacle and am in no way a follower and have yet to find one, but your rebuttal herein is a sickening display of pride and arrogance that I had to comment about. There is no following and there are no Snuffer disciples as you have accused so many. Snuffer has never asked anyone to believe in him no claimed any form of infallibility, in fact, most of those whom I have encountered since have all stated that they did NOT agree with everything Snuffer wrote but that his words were worth reading for their research value. It is easy now for you to take aim at Snuffer since he has been “disgraced” by the church, but that is tantamount to a bully picking on the kid that just got sent to the principal’s office even though it is clear to any one with half a brain that the teacher was the one at fault here. I have not had the pleasure of reading PTHG since I live in BRazil, but will certainly read it when I can. I am sure that many thing I already know, others I will disagree with and others I will learn from, but such is the sincere searcher of knowledge and truth. Shame on you for your poor characterization of what seems to me to be an otherwise good member of the church (now ex-member). So sad what we as a church have become!

  8. Edwin says:

    Dear Phantom Menace…who is watching:

    I mean no offense by that title, but just thought it applicable mainly because of your desire to be some phantom/s; and also I read a previous post of yours about the church hiring “Shills” to attack your blog in the comments section. So obviously they view you as a menace. Thus “The Phantom Menace WHO IS WATCHING!”

    I also look forward to studying your rebuttal for the possible additional view points that you offer. I have read your blog and have enjoyed many aspects of it.
    However I offer a statement for your consideration and that is:
    I believe you should back off of your insistence that the Second Comforter is not ours to receive right now. Much of our ability to Follow The Savior depends upon our individual ability to “Believe.” To denounce that such is not possible is to contend any individual’s ability to believe. If they do not believe, they will not ask. If they do not ask, IT can’t be given.
    Obviously you have taught that there is a coming “Watch” where the Kingdom of God will be restored again. If during the time of JS, one like you had persuasively taught that such promises as found in James 1:5,6 were not effective until the Savior came, (or one who had died was going to return again to do the work instead) then JS would have haply waited and the possibility for Zion would never have been a possibility at all for that generation.
    Belief is necessary. Belief leads to Faith, and when Faith is built up: Knowledge is given! These are the promises of the Scriptures! This is when even Heaven itself will not hold back the possessor of it from receiving the Lord, Himself (Ether 3:19)
    If you do not believe it possible then it is you who you consign to that position. But when you teach it, you seek to spread damnation.

    I Do not know you and therefore ask that you be not angry with me for this statement. I do not think myself better than you, or even wiser than you. I am someone of even lessor consequence than you because I do not actively operate a blog of which ANYONE reads my opinion/s. Therefore I accept and proclaim my lower status to you in this world and have no issue with that. I only offer this statement as something to be considered.

  9. yogalife24 says:

    I agree with you when you state,

    “…But I reject that notion.
    Critics of the above evidences use several of the Book of Mormon passages to support the belief that the heavens are ALWAYS OPEN and that all spiritual blessings are ALWAYS AVAILABLE predicated on faith.”

    (I’ve added the Caps.)
    I do not believe the idea that the heavens are ALWAYS open COLLECTIVELY only because there must be a time of withdrawal because of condemnation or cursing. Those who labor under that specific time must struggle immensely to reconnect with God. It is as if the heavens are brass.

    BUT…

    “What they don’t seem to realize is that the greater faith necessary to part the heavens is a spiritual gift of God that is withheld when the Lord withdraws his spirit from the inhabitants of the earth.”

    What I see is this:
    The Lord continually sends his servants/prophets to remind the people of their obligation to repent and return. There seems to be a way,individually, to listen to their words, accept them as given from God, and then find the greater faith necessary to part the heavens. Thus God bestowing the gift. This does not typically apply to GROUPS of people, but individuals in the beginning. Like Lehi and his family.

    So I believe that God can honor his pronouncements upon the GROUP, but yet can maintain a relationship with an individual based on their willingness to repent of the cursings or condemnation upon them. That takes great humility to listen to the Lord’s true servant, apply the words of warning to yourself, and then take action to repent of those things.

    We can labor under cursings as a PEOPLE, but then repent individually and come unto Christ.

  10. Brett

    If you know of people that you know for sure have been ministered to by Christ, then this site is obviously a waste of your time.

    I realize my comments make me seem like I suffer from unbelief.

    I believe James 1:5.

    However, there were hundreds of years that past by between the falling away of the NT church and Jospeh’s successful experience with James.

    I have provided and will be providing more evidence of why I believe the designated time of the opening of the heavens takes place when the servants that have been appointed and anointed to redeem Zion return.

  11. Calleen

    Please forgive me for showing my ignorance and lack of faith and revelation

    Watcher

  12. Vince

    Thank you for visiting and for a kind response

    Watcher

  13. Jen says:

    Cool. Look forward to your rebuttal. Love learning and viewing different points of view.

