All Activity

What’s the consensus among those who have looked at the research? Is it him?

I am speaking according to my beliefs. I believe all must be (re-)baptized in token of acknowledgement of the authorized ministry of Denver Snuffer, and that the Boise Covenant is thoroughly optional, but potentially helpful for some. It is required of all to receive all whom the Lord may choose to send as His messengers, or else they cannot receive Him. I believe the covenant all mankind must minimally keep to survive the coming of the Lord are His words found in 3 Nephi 5-6 in Covenant of Christ. I read it in my talk, the YouTube of which is found earlier in this thread. That is the doctrine of Christ and the Sermon at Bountiful. Before this, the Book of Mormon version would have been the one that required keeping. I believe that the wrath of God abides upon all who will [volition, not future indicative] not receive [accept, embrace] Covenant of Christ. As far as the rest, I don't know how stuff works in the other world, if there is another world. So I don't know how stuff might get administered to those who died without hearing the gospel, but I would guess it's much like what the LDS believe on the matter - there's just no temple as yet to attend to baptisms for the dead. Many apologies, but my focus has been more or less solely putting one foot in front of another along the Lord's path as He gave it in the Sermon, letting everything else fade into the background. Kind regards, Jared "Log" Livesey

Hello, brothers and sisters! I’m a young man from Russia, and I’ve recently become very interested in the restored gospel and the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Could you please help me learn more and share your insights? I’d really love to understand your faith better.

So anyone who has not lived by the Boise Covenant is doomed to burn? Wouldn’t that be the vast, vast majority of humans who have lived on the earth and never had the chance to hear of it, let alone have it administered to them? Or do you believe this can happen after death? From your link

Be sure to sit towards the back of the theater. They whizzed through some data so fast that it made my eyes hurt. Other interesting details were only given a few seconds on screen. I wish more time had been spent on the content rather than the researchers themselves....such as the brief moments we were given to see the painting and sculpture from the new findings. I think the book may be more satisifying.

In this, I am speaking according to my beliefs. I believe the fires are eternal, that is, unchanging and unyielding, when one is experiencing them. I do not know if they are of ultimately finite duration or not. Kind regards, Jared "Log" Livesey

That's kind of my point: priesthood ordinations, blessings, or leadership succession doesn't always follow a lineal or genealogically sequential process.

And is the burning eternal or for a time?

In this, I am speaking according to my beliefs. I believe it is their fate to be burned at the appearing of the Lord - as with all who have heard the Sermon on the Mount and will not obey it as written. I do not believe "tithed," as used in these verses, has any reference to tithing as practiced in the LDS Church. Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

As far as reported, I agree. At least the more severe stuff. There is the possibility that men feel awkward about reporting such. Men aren’t in our culture supposed to respond to similar threatening or humiliating situations by being passive, fleeing, or even fawning. If it was happening as much as for women, there would be a lot more violence if it was a “real man” response (as in deck anyone who physically or sexually harasses you). https://www.eeoc.gov/data/sexual-harassment-our-nations-workplaces When it comes to the less severe*** types of harassment, looks like men get it online worse than women. Need to find if it happens that way face to face. Can’t remember. And it may have changed due to more public discussion about sexual harassment and assault. I wonder if researchers controlled for places men hang out. Men might chose to visit sites that engage in these behaviors more, in part because they don’t see threat as much as women. Given the type of harassment behaviours they typically encounter (likely to cause more embarrassment than fear), this would be reasonable. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/01/13/the-state-of-online-harassment/ “Note: More severe behaviors include being physically threatened, stalked, sexually harassed or harassed for a sustained period of time. Less severe behaviors include being called an offensive name or having someone trying to purposefully embarrass them.” As far as non sexual harassment at work, men will receive such mostly from men while women luck out by getting it from both men and women (gee, I wonder why that is…actually no, I don’t, not in the least). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/240212/dq240212a-eng.htm The link might not show this as don’t have time to check like I thought I would. Hopefully later.

