Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

216 Excellent

1 Follower

About SettingDogStar

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Recent Profile Visitors

372 profile views
  1. The main issue wasn't that message of "God can talk to me", which is rather harmless. It was the claim that the church didn't have the fullness of the priesthood, the implied rejection of church at Nauvoo (though he says it wasn't totally abandoned just cursed sort of like the Israelites), and rejection of polygamy by sort of dogging on Brigham Young and others.
  2. I suppose that completely depends on what you consider God's authorized prophet. If you believed (and I'm not saying it has, its a hypothetical) that God considers the church to have gone astray then the president/leader of that church would no longer be God's authorized prophet. It's kinda like Noah and his priests. The people believed they had the authority in the church and kingdom and just trusted them which made them go into all kinds of sin. They apparently trusted Noah so much that they rejected Gods actually authorized prophet who was apparently a nobody/outsider. Obviously I don't agree with Snuffer, but still. On another note, we get into a definition of a prophet (which is another discussion) and what they can or cannot do. I believe the scriptures specify that the President of the High Priesthood is the one that receives revelation for the church, which makes sense as to avoid confusion. However, He never says that the First Presidency and the Twelve are the only ones allowed to be Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. Any can be those things so long as God has endowed those people with those gifts.
  3. I’m not sure that’s what Denver is saying either. I’m decent friends with a few of those who have become involved in this movement and I’ve read nearly every blog that is devoted to it. I don’t claim to read his mind, but I’m not sure he is saying that all have the power to lead Christ’s church. Edit: I believe the teaching is that all can have the power of the priesthood bestowed upon them through faith in Christ. The same power Enoch, Melchizedek, and Moses all had to behold God, visions, angels, and mountains is within the grasp of everyone. This power is not to be confused with ecclesiastical jurisdiction (sometimes reffered to as "keys") which the president of the church has over the whole church. You can have jurisdiction with no power, just like you can be ordained to the priesthood but have no power.
  4. I wholeheartedly agree with you! I just know elders and sisters both "slip through" decently often, whether they lie through their teeth or the bishop doesn't know them well.
  5. I agree that unbelief is probably a smaller reason for missionaries coming home, though I'm not sure who we'd measure that. However I do know that there were at least 4-5 missionaries I personally interacted with and others I knew about that really had zero testimony. Everyone knew were there because their parents weren't going to pay for college or buy their car if they didn't (which in that case wasn't really the elders fault but the crappy parents extorting their kids). A couple even openly told their companions why they were there, and it wasn't for Jesus. It happens and because they answer the questions to their bishop and stake president usually they don't get stopped.
  6. I suppose in the general definition of a cult ALL religions would qualify.
  7. The new cannon of scripture that they're publishing is the bible but with all the JST within it. They even went through many of the speeches made by Joseph where he made off-cuff edits to scriptures and inserted those where they felt it merited best. They removed most chapters and versing, only labeling the occasional paragraph break and only ending chapters by story. The Book of Mormon was edited using a number of different resources, though I'm not sure everything that was used. I know Royal Skousens work was highly influential in the research and "restoration" of the text. I believe Royal Skousens name is even mentioned in one of the revelations given to Denver. Other then that there really isn't much difference at all except dropping most versing and chapters like the original printing. They do accept the Pearl of Great price and actually replaced the opening of genesis with Moses, after all it was the inspired restoration of that text. The Book of Abraham was not included in the biblical text but it was inserted into what I believe they call the "Pearls of Great Price", emphasizing future expansions and additions. The Doctrine and Covenants are called Teachings and Commandments and is probably the most heavily edited book from the LDS perspective, if I understand it right. They've rearranged the sections by teaching instead of chronology or location. For example the first section is called "Restoration" and has a lot of sections dealing with restoration of the church and various ordinances. They removed section 20 completely citing it as inspired but not needed as essential to God's plan. In it's stead they have a sort-of replacement that they believe the Lord commanded them to write called "Statements and Principles." It outlines some more basic doctrines and other beliefs and interpretations of scripture. It covers shortly things like what fellowships are, how the sacrament is taken, baptism, and a little blurb on tithing. They also were going to remove section 110 citing it as not having any real witness to the vision (from their point of view). However Denver then received a revelation from the Lord giving him, supposedly, the more correct version of the vision. It reveals the Lord appeared and accepted the Kirtland temple and sent angels but leaves out at least Elijah and others because it is the movements belief that Elijah has not come yet. There is also a pretty decently edited version of section 132. Denver said that he believed the text to consist of three separate revelations that were compiled together over time. So they erased most of the polygamy sections and claimed revelation was given that defines better what they believe God's standard for marriage is. There are other revelations left out and some added in xthat were never published. Near the end there are a couple revelations from Denver like the "Prayer and Answer for Covenant" which was about the Book of Mormon being given as a covenant. There is also a section refereed to as proverbs of Joseph and Denver and consist of..well proverbs, not revelation but inspired "blurbs." I can't remember what else has been changed but this is what I got from reading it. Also they are publishing a glossary, which is essentially a bible dictionary slightly expanded and explained. Edit: they also added what they believe to be a better restoration of the "Testimony of Saint John" which was given through. They also canonized the Lectures on Faith (which I actually really agree with) and other little revelations from Joseph Smith. They also put in a letter or two from Hyrum, citing the idea that he was momentarily president of church/patriarch.
  8. I mean the LDS apostles use occasionally the NIV in conference talks. Plus we still use the KJV even though there are better translations in existence. I’m not sure using certain bibles immediately disqualifies someone.
  9. I really liked the Second Comforter. I thought it was well written and while I understood most of the information it was plainly written. Just because someone gets tossed out of the church doesn’t immediately invalidate previous good works/writings, which is unfortunately what most members that i know might think. However if that was the case we’d have to toss out the testimony of the three witnesses and “The Vision”!
  10. For not taking a strongman approach that’s pretty good numbers there. I was fascinated (still am) in that movement for a lot of reasons, though I was never really convinced that Denver was everything he seems to imply. I do like the fellowship concept and the attempted institution of the JST scriptures. Plus I’ve always enjoyed the idea of sacrament at home with family and friends whom you really love and care for with wine and large sections of bread. Im obviously not convinced by Denver but I appreciate some of his and his followings innovations. I don’t sense any wicked or truly evil intent either, if that makes a difference.
  11. I’ve read PTHG and while I don’t agree with all his conclusions I’m curious if you would agree with the general “four phase” layout? He makes a decent arguement for it, even if some of his doctrinal assumptions might be a little wonky.
  12. My wife drinks near-bear pretty often and the bishop doesn't give a darn haha I don't remember what it's called but we also drink a "near-wine" that's pretty darn good too.
  13. I was unaware that they can apparently do that. Glad I’m leaving such a place.
  14. Teecino for me and the wife! It mesh’s well with creamers and can be made into iced coffee, Frappuccinos, and all the other fun stuff!
  15. The funny thing is if you brought a lawyer and that made them suspicious it wouldn't matter. If your lawyer could prove you didn't break any part of the code then it really doesn't matter how much they think you're guilty. Any action taken against you would then violate their standards.
  • Create New...