    Enjoyed your thoughts on breastfeeding moms. And yes, I was led here by the DS post today. But I’m glad he shared your site. Looks like there are great gems for thinking. I love love love learning new things, and having the ability to weigh them out in my mind.

    I would love to learn how you found out those IP addresses so minutely. lol. Made me laugh lots, actually.

  14. C says:

    I really think that you are mostly correct on this matter, but I know a married couple who had their calling and election made sure in 1985. It is very sacred and is not talked about. Just letting you know that it is happening today but most likely not frequently.

  15. Jen

    I hope you are typical of those that read Denver’s books, you represent the group quite well.

    Praise God for people like you who are not fearful about learning and hearing another point of view.

    Thank you for visiting.

    You are a ray of sunshine. 😉

  16. TheGlider says:

    I would imagine that there are going to be a lot of new visitors clicking through from the Desk.

    For more than half a decade I’ve been enjoying, and benefiting, from what Watcher has been doing out here on the internet. (Even when the site took a hiatus I would check back more than was reasonable.) The depth, thoroughness, analysis, unbiased commentary, independence, willingness to examine, and lack of a personal agenda is a rarity.

    It would be disingenuous for anyone who has taken in all that Watcher has offered us and accuse him of unbelief or lack of faith. You may disagree with conclusions, but lack of belief or faith can’t be sincerely argued.

    Rather than ‘seeming like unbelief now,’ Watcher’s comments are a reflection of his ‘studying it out in his mind’ and his ‘asking’ – all of which he has shared here years ago. No contrariness, just consistency.

    Of course, Watcher doesn’t need me to say these things, but I thought I’d put in my two cents as someone who has been following both blogs from their respective beginnings. I’ve learned a lot from each.

    I find it interesting how you can look at something through 2 different lenses and learn valid truths from each, depending on the characteristics of the lens.

  17. Thank you Glider, I appreciate those charitable words.

  18. Brett says:

    “hen this site is obviously a waste of your time.”

    You are better than this. I’ve been reading this blog for long enough, and enough of it to know that you are capable of more critical thought and not so narrow minded as my parents who can only see 1) either the 15 see and talk with Jesus every Thurs. or 2) Joseph, BoM and all the church is false. It’s not so binary.

    I am a genuine seeker of truth. (I’m not saying im successful at it, I just have a genuine desire.) I’ve enjoyed your blog, and I think there is a lot of truth here. I think DS’s ideas are filled with a lot of truth. But I can also watch movies, tv, read books, and have life-filled interactions where I learn and see truth. I want whatever truth I can find from wherever it comes from.

    So please, continue doing what you are doing, and I am really looking forward to your rebuttal.

    Also because, I think you will receive a reply from the author, as he has taken note. But that will only provide more discourse and truth seeking. LOVE IT.

    Please be diligent. Make DS prove his work.

  19. jw says:

    “This is because I have a very strong personal belief based on my personal study of the scriptures, that this type of endowment [2nd comforter] is not currently taking place in the earth.”

    I must disagree. I have personally met 2 people privately who had an audience with Christ. The second person I spoke to only told me after I (politely) inquired of some comments he made in church. It is real, I assure you.

    My wife had an experience where she was personally consoled by the Savior during a time of exquisite physical suffering. To my knowledge I am the only person she confided this to, and frankly I believe her.

    While I have not personally had experiences like these, I have had certain experiences and things given to me personally that convince me that such things are to be had by individuals. The sacrifice of all things is individual. The Lord, for example, required a sacrifices of Joseph than Abraham. What those things are exist between the Lord and the individual. He knows us, and therefore decides when a person’s sacrifice is acceptable.

    I am some random guy on the internet, so you have no reason to believe me any more than you have Snuffer. But I know this kind of thing happens. Who are we to tell the Lord who He can or cannot personally minister to and when?

    I do not believe this is a common occurrence in these times by any measure. In D&C 93 the Lord told Joseph that He would manifest Himself to those who met certain criteria. While the Church in general may be under condemnation, that does not mean that certain people haven’t managed to extricate themselves from this condemnation and received the Lord’s favor.

    I suspect people disbelieve this kind of thing because then they would have to admit they have failed to gain the Lord’s approbation, that they’ve fallen short. Perhaps some of the apostles who wanted Snuffer ex’d did so because it exposed their failure to heed Cowdery’s exhortation and become the special witnesses they’re supposed to be. Who knows.

    JW

    PS. To my knowledge Snuffer has not claimed that his calling & election have been made sure, which is a separate event from receiving the Lord, as you’re probably aware.

  20. jw says:

    Just for clarification, I am a long-time reader of both this blog and Snuffer’s. I often leave browser tabs open to both sites. I generally see a lot of overlap and have benefited greatly from reading both. I also have points of disagreement with both, but I find enough thoughtful insight that makes both well worth my time.