As for myself, a male, I am naturally cautious when meeting people, as to what 'They are about' so to speak. I suppose it is a matter of trust. This could be, in a way, for a number of general reasons. As for a woman, I just feel, and I may presume wrong on this, there maybe more inappropriate interactions towards her. Or, the possibility of threat towards her.

https://www.covenantchristians.info/ is their website. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fellowships_of_"the_Remnants"_movement is the wiki page for them. https://scriptures.info/ is their scriptures (the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Teachings and Commandments [overlaps with the Doctrine and Covenants]). They believe that Joseph and Hyrum were authorized servants but that all splinters (including LDS, CoC, and the others) have apostatized and so a new dispensation was started.

And what fate is that?

It is really strange that you and Seeking and Mustard Seed think this given there is obviously only one plain and ordinary meaning this phrase can mean for anyone.

Yes, please tell me what I think, feel, and believe because I can’t know that for myself. Of course I must think the same as you as that’s the only reasonable interpretation. (I am not insulted here, just trying to make a point that gets paid attention to.) ”I take these words according to their plain and ordinary meaning.” Because language is only allowed to have one “plain and ordinary” meaning for everyone and of course everyone will always agree on it. Why do we even bother to have dictionaries? You read much poetry, Smac? Reminds me of how in some people’s view scripture can have only one “plain and ordinary meaning” and everyone would obviously interpret it that way…except they don’t. So they must have agendas in those who think this way. It couldn’t be that they bring different experiences and therefore different context to words and therefore meaning varies. You and JFS and Bruce R. McConkie would probably get along quite well…most of the time. It would be interesting to eavesdrop on conversations where all of you are arguing for a different “plain reading”*** interpretation of scripture…or anything else. I mention the above to point out while I think the rigidness that is attached to “ plain and ordinary”, “face value”, “common sense”, etc is highly problematic, a lot of good people hold to such views. ***https://benspackman.com/2024/02/joseph-fielding-smith-death-before-the-fall-and-2-nephi-222/ “Smith believed that one achieved knowledge of these scientific facts through “plain reading” of the scriptural text. God intended scripture’s meaning to be plain and self-evident throughout centuries and across translation; context and outside information were not really needed. Indeed, if scripture lent itself to multiple interpretations, it would render scripture useless, he argued. (This is the assumption of “plain reading” and is plentifully documentable in Smith’s writings. Smith termed it “literal” reading, but this is a mistake.)”

For sure. Unfortunately we find incidents where our comfort is granted prematurely but we all have to exist somehow!

I think, maybe it is a matter, that a woman may have to be on the defensive, until she can lower her guard when feeling a bit more comfortable, or confident.

It’s interesting how you interpret things this way. I think you are assuming that “ all men are potential rapists” means that every single man including you has a budding rapist within. Try to listen to this statement(”all men”) again with a different point of view: situational awareness requires women to not assume that they are 100% safe with anybody. IMPORTANT: this statement is not a description of a specific man. It is not a description of you. What it is, is a description of the state of mind of a woman that she must carry around every day, as situations that require awareness can pop up at any time. We do not have the luxury of retiring our conscientiousness. It’s not about you. It’s about the state of mind of women’s vigilance.

Beating a dead horse here, but... A Jewish survivor of the October 7th attack, survives kidnapping and abuse, lives with PTSD every time she sees a Muslim in public and says that in her lived experience "all muslims are potential terrorists" A native of the West Bank area is continually harassed by masked Jewish settlers, beaten and threatened with violence while just trying to live their lives says that in her lived experience "all settlers are potential terrorists". A woman, that time after time is harrassed, threatened, assaulted by men both strangers and friends says that in her lived experience, "all men are potential rapists". For me, I recognize that I don't worry when I run alone five days a week. My heart rate doesn't go up with a woman approaches me. I don't stack chairs by the door of my hotel room to prevent someone from entering. I don't worry about my personal safety. That position however is a position of privilege. You don't listen and don't care, so you don't care to hear that woman aren't saying every man has a latent rapist waiting to escape in the right situation. Rather, they are explaining their lived, shared, traumatic experience that every experience with a man alone is like being alone with a potential rapist. That they have to take precautions, have thoughts, and worries every single time a man approaches. And for good reason.

