Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SettingDogStar

  1. Does he? I’m positive he agrees that the ordinances of the gospel manifest the power of God unto men.
  2. What would they do if they won? Tear down the temple?
  3. I actually don't know, I probably should have asked. It makes sense that where you were living would best reflect your reaction to the announcement.
  4. I wondered that too. I suppose IF (and big IF) he was an actual prophet with a real message then I think that might make a difference. I don’t know how this works really haha
  5. I mean I’m just reporting on how my family members reacted. I didn’t really know how the church as a whole did, and I never made any assumptions about them. Just surprised at my own family was all!
  6. Interesting. So we either have the commandment of polygamy being a “truth nugget” that’s made its way into nearly every culture and religion or it’s a perversion of the monogamous family that has gotten popular throughout history. I think it might be a little of both since Satan rarely creates his own ideas and just rips off true principles. Maybe polygamy is okay but only if you 1) can truly love and take care of the other wives and 2) are given those wives by revelation from the Lord. However, dozens to hundreds of concubines/wives used purely for sex or child bearing and then essentially neglected of affection, is probably not approved. Who knows honestly? This debate has been going on from the beginning of this dispensation and I would imagine has been going on a lot longer then even that.
  7. Agreed. However, to add, I'm under the opinion that it's hardly sustainable in an open society, at least with all parties happy and in agreement. Satans power is gripping further and further into families and encouraging adultery, sexual/physical/emotional abuse, and child abandonment and abuse. Polygamy would have most likely been disastrous had it continued into this century and been a far more enabling system for abusers to reach more victims then before. Obviously I have no statistics to back me up, just my thoughts on it.
  8. That's probably because that's what we were told! (not me obviously, i wasn't born). All the speeches/talks that pushed theories (some agreeing with each other, some way off the back wall) both officially in conference and in various other meetings never made mention of a potential future before the millennium where it would happen. I believe one big mention was Brigham Young saying that they would receive the priesthood after all of Abel's seed/children got their blessings first. It's interesting how all this worked out though. I see the lifting of the band as a good thing of course but I haven't made up my mind about whether it was revelation or more accidental/product of it's time yet.
  9. Talking to some of my family who were adults during the 1978 priesthood lift many of them just thought it was cool but didn't think much else about it. They just thought that essentially "the prophet lifted it so that's all we need to hear." This approach is decent in some cases simply because sometimes there isn't a good answer, but I was surprised they didn't do a total 360 spin around in their chairs when they heard it.
  10. I would just want to know his thoughts in general I would think. I agree people can change or see that they were in error, so I don’t really care what his views were. However it’s interesting to see what or how people’s views changed or if they ever did agree with the ban.
  11. It was conference just previous to his tenth lecture. It was at the end of the lecture that he claimed the Church had been totally abandoned by the Lord as “His organization” during the sustaining portion of the previous general conference. It was becuase they all raised their hands and sustained leaders who had rejected him for supposedly doing nothing more then sharing his testimony and message the Lord had given him. Or so he says.
  12. Fair enough, but he also has never compared himself to Abinadi or anyone of that nature. The most he's done is made mention the he's received messages from the Lord that he was supposed to deliver. He's said that he is a servant and revealed that he felt the Lord has called him David (not the davidic servant). There was a brief and off cuff mention during one talk where he said something about having a "dispensation", whatever he meant by that. It's his followers that make up names, analogies, and try to make something out of his last name. He could do better probably at trying to quell the rumors or attempted comparisons but it's not really his job to do that. He's said dozens of times that he has zero respect for anyone that calls themselves a snufferite. I also think he sincerely believes in what he is doing and sincerely believes in the church is wrong, not because hes upset. However, for all his sincerity there are a number of missteps I think he's taken that have shown his error. The biggest is PTHG's historical errors which sort of bungle his conclusions. I apologize if I come off as sympathizing with him. I enjoyed his books and some of his talks which sort of turned me to open my eyes. I don't believe in him as a prophet but some of his writings helped trigger my desire to get closer to Christ, so there is a little respect there. Mostly I just like the debate back and forth and I like playing the other side sometimes.
  13. Fair enough, I’ll be sure to toss that out of my quote boom 😂 However would you agree some members do think that way though? I know I did and I felt it is sometimes a common mindset, but maybe I’m wrong.
  14. It sometimes reminds me of the quote (don't know where it came from honestly) "When the leaders have spoken the thinking has been done." I tend to get weird looks in class if I offer different interpretations or theology then what everyone else believes that specific verse/quote is talking about. Inevitably someone will pull up a quote from a general authority who interprets the verse the way they want, and that puts an end to the discussion. The funny thing is, with a little digging I could find another general authority saying the total opposite! Always referencing a church leader isn't always the best source because they're learning just like us!
  15. I don't think anyone does either, at least not on purpose. Just like every member of the church would staunchly say that we don't worship Joseph Smith, sometimes it can happen without us knowing. The Devil has to be a little more sly now days and can't always just get us to make some idols and bow down to them, he has to get us to start traditions or do certain things that are essentially worship. While people don't bow down to the temple we sometimes attribute a power, holiness, awe, and reverence to the buildings that just isn't there. Obviously not everyone does this but it happens.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. I suppose in the general definition of a cult ALL religions would qualify.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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”!
  25. 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.
  • Create New...