    One thing Snuffer never convinced me of in PTHG was D&C 110 (although David Whitmer’s recording of it did strike me a bit peculiar) not being what it’s said to be, so I am very much looking forward to reading your view. That being said, defending it simply because it would crash everyone’s faith if it’s wrong isn’t a sufficiently compelling argument for me. Let’s get to the truth and see where that leaves us.

  21. Lynne says:

    Re: Your Harmston comment

    I had never even heard of Denver Snuffer until a few days ago. I wondered what all the flack was about so I went into his blog and read every one of his posts from the beginning. I was astounded at the transformation I was feeling.

    I have had many callings in the church over the past 40+ years including Gospel Doctrine teacher in a ward with General Authorities in attendance, and Seminary teacher. Years ago I removed my name from the rolls of the church – not because I didn’t have a testimony of Joseph Smith and the Restoration – but because I did.

    The breach, for me, was doctrinally, spiritually, intellectually and emotionally irreconcilable. But in three days of reading blog posts by Denver C. Snuffer, Jr. I have recommitted myself to Jesus Christ, begun an extensive and painful personal inventory preparatory to deep repentance, and have decided to go back to church to love and serve the good (and not so good) people there.

    Whether or not Denver Snuffer falls off the turnip truck somewhere down the road or not, is irrelevant to me. I’m not following him.

    I have returned to Jesus Christ and his flawed, fallible and imperfect church, with my whole heart. I will always be grateful to my Brother in Christ, Denver Snuffer, for the right message at the right time in my own stalled and spiritually stagnant life. By their fruits ye shall know them, indeed.

    Lynne Rankin McKinley, Orem, Utah

  22. jw

    I am not defending 110 because it would crash people’s faith. I am defending it because it is true, and I believe there is compelling circumstantial evidence, mainly in other revelations, to support it, even though it ultimately needs to be discerned by the spirit.

    Crashing people faith may be a possible outcome of someone denying a true revelation, but that is strictly an ancillary issue.

    I appreciate your apparent neutral position and that fact that you have a strong self concept that does not categorically believe something just because an old windbag like me says it.

    Thank you for your imput

    Watcher

  23. Vince says:

    I did visit this particular time because of Denver’s blog but have read a number of onewhoiswatching’s posts on a number of different occasions. I find them very thought provoking.

    Listen, in my personal journey, I find many people that I believe are on a higher plain/level/frequency than I am. It is apparent that this blog and Denver’s provide an in depth study of the Gospel. I have no reason not to believe Denver. He says things that resonate with me and I think are told to him to say and other things he says I think are his opinion. Some things he may be right about and maybe others not so much.

    For example polygamy. Denver says Joseph practiced it and I believe Joseph may not have practiced it. I don’t think that particular issue is vitally important at the moment.

    On another blog I frequent, Weeping for Zion, Dan states that Christ will come again among the people of Salt Lake. I believe it. He also claims to have seen the Savior. I believe this also.

    I guess in the end each individual has to be wary. Our salvation is too important to trust any man and in fact our trust can only be in our Savior if we wish to live with Him and His Father one day. I use to think the Mormons didn’t use the Bible enough. I learned to love the Bible. I thought individual’s books about the Book of Mormon were as good as reading it. I am coming full circle and now understand how important the Book of Mormon is. Truly it is the best road map to return to the presence of God. If something doesn’t jive with the standard works I disregard it although I recognize other ancient texts contain truths.

    I am excited for these next few years. I think they will be very eventful to say the least.

  24. A.L. says:

    Hi Watcher,

    I’m a somewhat frequent reader of your site and I do find it interesting reading. I don’t always agree with your conclusions, but I don’t always disagree either.

    I also have read all of Snuffer’s books and blog. I was there in Boise as well.

    Like so many others who have chimed in here, I personally know 4 people who have been ministered to by the Savior. I am seeking the same experience myself, as it has been promised to me in my patriarchal blessing.

    These are not brash people seeking attention for themselves. Rather, they are some of the most humble people I know, who will not share particular details of their experiences, and will only share the limited information they can share in appropriate circumstances. But they are also fearless in an “inner assurance” sort of way. They have found rest.

    They look and act like any other mormons, and you wouldn’t know anything different by sitting next to them in church.

    I believe this is more common than you might think, and important events are happening in preparation for what’s coming.

    I look forward to your review of PTHG. I actually put off reading PTHG for over a year after it came out because I didn’t want to have my testimony challenged. But when the time was finally right, I read it and found it enlightening and reassuring. It helped me stop my idolatry and look to the Savior more fully.

    I’m an active church member, hold a temple recommend, and sustain the leaders. But I don’t think the church is everything we’ve been told it is for so many years. And that’s OK.

  25. KH says:

    OWIW said:

    “I believe James 1:5.

    “However, there were hundreds of years that past by between the falling away of the NT church and Jospeh’s successful experience with James.”