I am, in this, speaking according to my beliefs. For those who acknowledge Denver Snuffer to be a messenger sent from Heaven, and have signified their belief in that before God and men by submitting to authorized re-baptism, and have said "yes" to the Boise Covenant, "Covenant Christians" are what the Lord has commanded them to refer to each other as, as per this revelation. The Boise Covenant is found here: https://scriptures.info/scriptures/tc/section/158 "All the words of the Lord which have been read to you this day" refers to this: https://scriptures.info/scriptures/tc/section/157 That was in answer to this prayer: https://scriptures.info/scriptures/tc/section/156 As I understand it, Covenant Christians are Christians who are distinguished from other Christians in the sight of the Lord by the Boise Covenant. If they fail to yield obedience to its terms, then there is nothing dividing them from any other Christians, and they shall suffer the same fate as them when the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. Kind regards, Jared "Log" Livesey

I'm glad you think that, but this comment is better directed at folks like Calm and Bluebell, who do think I am a "potential rapist," as are all men everywhere. That's what "all men are potential rapists" means. Situational awareness is a good idea. "All men are potential rapists." I take these words according to their plain and ordinary meaning. "All {black} men are potential rapists." Same thing. "All {Muslims} are potential {terrorists}." Same thing. And so on. Thanks, -Smac

Well, I'll ask another question: What is a Covenant Christian in your use of that term? I spoke once at Covenant College. I have been to several churches with Covenant in their name. I consider myself a covenantal Christian. So I am uncertain as to what exactly you are referring. Thanks, Navidad

They have subsequently restored it to the record.

First, I actually agree with 43. I think Joseph did use the same terms for both unauthorized and authorized. I've read the attempts by Hale and others to show that Joseph did make a difference and I don't find it to be really strong. I just accept that Joseph lied as that makes the most sense with the evidence. But, 43 is also misspeaking what Hale and others say. They are very specific that Joseph used words in specific ways. Others who he taught absolutely could have picked up different meanings but that doesn't change the fact that Joseph, himself, was very particular. Check out https://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Hales-JMH-7-2018-Denying-the-Undeniable.pdf for how Hale deals with some of the statements. But there was definitely a difference between unauthorized and authorized polygamy. Even under Brigham, there was unauthorized polygamy that could get you excommunicated (see W. W. Phelps being excommunicating for practicing polygamy in 1848). Then you have the story from Brigham about a monogamous couple who was sealed by Hyrum and Joseph got after Hyrum for misusing the sealing power (in the Denying the Undeniable article above). Even today, you could do unauthorized sealings and probably be excommunicated for it (or at least talked to harshly). So, if Joseph practiced polygamy, he would have had authorized vs unauthorized. An obvious example of unauthorized is John C. Bennet. Have you read his "expose"? He talks about how the women were in 3 tiers (based on the veil they wore) and certain men had access to certain tiers. It isn't even close to what was happening.

Oh, we definitely will speak past each other. You don't believe God can command someone to practice polygamy while I do. And your scriptural sources for it won't convince me just as my scriptural sources won't convince you. That's another reason I don't care much about the historical monogamy site. Because it is trying to convince me that my understanding of God is wrong. So most of the arguments on why D&C 132 is not theologically correct don't work for me because I see God being able to command that. Just like how you find a way to rationalize Nephi's killing of Laban, I can rationalize God's commanding polygamy. So, I like to focus on the actual physical evidence (affidavits, journals, statements, etc) vs the theological debate. What really happened vs what I want to have happened. That could by why I kept not understanding why you were quoting some of those sections.