    Does this necessarily mean that there weren’t some individuals during those many hundreds of years who exercised faith sufficient to commune with Christ, before Joseph did? We know about the heavens opening to Joseph because of his particular calling, but I don’t think that requires the conclusion that there wasn’t anyone in the meantime to whom the heavens opened. Most often this is a private matter, not recorded in the history books and thus we may not know about it, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen…I agree wholeheartedly with those who believe that even though a group may be under condemnation, God still earnestly desires his children to come to him and will commune with any individual who meets the conditions he has set. The phrase from Isaiah comes to mind: “For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.”

    Look forward to your analysis of Brother Snuffer’s book.

    Lynne…beautiful. Thank you for sharing your experience, I am deeply moved.

  26. Donald says:

    Hello onewhoiswatching,

    I’ve read your blog off and on for several years. I have agreed with some things and disagreed with other things. For example, I’m not sure I have correctly understood your thoughts about the future mission of Sidney Rigdon….I may have you confused with someone else. I have enjoyed your thoughtful blog.

    Meanwhile, I’ve always wondered why you choose to remain anonymous?

    Donald Danner

  27. What it means, in my opinion, is that there was no need for the restoration Joseph was involved in nor is there any need for the final restoration (future Marvleous Work) that the scripturees speak of if in fact the elect have the ability to part the heavens and have their calling and election made sure without the literal priesthood and literal ordiances that Joseph claimed were necessary for an apostate world to have.

  28. I use a screen name primarily because I believe our generation has been conditioned to judge a message based on the percieved knowledge and credibility of the person speaking, based on such things as worldly success, church position, books that have been written, level of education and other accomplishments.

    I find that if a person visits a blog and begins reading scriptures and possible interpretations, there is less chance they will dismiss or accept a given premise based on who the person is that is sharing their views if no name or identity is given.

    I am very open about the fact that I have no position or accomplishments or anything that would lead anybody to believe that I am somebody of importance or that I would necessarily know anymore than the next guy that studies the scriptures.

    I also understand why Denver feels he needs to identify himself and I respect that.

    If I needed to witness to the world that I have seen Christ, obviously, the witness would be of little value to anyone without a person and personality attached.

    If I felt I was going to explain how I was going to be instrumental in establishing Zion, I would suppose that I would need to identify myself as well.

    The fact is, that I believe that Joseph and Sidney and Lyman and Oliver and many others are in charge of establishing Zion.

    All I am doing is pointing people to the scriptures that they carry to church each week and admonishing them to take all of the unconditional promises LITERALLY.

    If they will do that, they will see that there is already an appointed time for the establishment of Zion and there are already laborers appointed to oversee it.

  29. Collin says:

    I’ve really enjoyed your site and have learned a lot from it. I know that you’re aware of the scripture but just wanted to testify that it’s true. God isn’t going to withhold any blessing from a person who fulfills the required law no matter what kind of condemnation others are under. When the Jews were under condemnation in ancient times Lehi was still able to receive the blessing. Same goes for Joseph Smith with the wicked Gentiles. They didn’t need to be part of a group to receive the Second Comforter.

    D&C 130:20-21
    20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—
    21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

    It’s hard for me to believe that an individual who obeys a Celestial Law would be denied Celestial blessings because of the actions of a group of people living 170 years ago – especially an individual who isn’t even descended from that group of people.

    As late as May 12, 1844 Joseph Smith was telling the saints to make their calling and election sure knowing full well the condemnation they were under:
    “Oh! I beseech you to forward, go forward and make your calling and your election sure—and if any man preach any other gospel with that which I have preached, he shall be cursed.”

    It appears that yes, you’re right – the condemnation leveled against the Church as a whole prevented the community from seeing God together at the Temple as He had offered. But it never denied that privilege and promise to the individual. One day there will be a group who rises up to see their God together in Zion but many of those people will have already seen Him individually.

    Denver has been preaching the same Gospel that Joseph preached right up until his death – thus avoiding Joseph’s curse.

  30. Donald says:

    Thank you. I appreciate your reply and point of view.

    Kind regards

  31. “It’s hard for me to believe that an individual who obeys a Celestial Law would be denied Celestial blessings because of the actions of a group of people living 170 years ago – especially an individual who isn’t even descended from that group of people.”

    Collin

    You are jumping to conclusions.

    I am not saying that people are being denied salvation or celestial blessings. I am simply saying that it is going to happen in a different timeframe that what we think.

    I am suggesting that there is a bigger picture to all of this.

    Were the people living for hundreds of years during the dark ages denied salvation because the New Testament apostasy?

    Of course not.

    God is a just God.

    Up to this point I have categorically allowed all comments to be made. Even snide comments.

    I am no longer going to allow comments from people who are unaware of the issues and are jumping to conclusions because I don’t have time to go over things I have gone over before.

    I am also going to block further testimonies of people who have seen the Savior or has a friend or relative that has had an experience, etc., because further stories don’t really add anything to the conversation. It is all heresay and these stories are held to be sacred by many people. they really don’t need to be talked about on a forum like this.

    I am sure there are countless stories of visitations from angels and the Savior that could be shared.

    The purpose of this post and the upcoming rebuttal is to view these issues in light of history and scripture to see if such stories are supported from a doctrinal point of view.

    This is about determining if PTHG is in fact an accurate book with no major problems that can be refuted.

  32. Jared Sorensen says:

    OWIW, I’m curious about your statement that, “I realize that some people, including Denver, believe that God continues to deal with each person independently in bestowing the second ordinances, despite the group condemnation and the categorical rejection of the entire church that God has pronounced upon the saints.

    But I reject that notion.

    I believe it mocks the declarations and pronouncements of God…”

    I take issue on that for the reason that Paul gave in Galatians 3:17. The promises which God gave to Abraham, including priesthood rights greater than the Aaronic priesthood, are conditioned upon receiving the same Gospel which Abraham received (Abr 2:8-11). The curse which God declared some 430 years later through Moses, cannot disannul the promise that He gave to Abraham, making that promise of none effect. As many as receive the same Gospel Abraham received will always have access to the same blessings. This also is one way to answer the question about how Lehi, Nephi and their posterity had access to higher priesthood when they were not of proper lineage for Aaronic priesthood and living at a time when the Lord’s people were cursed. The curse that God put upon the people as a whole and their limited access to priesthood did not disannul the promise He made to Abraham which is intended for “all the families of the earth”. Even if you live at a time when God has pronounced cursings upon his people, the promises which He made to Abraham are still available to you if you repent and receive the same Gospel Abraham received. No man can add to or take away from that promise. It is always available, even if it is ignored, denied, or rejected.

    In that sense, doesn’t believing that the promises God made to Abraham, are not available to you because of the choices of others “mock the declarations and pronouncements of God” which He made to Abraham? (BTW, I wouldn’t word it quite that way, but thought I’d try returning serve ; ^)

    Nice blog BTW. I hope the ‘spike’ in views generated by Denver’s link only encourages you, even if your “testicular fortitude” is challenged :^)

  33. Scott says:

    In reference to you post…I have met with and read all of Denver’s insights. I can not recall Denver claiming to have made his calling and election sure, but only to having received the second comforter.

    Denver is not perfect, does not have a monopoly on truth, or authority on public interpretation on scripture. I don’t think he has ever claimed too.

    Denver’s personal experiences have nothing to do with you.

    Unfortunately, his follower do exactly what he ask them to not to do. They put there trust in the arm of flesh. How often must the same message be delivered again and again. Nothing should be taught to this generation expect faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Every blog is a distraction to this truth. People wanting someone to preach to them, scripture buried In the philosophies of men. Oh the foolishness of men.

    How long will this world wallow in sin?

    How long with this world ignore the Book of Mormon?

    Man or the Devil is not authorized to give the tree of knowledge. Have we learned nothing from the garden? The result of this is always enmity.

    How cunning is the evil one, always point people to the wrong tree?

    Certain men are authorized to protect and minster the ordinances of the gospel. They hold keys to do so. This is the point of an organized religion. Please leave our brethren alone. They are fulfilling this mandate.

    I would ask each of you if the path to the tree of life is on a blog or a fireside.

    Oh that I could say more.

  34. doorsxp says:

    DS is a phony. It’s pathetic all of these dupes buying his snake oil. What is it about false prophets that get so many sheeple to ‘baaa’ in unison? Looking forward to you deconstructing his fiction Watcher!

  35. Spike in views is correct!

    As I mentioned previously, nobody is ultimately denied any blessings that they would otherwise recieve. Beyond that, it is difficult speak with you about priesthood since you probably don’t view priesthood the way I do.

    This will be covered in the rebuttal.

  36. AV says:

    I have also known of many people who claim to have been visited by Christ and/or have had their ‘calling & election made sure’. I am sure they feel sure and are sincere in their beliefs that they really have.

    But just because someone claims & believes wholeheartedly that they have seen Christ, doesn’t mean they really have.

    Christ warned us that there would be ‘false Christ’s’ that would come and deceive many and I believe this is happening all around us. Those deceived never think they are, they feel sure that want they experienced was true & real.

    But I find it curious that all those I’ve known who claim such visitation with Christ or their C&E, are in my opinion, living contrary to the teachings of Christ, and usually they are even living in adultery (though they don’t ever think so) or they are supporting other’s adultery.

    If unrighteous people can so easily be visited by Christ and have their calling & election made sure, then why aren’t righteous people being visited? I have never known of a righteous person receiving this gift, only unrighteous, thus I believe they are being deceived by a false Christ, just as most everyone is so easily deceived by false prophets today, especially in the Church.

  37. Pearl says:

    I think you are right on the money with this post…. looking forward to the next ones.

    I’ve read PTHG, The Second Comforter and Come, Let Us Adore Him and all of DS’s blog. I find problems as you have.

    Frankly, I’m tired of the whole, “I know so-and-so and they told me they saw Jesus,” or “My mom’s friend saw Jesus,” or “The bishop said he knew a guy….” used as “proof” that Christ appears to people. They are getting visions alright, of that I have no doubt. But Jesus? I’m not convinced. Satan is no fool. And yes, he goes into the temples quite regularly in my opinion.

  38. John C says:

    This can be a really great blog series. Does a discussion as deep as this one can possibly go, only happen in Mormondome? Sure, religious talk has gone on for millennium, but a discussion about how to best view the coming forth of Zion; who has the rights do bring it back; what priesthood actually means and who has it; who has seen God; received the Second Comforter, received their calling and election ext; did a translated man taken to heaven in a fiery chariot who lived thousands of years ago really visit two guys in in a temple in the 1830s in frontier USA where days before people claimed to have seen angles flying around? This seems to me to be a discussion only found in Mormondom. I could be wrong, maybe the Jehovah’s Witness, special catholic groups, Seventh Day Adventist, some evangelical groups like to talk about authority or angels or priesthood; but probably not. So here we have a extremely studied man in Mormon scripture giving a rebuttal to a book written by a man who also has extensively studied Mormon scripture and also claims to have a perfect witness of the reality of Christ. Both men believe in the same Mormon scriptures, both men claim to have read them, and been guided by the Lord’s Spirit as they have read them. Like I said, this can be a great blog series (including anything that Denver writes on his blog); one in which will generate more readers to this site than the Watcher normally has. I am really looking forward to this. Not that I hope it becomes some type of contest; but I really hope there are some great things learned in this discussion. It can become very easy a discussion detracted by ego, not by just the Watcher or Denver, but by those making comments. I’d rather relish in this discussion, putting away small jabs of no consequence (i.e. the Watcher is “conflicted” or Denver is a scoundrel just trying to gather “disciples”) Please don’t take it there, this can be such a great discussion if it takes the high road.
    I am so grateful to this blog (one who is watching), Denver’s blog, Weeping for Zion blog and LDS Anarchist blog, each of which uniquely touches on topics which are helping Mormons take off their blinders of Church and authoritarian idolatry and seek revelation directly from the Lord and from an honest searching of the scriptures, without being bound to a traditional mentality. There are differences in some beliefs, conclusions, interpretation and so forth in these blogs, some no doubt untrue and going beyond a true path; but really are any of these blog owners really out to intentionally deceive people? To me it is foolishness to think so. It is actually thrilling for me to see some type of spirit coming over gifted men of scripture and insight at this moment in history. It seems significant to me. And if the Lord in His grace has given His witness in the flesh to a man in our day, I praise God for it. What wonderful times have come upon us.
    Watcher, thanks for taking on this blog series; it can be a great discussion.

    John

  39. KH says:

    AV, out of curiosity, how does one go about living in adultery without knowing it? Is there some ambiguity about the definition of adultery?

  40. A. Pulsipher says:

    I have been an avid reader of Mr. Snuffer’s books and blog, and have posted several book reviews on Amazon as a result. When I reviewed “Passing the Heavenly Gift” (PtHG), I point out several historical inconsistencies which I think are contained in that book. I gave the book a 4 out of 5 star rating. I mostly agree with Mr. Snuffer’s point of view–particularly his interpretation of BoM references to us “gentiles”–with several exceptions. An exception I find problematic is Mr. Snuffer’s interpretation of D&C 124. I would refer you to that review as you consider your response to PtHG.

    I am new to your blog, having followed the link from Mr. Snuffer’s blog, and am impressed by many of your thoughtful posts and comments. I think them quite worthy of consideration. Since I am somewhat of a historian, I would like to suggest that there are many times in history that the Lord may have attempted a “foundation” or “restoration” of the Gospel, but we don’t particularly relate to it or that knowledge has been obscured.

    For example, I believe St. Francis of Assisi lived such a life that he communed with angels and perhaps with the Savior, though the church that later canonized him was thoroughly corrupt. I also think the Cathars of Southern France, how their doctrine (obviously considered heretical by the powers-that-be of the day) has striking resemblences to that propagated by Joseph Smith. I would not be surprised, when all things are “proclaimed from the roof-tops”, to find an attempted restoration through the Cathars, which came to a bloody end with the Albigensian Crusade. (The victors write history…not the vanquished…) These are only two examples from European history…who knows how many or what attempts at restoration were made in Asiatic or other histories which ended in failure. (Many are called, but few are chosen…) Fortunately, we know of the foundation started under Joseph Smith. We probably should not be so naive as to think it was the only attempt since the end of New Testiment and BoM times.

    Thank you for sharing your enlightening perspectives…and for your diligence in suffering knaves such as myself in comments.

  41. A.

    Thank you for an intelligent and thought provoking response.

    Watcher

  42. Rocky Cordray says:

    “I find that if a person visits a blog and begins reading scriptures and possible interpretations, there is less chance they will dismiss or accept a given premise based on who the person is that is sharing their views if no name or identity is given.”

    Thank-you for tackling this rebuttal of Snuffer’s book. But I just wanted to point out that you create identity and a “brand” more readily when you use a moniker rather than your real name.

    There is no escape from this principle once you begin a blog. Your words and rationale have a voice, and that voice is associated with a persona that is necessarily constructed from your conclusions and all of the associations that you and your readers bring to the notion of a “watcher”.

    Personas and brands lend themselves to idol worship. Real names are not impervious to such group think, but they suggest history, circumstances, and personal space that are much more flesh and blood than the hyperreality that we consume here in the net. They assert actual community rather than virtual.

    Real names are tougher to use because their use requires more fortitude to physically stand by your words. This is the actual difference between talking the talk and walking the walk, and on this point Mr. Snuffer is going to have the upper hand.

    At the end of the day, he stands by his words in person. You wear a mask.

  43. “There is no escape from this principle once you begin a blog. Your words and rationale have a voice, and that voice is associated with a persona that is necessarily constructed from your conclusions and all of the associations that you and your readers bring to the notion of a “watcher”.”

    Rocky

    You bring up some valid points about a persona taking on a life of its own after it becomes established.

    However, my biggest concern is first time visitors that have never visited the blog.

    These people are not hindered be an established persona that they have known in the past and have made judgments about.

    I want first time visitors to be forced to focus on the scriptures being presented, not a person that is known or unknown… or that can be googled and then judged, before the content is evaluated.

    I believe my experience growing up in the church is not unlike many others. I was conditioned to judge the message based on who the messenger was.

    When I saw an article or book that was authored by Bruce R. McConkie I associated a preconcieved credibility rating that was different than it would have been with a Duane S. Crowther, or Cleon Skousen, etc. etc.

    I was conditioned to view the credibility of what was written based how credible I percieved the author to be.

    The credibility rating of the author depended upon multiple factors, including worldly success, how highly educated they were, how many books had been published and how successful the book was, what positions they had held in the church (bonus points if they were a general authority) etc.

    I think that scenareo is not uncommon in American society and even more particularly in the LDS church.

    The truth is that the smartest man in the world can be wrong on a given point on any given day and the stupidest person in the world can be right on a given point on any given day.

    A prophet of God can be right nine times out of ten on the doctrines that he teaches but if we take for granted that the prophet is infallible, we are going to be led astray that one time that he falters and offers an opinion instead of an inspired truth.

    A wise person will put aside their bias and hyper-focus on what is being postulated, not on whether they like the messenger and want them to be correct.

    If a screen name puts me at a disadvantage, that is a reflection on the reader, not me.

    This rebuttal is not about me.

    This rebuttal, and Denver’s rebuttal, if he offers one, is not about a contest of who is smarter, or who is liked the best, or who has studied the gospel the longest, or who has the biggest ego, or who is the best debater, etc., etc., etc..

    It is about drilling down and getting to the truth.

    Hopefully, everyone that is engaged in this next series is seriously concerned about the TRUTH and about understanding the gospel of Jesus Christ.

    In my opinion, there is not going to be a “winner” between Denver and I when this thing is over with.

    Hopefully, there are going to be some readers that will win because they might just glean some insights or information that will edify them or help them understand the gospel or church history better, or clear up some confusion, or inspire them, or restore their hope in the future, etc.

    We are simply providing a platform, for those that are interested in evaluating two conflicting views on a number of topics.

    Ideally, everyone will determine for themselves what, if anything, of the views expressed, have any merit.

    Unfortunately, many people that really like Denver, will go away perferring to believe him because they like him and visa versa, which is very sad.

    ” A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still”

    This is not a popularity contest.

    If it is, I have already lost.

    My blog has been besieged with an obscene amount of views ever since Denver put my link on his blog.

    I have had more views in two days than I normally get in a month.

    Make no mistake about it.

    Denver will be declared the winner by popular vote after this thing is over with.

    I am fine with that.

    I am doing what I am doing in hope that there is even just one soul that has read Denver’s book, that sincerely wants the raw truth and is willing to wade through the documentation provided to get at the truth.

    That is enought to motivate me to take on Goliath, realizing that when the popularity vote is taken, I will definately be on the short end of the stick.

  44. Jared Sorensen says:

    Those are some good points and in that regard about using an alias. I think “Denver Snuffer”, although he certainly did not plan it that way, is such an unusual name, that at first blush, it looks more like a weak effort at a pen-name instead of a real name anyway. By virtue of having an actual name that looks like a pen-name, he somewhat gets the benefit of both worlds because many people may first approach his material and dismiss the name assuming it is only a pen-name and get the benefit OWIW is talking about. So if your actual name is so much like a pen-name that you have to make a continuous effort to convince people that it’s not a pen-name, that may give you less street-cred, in trying to tell other people not to use pen-names! While “Denver Snuffer” may not actually be a pen-name, he’s got to admit that it’s about as close to a pen-name as you can get without really crossing that line! LOL!!

  45. VJ says:

    I’m another newbie to your blog coming as a result of DS’s post. I also am interested in hearing more about D&C 110. I’ve read some of your other posts about D&C 110 and Oliver’s potential insights to what may have been happening with Joseph. I’m just very curious though why if that vision of a blessing or curse was supposed to be so sacred/secret, why wouldn’t Joseph record the vision in his journal himself? Why would they have told it to Warren Cowdery, so that he would record it in the Journal? Why was it written in 3rd person unlike other revelations where Joseph was dictating a revelation? It’s been a while since I’ve read PtHG by DS, but I recall those were points DS laid out as potential evidences D&C 110 may not be authentic. You argue that D&C 110 is authentic based on other references in scripture, but that Joseph/Oliver had to keep it secret (if I understood you correctly). Why then did Warren know about it? Hope your thoughts on that will be included in your rebuttal.

  46. VJ

    Section 110 and the Elijah doctrine will be included in my rebuttal, however, you bring up some issues I was not going to address.

    “..why wouldn’t Joseph record the vision in his journal himself? Why would they have told it to Warren Cowdery, so that he would record it in the Journal? Why was it written in 3rd person unlike other revelations where Joseph was dictating a revelation?”

    Those are great questions.

    I obviously don’t know the answers. I can only speculate.

    The scriptures state that “in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”

    I have often wondered why the passage says “two or three”.

    It seems like just two should always be adequate.

    It is interesting to me that the Lord called three witnesses to the Book of Mormon instead of just two.

    I have wondered if, since Joseph and Oliver were both personally involved in the visitation, perhaps the Lord felt it was necessary to have a 3rd party involved in recording the event..

    That is just my speculation.

    I don’t think Joseph wrote very much at all in the journal, he virtually always used scribes, possibly because he was not well educated and his handwriting and spelling probably looks like mine.

    I don’t know why Warren chose the 3rd person format, whether it was random as he was being told about the event, or, whether he was commanded to do it that way.

    It may have been a commandment.

    I do know that the Lord sometimes throws curves at us to see if we will allow them to become stumblingblocks.

    A good example of this is the Book of Abraham.

    There are lots of reason for people to reject the Book of Abraham if they don’t have the ability to use personal revelation to discern it to be true.

    You may be interested in reading the following post to see just how deep the stumbling blocks can be

    https://onewhoiswatching.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/reading-abraham-while-god-winks/

    I really appreciate pertinent and well thought out questions dealing with the issues of this blog.

    Thank you for visiting

    Watcher

  47. JRSG says:

    I like reading what you write as it gives me much to think about and I learn thing I did not know. I have read some of Mr. Snuffers writings. I have read some of Mr. Dehlins writings. I too am perplexed as to why Dehlin is not called out but Snuffer was. I personally feel Dehlin has done more harm than Snuffer. At least Snuffer still believes in God and in the restoration. Dehlin doubts everything about the church, gospel, and even if God exists.
    Thanks for your comments.

  48. JRSG says:

    @ Lynn from Orem, Utah.
    I almost left the church after my mission and thought about it many times since (mission was many years ago). I have felt like you did and the same reason you stated, and for other factors. I had a family tragedy and searched many things. What I found has kept me from leaving. I have seen the bigger picture.
    It is good to hear you are coming back.

  49. macrealm6@gmail.com says:

    How much is the church paying you to write these rebuttals?
    Just curious…

  50. If you think the church is paying me to write the rebuttals you obvious have not read the first five of them.

  51. Wanderer says:

    Nothing about Denver here.

    DC 104: 10 And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan;….

    Have always been curious of exactly how someone is delivered “unto the buffetings of Satan” by a group. I do know of a report that JS said Sidney Rigdon would experience that; still don’t understand how. I am not picking on Sidney Rigdon 🙂 Outside of occultists calling upon spirits to affect an individual I do not recall any formal way of accomplishing such a thing.

    15 And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.

    16 But it must needs be done in mine own away; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.

    Has the Lord ever decreed a different way that the saints should be provided for?

    I may be way “off base” regarding my thinking on scriptures such as vs:16 but I am always reminded of Mosiah 5. when I see language like this. If this is the Lords way and we are living differently then we are doing it our/mans way. Right or wrong verses like this were the first ones that made me start to contemplate how the present LDS could actually be the Church spoken of in the end times.

    55 Behold, all these properties are mine, or else your faith is vain, and ye are found hypocrites, and the covenants which ye have made unto me are broken;
    56 And if the properties are mine, then ye are stewards; otherwise ye are no stewards.

    What properties, through revelation, has the Lord claimed?
    Is there scriptural or revelatory justification to believe that the wealth of the modern CoJCoLDS is claimed by the Lord?
    Does the Lord accept offerings of peoples entities etc. without entering into a defined agreement? If yes, how is it accepted and utilized?

    Thank you.

%d bloggers like this: