I’ll start out by saying that I’m a skeptic. The combination of my skepticism, an in-depth study of the restoration, a disillusionment with the current practices of LDS.inc, and an exacting application of Occam’s Razor resulted in the ultimate demise of my faith in the literal restoration of the LDS church over a year ago. As such, I’ll just point out right from the start that I am not one who relates with Denver Snuffer’s teachings or movement. I still care about Mormonism in general, however, and want to see it move forward in positive ways–so I asked myself if Denver Snuffer could part of the equation that can make that happen. After learning more about his most recent offerings, my interest is piqued in who he is as a person and what he’s currently achieving. I feel like not too many people are fully aware of him, especially of his most recent revelations and call to arms, so I figured I’d write up a blog post about it for those who are interested.
Denver Snuffer lives in Utah and has authored several books about Mormon history and communicating with Christ. My overview here will be brief, but for further insight and back story–Mr. Snuffer’s Mormon Story can be heard here and his personal blog is here. His most controversial books are The Second Comforter: Conversing with the Lord Through the Veil and Passing the Heavenly Gift, in which he speaks about being visited by Christ. I have not read his books, but I have seen hundreds of reviews for his work and have read dozens of personal testimonies online of how life-changing his books have been for his readers. The common theme I have sensed is that for many people who felt like they needed to leave Mormonism all together or were losing faith/hope in the divine as a whole–Snuffer’s books buoyed them back into belief in both God, Christ, and the restoration. He was excommunicated from the LDS church in October of 2013 for refusing to cease publication of Passing the Heavenly Gift.
That was the last I had really heard about Denver Snuffer. It has recently come to my attention, however, that he has been very busy! The visitation(s) referenced in his books seem to have been ongoing. He has been speaking publicly (a series of 10 public lectures *click here for full transcripts*, the most recent was this last week) and gaining sympathizers. I say the word sympathizer simply because I’m lacking a more accurate word. Kindred folk? Cohorts? I don’t know… it’s hard to explain. Denver isn’t seeking followers and he rebuffs the idea of being a leader. Those who are “following him” aren’t claiming to follow Denver at all, nor are they recognizing him as a prophet–but instead as equal brothers and sisters who are hearing the Lord’s call for restoration and are seeking to build Zion together.
For a quick summation of how Denver Snuffer views himself and what he’s doing, here’s an excerpt from his most recent blog post:
I have never claimed, in public or private, to be anything other than a weak and foolish man.
The notion that I think I am anything other than that repulses me.
For years I have said that until someone actually accomplishes something, they have no right to claim they are something great or wonderful, that they fulfill prophecy, or are God’s chosen anything.
Nobody has accomplished anything since Joseph Smith. There is a great hill to climb. Until someone climbs it and serves to guide others, we are left with pretenders, ego-maniacs, fools, impostors and villains. (1)
As for his view of if he’s seeking to start a new church, these are his words:
Likewise, we need to have a renewed community. Not an organization, but a fellowship. Not a hierarchy, but a group of equals. The community needs to be renewed. Men who have been ordained already, should renew this in the manner just described in the example of Alma. Have a community of believers. Be accepted by them. But before acting, ask God to pour out His Spirit to give power. (2)
So for clarity, Denver Snuffer does not claim to be a prophet, nor is he creating a new church. He is not seeking personal followers either. He simply sees that the current church is a far cry from what it once was, knows that Zion has yet to be established, and he feels that the current church is so caught up in worshiping “the brethren” and making investments that he has been asked by the Lord to shift Mormonism back on track to a pure following of Christ’s more simple message. He cites the Book of Mormon’s prophecies of the end of days to rather aptly accuse the current church of corruption and a form of apostasy. The community he is fostering is simply seeking a grass roots restoration of foundational Mormonism, and they believe that Denver Snuffer is receiving direction from the Lord as to how this should be accomplished. How this strictly differs from the current definition of prophet or church is kind of muddled to me, but it seems that Mr. Snuffer and those associated with him want to make this distinction quite clear. It makes perfect sense to them and that’s all that matters.
There are many, many interesting things going on with Denver Snuffer’s teachings, but this is a short blog post so I’ll just focus in on some key things I find to be distinct. For instance, Denver Snuffer has gained insight from the Lord about women and the Priesthood:
In my disgust and personal preference, I asked the Lord that priesthood get extended beyond the confines of the men who have continually abused and neglected it. I was told that priesthood is confined to men because of the Fall and the conditions ordained by God at that time.
Until we reverse things in the Millennium, that is the way it is going to remain, as to the ordinances thus far given in public. I asked the Lord to change that order. It is not going to change. I then asked the Lord that if only men were to hold priesthood for our public ordinances, then could only women vote to sustain them. The saying pleased the Lord, for it was already in His heart. But He said to me: “There shall be a minimum of seven women to sustain the man in any vote, and if the man is married, his wife shall be one of them.”
Here is how I would proceed. Even though I have already been ordained, a community needs to recognize I am authorized before I proceed further. However, given the fact men have abused and neglected the priesthood that they have been given, and given the fact that if men are only going to hold the priesthood, that there ought to be some independent check. Therefore when it comes to sustaining me, or any of you, to perform in a priesthood capacity in any renewed community, only women should vote. No man should be allowed to vote to sustain another priesthood holder, period. If only men hold it, then only women should sustain them. I have a wife and six daughters. Therefore I have a community. Jethro had seven daughters.
For any of you who would like to renew your fellowship, call a conference. In your conferences attended by a minimum of seven women, at least seven women must vote to sustain one to be a priest to the community. When that is done, all seven who vote to sustain should sign a certificate. If you look at the Joseph Smith Papers there were certificates given in the early church. These were just handwritten things so there was a written authorization to function in the church. Among your own fellowships, do like they did in the early church. Do as they did, but let the fellowships now respect a balance between the obligations of the men and the rights of the women. If the man is married, his wife must be among the seven women. If his wife will not sustain him, he is unworthy to provide priesthood service in the fellowship. Of course that does not bar him from continuing to do so in the LDS Church. Nor would it bar him from being in fellowship with both. (2)
What I find interesting is that OW has been asking for revelation on women for over a year now and never, at no point in time has the Prophet Thomas S. Monson even remotely mentioned bringing this before the Lord personally, nor has he claimed to have been given any additional insight concerning women from the Lord. At best we have gotten Elder Oaks quoting Joseph Fielding Smith and J. Reuben Clark as his official references for why women are “appendages” of the priesthood but will never hold it. Never mind the fact that both Joseph Fielding Smith and J. Reuben Clark erroneously supported and taught of the divine nature and providence behind the ban on black people holding the Priesthood for 150 years (which the church now entirely disavows). Did I mention that J. Reuben Clark was famous for ensuring that the Utah blood banks were free of “negro blood” so that those upstanding, white, male priesthood holders’ authority wouldn’t be voided by a blood transfusion with mixed-race bloods? (3) These are the men that Oaks quoted in his most recent talk on the Priesthood. What does Denver Snuffer do? He asks Christ himself and gives Christ’s direct, unfiltered answer. I don’t have a clue if he is actually communing with Christ or not and I also find this “revelation” to be problematic in several ways–but I honestly really like Snuffer’s moxie here; at least he’s asking directly and standing by the answer.
Other key points Snuffer is honing in on are the following:
- Use tithing to help the poor and needy above all else, also it should not be given to priests first but directly to the poor.
- The current LDS church has lost its authority (he cites this officially happened in April of 2014) due to abusing it and being corrupt. In the same way that John the Baptist ended the established hierarchy of Jesus’s time and a renewed authority was established, the Lord is doing so again in the restored church. (TPJS, p. 276: [John the Baptist] wrested the keys, the kingdom, the power, the glory from the Jews, by the holy anointing and decree of heaven). I can’t quite tell if Snuffer believes that HE has wrested this authority? Or if that’s in the works? Or if perhaps all of us can wrest our own authority in the “pattern of God” revealed/instructed by Snuffer.
- Church meetings should not be three-hour-long blocks of correlated, standardized teachings authorized by Deseret Publishing. Instead believers should meet together, read the scriptures, uplift one another, and pray.
- Buildings are not necessary for meetings of fellowships. The money that could be spend on buildings should be used to aid the poor.
- A temple will be built at some point in the future, where a record of baptisms for the dead will be kept (not much more was said on the subject than that).
- Christ’s church needs no hierarchy, it should be an egalitarian community of believers.
- Taking the sacrament shouldn’t ever be denied anyone for any reason. Doing so for disciplinary actions is offensive and wrong.
- Baptisms should be done in living water whenever possible.
He insists all baptisms must be redone as commitments to Christ himself rather than a co-opted commitment to Christ and the LDS church (as he currently views LDS baptisms). They also need to be redone to have the right authority and wording. The wording that should be used should reflect the words Christ gives in 3rd Nephi, 11:” Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen” This is different than the current wording “Having been commissioned of Christ…”
In light of these more recent teachings, when Denver Snuffer is discussed in most circles of Mormonism–the overwhelming reaction has seemed to be “That dude is nutty as squirrel poo”. Many who were sympathetic during his excommunication are now thinking he might be completely insane. Or perhaps he is a power hungry fraud. Why do people infer this? Because he claims to be actively speaking for Christ and we simply aren’t used to that.
While I understand the kickback of thinking the guy is bonkers–I can’t help but note the ridiculous hypocrisy here. Are we not all Mormons? Have we not dedicated the majority of our lives to a church started by a man who… saw that the current organized churches had missed the mark and a restoration was needed? Who was an unqualified boy who had several divine visitations? Who gave Christ-authorized revelations nearly daily during his tenure as prophet and spoke as Christ in first person often? Joseph Smith received revelation about even the most mundane aspects of life–so why can we not believe that Christ would speak to Denver Snuffer for some grass roots insight? Do we truly not believe that we are all able to commune with Christ? Why is it so much easier to believe that Joseph Smith spoke with a series of spirits and Christ and God but our first reaction to Denver Snuffer is that he’s completely batty? I think the most probable answers here are simple: confirmation bias and/or herd mentality.
The truth is, Joseph Smith and Denver Snuffer can feasibly both be right. It’s honestly up to all of us to be open-minded and consider and pray about Snuffer’s words as seriously as we do any other person who claims to speak for Christ, LDS prophets included. In reality, the LDS prophets haven’t received new revelation straight from Christ since 1978 (4). It would appear they are so afraid of upsetting the status quo, the leadership has become completely stagnant in its ability or willingness to ask for or receive new revelation so they just continue to quote the leaders of the past. Could it be that the Lord is speaking to someone else to revive the lines of communication? Someone who isn’t bound by the laws and bylaws of LDS.inc?
What is Denver teaching? Is it good? Will it bring you closer to Christ? If the answer is yes… then perhaps Denver isn’t quite as deserving of epithets as previously assumed. If the answer is no, then go ahead and gear up for another thrilling conference in which the brethren quote each other repeatedly as they pontificate about how to dress, how to vote against equal rights for LGBT people, how men and women should be forced into rigid gender roles, and how to be the single type of family God likes best–but who rarely, if ever, speak in open, direct, new words from Christ. Or perhaps we can all realize that we don’t need to look to someone else to speak for Christ because we actually all have the ability to do so in our own hearts.
Perhaps, just perhaps, there is a much needed place in Mormonism for people like Mr. Denver Snuffer. After reading up on him to write this post–I for one, find him refreshing at the very least. You won’t see me lining up for a new baptism any time soon, though. After the content of the last few conferences, I also don’t think I’ll be tuning in for the upcoming round of sessions either.
———
1) http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2014/09/mighty-strong-davidic.html
2) Preserving The Restoration. Denver Snuffer. 9-9-14. Lecture 10 Mesa, AZ. http://www.scribd.com/doc/239760895/10-Phoenix-Transcript-Preserving-the-Restoration#download
3) D. Michael Quinn’s biography, “Elder Statesman: A Biography of J. Reuben Clark” (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 2002) “Clark’s attitudes toward Blacks was equally reprehensible. Along with others of his time, he opposed intermarriage and supported the common practice of segregating blood supplies in hospitals to ensure that no white person would be infused with blood from a Black person, and thus either invalidate his priesthood or disqualify him from future priesthood. But as time progressed, so did his attitude toward Blacks. As the Church extended its missionary efforts into South America and determining blood lines became more difficult, he came to something of an accommodation in the case of some Brazilians, even ‘wondering whether we could not work out a plan, while not conferring the priesthood as such upon them, we could give them opportunity to participate in the work certainly of the Aaronic Priesthood grades. (p. 354)
4) Official Declaration 2 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng
If history has taught me anything, it is that people refuse to be unorganized. I understand that Snuffer says he’s not forming an organization, but if his movement succeeds, it will be because it organizes itself.
I think this is the most important thing to note about this “movement”. Yay for him for not wanting to become a leader (tyrant?) and for wanting people to be equally valued and lose the hierarchy? But how this is feasible in any real way is lost on me. I’m interested in seeing what will become of those who start fellowships akin to Snuffer’s mode de jour.
I think you will find communities shifting until people find themselves in with a group of like minded people. Some of the groups will be closer to God than others, and there will be a more natural sifting of the wheat and tares.
I believe some of the Evangelicals work on a similar principle, though I have not had a very close look to see how their hierarchy is set-up.
Also, I’m certain no scholar, nor well-versed in the theology of Mormon tithing, but it was always my understanding that Joseph Smith always saw tithing merely as a vehicle for helping the church operate and function, not as a vehicle for feeding the poor. I’m not quite sure how Denver arrived at such a departure if he seems to be wanting to restore us back to the teachings of Joseph Smith.
I need to look into this. From my reading of snuffer, it seemed like JS was more about the poor–but I could easily have inferred that from Snuffer’s spin. I need to look again to see how it matches up.
James – the following is found on page 70 of The Teachings of Joseph Smith, under the catagory of tithing. “That if the Lord will prosper us in our business and open the way before us that we may obtain means to pay our debts, that we be not troubled nor brought into disrepute before the world, no His people; after all that, of all that He shall give unto us, we will give a tenth to be bestowed upon the poor in His Church, or as He shall command; and that we will be faithful over that which he has entrusted to our care.”
I am interested in the creative elements of a movement. I applaud examples that remind us that we each have direct access to revelation, but Joseph Smith created both books of scripture and a powerful movement (for good or ill). I’m happy to wait and see–if it be the work of God, no one can stop it, if the work of men, it will pass. Nothing in Brother Snuffer’s reinterpretations of past scripture moves me to belief in his particular movement or prophetic utterances, even when I share a hope in many of the reforms he advocates.
I agree Jonathan. There is definitely cause to re-evaluate and listen to Denver Snuffer’s points he brings up? I really do enjoy his thesis and hope for his movement. But that doesn’t mean we all need to buy tickets on his train, his authenticity has yet to woo me intellectually or spiritually.
James,
Perhaps he sees Joseph as a fallen prophet? He isn’t embracing polygamy, but tithing in the bible seems to be for the poor. Maybe Joseph’s version of tithing was corrupt?
Well, I think that what the church has done with tithing is what Snuffer finds to be corrupt. Denver’s use of tithing is much more like what JS originally taught, from anything I can see.
I think Snuffer might be of the “Joseph fought polygamy” school of thought
I applaud your review and will be sharing it.
I had noticed that there was extremely little sharable info about Denver Snuffer, so I hope this can add some clarity and exposure for people who simply want to know. Thanks for commenting and sharing.
@Beth: I have read all of Denver’s books and attended and read his 10 lectures. I am not saying that to make myself some kind of “authority” but just so you know where my opinion comes from.
Denver taught specifically throughout his lectures that Joseph was nothing even close to a fallen prophet but rather THE SOURCE from which the words of Christ should be found and followed in our day. His ten lectures were merely an attempt to rectify and restore many of the teachings that Joseph taught.
As to tithing/freewill money offerings, if you look at the words revealed THROUGH Joseph rather than the words ascribed to Joseph what you will find is that consistently there is a theme of caring for the poor.
Joseph was seeking to lay the foundation for Zion and that meant having no poor among them. That understanding can be found repeatedly in the Doctrine and Covenants. The one revelation we have regarding the mode of law that allegedly dictates the manner by which we are to pay tithing currently is found in Section 119 of the Doctrine and Covenants. This revelation was given only after the previous form of living according to the Law of Consecration had failed and be revoked by the Lord.
However even in Section 119 (which we understand to be a lower law, under the Law of Consecration) it states that tithing is for “…the laying of the foundation of Zion…”
The reason why I believe Denver has played an important role is merely as a testifier of the truthfulness of the work God gave to Joseph Smith. If anything is going to be gained from Denver it will be because as individuals we stop treating the words of Christ given through Joseph with such triviality and instead repent, and use them as our basis of coming to Christ while in the flesh.
Edwin, thanks for clarifying here. Are there other key things about Snuffer’s teachings/focus that I should include on that bullet point list?
I find it interesting that the current “prophets” refuse to even speak to god nor ask him about the pressing issues of our time. We have a new civil rights movement in the works, yet the church leadership is content quoting the old prophets who condemned the last civil rights movement.
If god still does speak to mankind, these crotchety old white men certainly aren’t listening nor care.
I also find it interesting Denver is advocating for tithing to be used primarily to help the poor. When I used to be a member, I was under the impression that was already the case. Years after I left, I discovered that only a tiny fraction is used to help the poor. The rest is used to buy real estate, build shopping malls, and bribe politicians to fight against equality.
I would like to see some evidence for your ad hominem attacks on these “crotchety old white men,” particularly evidence that they refuse to speak with God or that a tiny fraction is used to help the poor. Links and/or quotes would be acceptable. Or really, anything other than pointing out their “whiteness” (which seems to be an increasingly popular way of ‘disproving’ things they say around these parts). So, what *is* the fraction, exactly, of tithing money used to help the poor? Are we talking only of money used in the traditional manner of handouts? Are you excluding the cost to erect Churches and provide doctrinal materials to supply the wards and branches around the world that in turn create Bishops and Branch Presidents who ALSO use tithing money to help the poor in those specific wards and branches?
And you guys need to come up with better evidence of fallen leaders than, “ZOMG!! Th3y builded a mALL!!111!!” The Church has stated the project was funded through their own Property Reserve, Inc. and not through tithing money. You’re saying that’s not true. Please enlighten us with something that proves otherwise.
Careful, Justin, about wanting to know how the sausage of church finances is made. Part of the rub is that the Church stopped giving a public accounting of its finances in 1959 after Henry D. Moyle nearly bankrupted the church in a one-man chapel-building spree. Several years ago as you probably know, headquarters also changed the tithing receipt to let us know that all of our donations become their property to be used as they see fit which is not the pattern laid out in the D&C. All the other major Christian denominations in America give an accounting of their finances on their websites.
Bloomberg Businessweek did a story on LDS church finances a couple of years ago. Interesting stuff but only best guesses. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-10/how-the-mormons-make-money
Yeah, that’s not even remotely what I was discussing. I asked her for specific evidence of what percentage of tithing money goes to the poor and what evidence she had that the prophets “refuse to speak to God.” I’m guessing you knew this already but couldn’t help yourself.
But fine. Speaking of D&C, the Lord stipulates the conditions of a living Church in D&C 56: “I the Lord command AND REVOKE as it seemeth me good;” many critics and ex-members assume that since the Lord is “the same, yesterday and forever” that it means nothing in the Church can never change. The Lord says differently. I guess changing their policy on specifics of where tithing goes in 1959 isn’t as big as a deal to me as it is for you, and that’s okay.
As for my original point to Kristen, she states that tithing is mostly used for purchasing real estate, building malls and bribing politicians over gay marriage. This is factually incorrect, in more ways than one. As I stated, the SLC mall was purchased with money made via Property Reserve, which functions as a regular business entity (i.e. for profit). The Church has stated that tithing was not used. As for Prop 8 2008, financials revealed that somewhere between $2,000 and $5,000 was used by the Church to fly out General Authorities to meet with other Churches about the issue. Many members used their own personal money to fund Prop 8 advertising, which is their right. Saying Church leaders bought off politicians is intellectually dishonest.
The bottom line with tithing for me is trust. Many of the writers and posters on this blog don’t trust the Church. That’s their prerogative. I do. I also don’t believe that just because details aren’t given on exactly where Church money is spent that means a giant conspiracy is at play. Others can grab their tinfoil hats all they want; again, the beliefs of others have nothing to do with me… as long as their civil. If Kristen or others are going to sling mud at Church leaders, I may ask for proof… you know, other than the fact that they are “white and old.”
Ah, there is the rub again, Justin–we can’t know how much tithing goes to help the poor vs building $5 billion shopping malls because they won’t tell us. It is curious that the Church could be a non-profit entity without being financially transparent. We do know that the Church is legally a corporation sole concentrated in the person of the current president.
Justin, If you look at the above article it shows how much the church is bringing in yearly. (roughly 5-8 Billion a year in tithing depending on the decade)… This figure was acknowledged by a church leader as well… (do some research)… then the church publishes a boast of how much money they have donated in the last 20 years to help the poor and needy (humanitarian aid)… The figure translates to less than 1% of their annual tithing intake. If you do the math, you’ll see that the church has inadvertently spilled the beans on how little they actually do to help the poor. Please start researching.. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/13/businessweek-mormon-cover_n_1672752.html
When the Lord reveals something that’s important enough to be written down, presented to the church membership for acceptance by common consent, and published as part of the official cannon, doesn’t it stand to reason that it’s also sufficiently important to warrant similar treatment in changing it? Even the priesthood ban (with NO scriptural basis to start with) was deemed sufficiently important to require a written revocation submitted to the church membership for acceptance by common consent.
Yet the law of tithing issued by written revelation and accepted by common consent isn’t important enough to require similar treatment for changes to it? D&C charges bishops with collecting and distributing tithing, but the Church Handbook of Instruction© specifically forbids bishops from spending ANY tithing for ANY purpose and requires it ALL to be submitted to headquarters. How can altering written revelation contained in D&C be considered a mere “policy change” not requiring revelation or common consent?! Bishops have a “sacred charge” to mindlessly collect it and pass it on? A child could do that (as proven by 12 yr old boys collecting fast offerings). The current system does not reflect the modern revelation we have in D&C. Yes, the Lord can change things, but I simply don’t believe that he would be so inconsistent as to not follow the pattern shown in D&C. I consider “Official Declarations” to be less than revelatory, but at least they were something and were accepted by common consent. Where are the Official Declarations changing our entire tithing system? Where is the common consent? Where is the Official Declaration declaring common consent no longer necessary? Seriously, there should be SOME kind of rational theory supporting the current system, but there’s NOT!
https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/welfare/2011-welfare-services-fact-sheet.pdf
$1.4 billion in 26 years equals less than $54 million/yr.
If they’re even bringing in $1 billion a year, that’s barely half of one percent. That definitely qualifies as “a tiny fraction” in my book. But they’re not bringing in $1 billion a year, they’re bringing 5-8 TIMES that! The “tiny fraction” grows tinier and tinier.
City Creek spending is over 5 times the amount they spent in TWENTY-SIX YEARS on humanitarian aid!!!
Ivy League schools invest donations so that the annual investment income can be used for scholarships without spending the principal. If they spent that investment income on a mall instead, do you think their donors would buy the line that it wasn’t technically their donations that were spent on the mall (only “investment” income)? I don’t.
ALL the Church™ businesses were funded with investment income derived from tithing. You can believe all you want that the mall “wasn’t paid for with tithing,” but it most clearly was.
https://www.lds.org/bc/content/ldsorg/topics/welfare/PD10050531_000_WelfareFactSheet.pdf?lang=eng
I find it quite telling that the Church™ no longer reports dollar amounts, trying instead to obfuscate the issue by publishing numbers of people helped. It doesn’t change the fact that the number of people helped would be EXPONENTIALLY HIGHER if the funds for City Creek, et al. had been directed to humanitarian aid instead.
Lori, I appreciate your review. You were balanced and level-headed in your opinion. I like that.
However, the “key points” you listed were in talk #10 (Phoenix). There were 9 previous talks that all help build the foundation for the 10th talk. I understand time constraints, but if you really want to summarize Denver key points, I would suggest reading the other 9. It’ll take time, but the journey is well worth it.
For example, Denvers mentioning of a temple is quite minor in the entire scope. I also don’t recall him talking baptism for dead, but I could be wrong. The message of faith, priesthood, covenants, being saved, Zion, marriage, etc. were far more significant than some of the points you summarized.
It’s also worth mentioning, the man isn’t important, the message is. The last thing we need is another person (strong man) leading a cause. The point, in my opinion, is to have your own connection to heaven, and get your own revelation, not rely on someone else.
Yes! I didn’t have time to go back and read them all. I think it’s definitely worth a more thorough summary. Are there key things that you suggest I add to the list so it’s more accurate? You mention words there–but what else can be added to those words to get a gist of what Denver is introducing? Thanks so much for your comment.
Interesting well written.
Thank you for your comment.
This is useful, Lori. I’d agree that Snuffer’s final lecture will generate a lively discussion. If you can find the time to study them or can find someone who has studied them, a useful followup would be a review of Snuffer’s entire set of ten lectures. He states that studying the lectures in order is a prerequisite to understanding this tenth, more provocative lecture.
The title of this post brings to mind a Facebook group of a similar slant, ‘Questions for the Brethren’. Logical inconsistencies, logical fallacies, obfusticated history and traditions posing a truth claims are raised and nailed to the door as simple questions. Like with Snuffer’s work there is a refreshing sense about it, a directness born of a sincere interest in the will of God and a desire to emulate Jesus Christ. https://www.facebook.com/QuestionsBrethren
I just included a link in this post so people can download them! I think a summary or review would be useful as well.
I think you bring up good observations here, thanks for your comment.
Well written intro, Lori. Makes me want to learn more about the man and his message. Did you ask him for an interview? Thanks for the write-up.
I’m glad you enjoyed it! I haven’t reached out to Denver at all. I only had the idea to write this and study up on him yesterday afternoon! I’m interested in what people who have followed him for longer are saying and what he himself would add.
Tim, “Makes me want to learn more about the man and his message.”
Tim, This feels slightly less than honest, I don’t know of anybody else online who knows “more about the man and his message” than you!
I’m going to assume you meant something else.
Tim’s post is a great summary of where the Denver movement is now at.
http://latterdaycommentary.com/2014/09/09/a-few-notes-from-the-mesa-lecture/
What a refreshing post, Lori. Kudos to you for being able to step back and look at what’s happening here with a little more openness and less urgency to jump to our normal judgmental conclusions. As you pointed out already, there are *plenty* ready to pile wood around the stake and proceed to set up another “place of martyrdom” like in Alma 14:9. In fact, most of those looking into it seem to be getting the Alma 14:7 question. (“Art thou *also* possessed with the devil?”) It seems there are not many that are willing to step back and consider this “movement” on its own terms. I, too, would be interested to see you review the earlier parts of his massive, 26-hour, 10-part talk. It seems this is not a trivial message, especially if there is coherence to it, which I see.
Thanks for your comment and insight! Yes, I definitely should have looked more thoroughly through all of his works. In all honesty–I was surprised how hard it was to find much about him online at all!
I’m glad that you found the post to be fairly written, being open-minded and even in my approach here was important to me.
Nice article, Lori, but you did make one major (though common) mistake: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never banned black people from holding Priesthood offices, nor has it ever disavowed the divinity of the temporary restrictions previously placed on those of Negro heritage. I’d recommend rereading the page you used as a citation for these claims, because it actually supports neither. What it states is that many individuals came up with pet theories for why the restrictions were in place, and that the Church disavows these theories.
Back to your post, though, interesting stuff! I don’t agree with Snuffer’s positions as a whole, but I do think he’s got some good points regarding our individual relationships with Christ. Thanks for sharing!
What you are saying is how the church is currently framing it to make it sound better. It absolutely was banned by Brigham Young (even the essay says “In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood”, which is a ban) and it absolutely was taught as doctrine. From the time of Adam until now doctrine; same as forbidding interracial marriage. Even the quote that the church’s essay uses in which Brigham Young states that it will be eventually given to the blacks is cut short and used out of context to support the essay–because he follows up to say that it will eventually be given to the blacks only after every single last white man who will live on the earth has already received it. So, he was wrong about that. There are a SLEW of quotes from prophets and leaders of their day who taught it as doctrine every bit as much as the church’s current stance on homosexuality is a doctrine. If you want links regarding this, there are many I could share–but that’s not what this particular post was about.
Thank you for your comment all the same. Denver Snuffer is definitely interesting and I enjoy much of what he is teaching.
As far as Denver’s take on Joseph smith, he loves Joseph Smith and think anything that was evil that has been attributed to Joseph Smith was actually the doing of Brigham Young and others. My take is Denver claims Brigham Young started polygamy and Joseph did not practice it unless it was sealing women to him spiritually and that is it.
I think he is a good dude and has seen problems in the LDS church and believes in what he is doing. I myself have concluded Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet so I am disappointed with some of the things Denver teaches. Also I am quite sure that he could have received an impression that women don’t have the priesthood because of the fall, but guess what? The same condition applies to men. Women have just as much access to God’s power and authority as men do. He is wrong that women cannot have the priesthood until the millennium. But all in all I think his movement is turning some heads and is a good thing.
Sounds like the Mormon leaders should take him on as a consultant. He’s very focused on putting new wine in an old bottle it seems. I wish him luck.
If there is an author out there that is actually revealing new stuff and not just revisions and administrative ideas, I would say that would be JJ Dewey. He has written interesting books like “The Molecular Relationship”, “The Gathering of Lights”, “Reincarnation and Mormonism”, “Eternal Lives”. He also has a fantastic series called the Immortal Series, which uses fiction to entertain while dissiminating new ideas and principles. Other sources of more modern light would be the Aquarian Gospel transcribed by Levi Dowling and “Journey of Souls” by an athiest hypnotherapist.
Stay thirsty!
“Look fellas, I’m not a prophet. I’m just a guy– a regular dude– who just happens to have been visited by Jesus Christ multiple times. That’s all. Yeah, I know it sounds suspect because Christ has really only revealed Himself in the past when He’s establishing His Church, fulfilling and instituting commandments, and calling people to be prophets… but I’m NOT A PROPHET. The Lord, Creator of this world, the being who atoned for the sins of mankind… He just stopped by my place to say ‘Hi.’ And I don’t want to start a Church. Not at all. I’m just too humble for all that.
Oh! And by the way, buy my books and don’t forget to see me on my speaking tour. Bye!”
I wonder if the you use the same critical lens you apply here to the LDS church and its current leaders with their books, autobiographies, and “speaking tour/conference lectures.”
I can’t speak for him, but one of the biggest differences is that they *do* claim to be prophets and they *do* desire an organized Church. Denver says he doesn’t. He just wants people to follow him and hear his words/read his books as though they are scripture… Kind of– no– exactly like a prophet. I’d have no problem with the guy if he was more upfront about what it is that he’s trying to do.
Jeff Drake,
Unbelievable! The church has never had a ban on black people receiving the priesthood?!? The basic definition of the word ‘ban’ is to prohibit; how about you go read the official statements released (and signed) by the first presidencies in 1949 and 1969 and try again to say there was never a ban. Please.
Justin Bailey, you are a nasty human being. How do you think your sarcasm could possibly be of any value to anyone? People of integrity expect to be believed, and when they’re not, they let time prove them right. Take your attitude elsewhere, please.
Is this your first visit to this website? If so, welcome! Take a look around and see the hypocrisy of what you wrote– most posters here make ad hominem attacks on the Church and its leadership with posts ripe with snark and sarcasm. If you’re not new, then I guess you’re only okay with sarcasm you agree with, eh?
You guys need to learn some consistency. “I attack, but that’s okay because it’s what I believe.” “I’m being attacked! Oh, this is so unfair!!!” Nut up and take the same criticism you dish out.
In Denver’s defense I am sure he was pointing out that The Lord never banned blacks from having the priesthood. This was an error of the church. I am so sick of people saying the last revelation given by the church was in 1978-9 allowing all worthy males to receive the priesthood. If you study out exactly what happened there was no revelation given at all. They claimed to have prayed a lot but they actually acted and asked The Lord to correct them if they were doing something wrong.
There should have never been a restriction on anyone having the priesthood. They didn’t need revelation to correct that collosal mistake. It was racism plain and simple.
According to the church’s official stance, this was a revelation given by God. You can see in the official declaration (cited in 4 above)
He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple.
I do totally agree with your assessment of the ban and the circumstances of it being lifted btw–I was just clarifying the line that the church holds.
Wow I was a member of the priesthood before I left the church and was blind well I actually ignored the lies and false doctrine of our church!
We want to believe it is the truth but through all my studying I have found it to be nothing more than a buisness tu lift up people and not the true God but the Norman god I pray for all those still active members to flee
Jeff Drake,
Jeff, the church only disavowed theories recently. History doesn’t support your idea.
Lori
Thanks and yes, I am very aware that the church called it revelation. I also believe wilford woodruff received revelation just like he said that if the saints wouldn’t stop practicing polygamy they would be destroyed. Too bad he didn’t say that it was because God never commanded the wicked practice.
Now the church seems to be slowly changing the word revelation into “inspiration”. They now teach that any good feeling is the Holy Ghost, and they are denying the power of God.
I would have no problem with the church (more than any other church) except they claim a fulness and to be the only way. People are enslaved and don’t even know it. It is a wonder how much time people put into callings and neglect their families, all the while complaining about how much of a hassle their calling is. I hear members complaining about their leaders all of the time and about the youth groups. The suicide rate and depression rate in Utah are both extremely high, and they put on a facade of happiness the whole time. Why do people continually do the same thing over and over again if it brings no happiness?
Wait I remember… They are “enduring” to the end.
Celeste – he’s already said twice that the Church has said their side corporation paid for the mall project. I thought that was common knowledge. It’s really only Church critics that ignore it because then they can’t hurl that particular insult anymore.
Denver is not alone, and the Restoration is far from over. This time it won’t be just one person. There are several of us. These are thoughts I have been having for well over 25 years. I couldn’t agree more about the fellowship of equals. Check out my website.
It’s not good enough to just sit in the back of the bus and let somebody else take you along for a ride. We each need to receive personal direction from God. We each need to have a vision of Zion. This treatise shows the thread of God’s dealings with man from Adam and Eve, down to the present day. A true Restoration needs to restore everything back to Adam.
<a href="http://john144.com/jrc/pdf/Foundation%20of%20Zion%20Volume%202.pdf" title="The Foundation of Zion Volume II"
http://john144.com/jrc/pdf/Foundation%20of%20Zion%20Volume%202.pdf
John
Don’t know if you will look at this but I read some of your book. I read the intro then skipped around and read the visions at the end. Thanks for your sacrifice. You no doubt have helped many in your journey. As I am sure you know many wonderful things are coming on the earth. I am happy to see others have learned and experienced similar things to what I have. I pray you will be here to see and experience much of what you have seen. God bless
I believe I am a prophet! I also believe I have received revelations, and insights from GOD through the holy ghost. I don’t claim to be The Prophet.
That being said who can tell me what would have happened if the ban on blacks would not have been put in place? Please give this some real thought and not just assume that I or GOD are racist.
Also we are under commandment to live as Zion. How would you put that in place for you and your neighbors? Especially with the law of tithing?
Also does GOD not answer the leaders of any church because the leaders are corrupt or because the people are corrupt?
I have read most of Mr. Snuffer’s books, and have found many things that I think should be thought about(because I find truth in them). However I also find many things that I disagree with.
Lori I would like to know your thoughts and feelings about eternal marriage.
That is an interesting (and seemingly un-related to this post) type of question to ask, but I don’t mind answering it.
I believe that the souls who are bound together by love will continue to be together in the hereafter. I do not think that a temple ordinance is necessary for that. I do think that what is done in the temple is a good tool for reflection and symbolism and it helps many people draw closer to god and christ (not all people though- the temple is very damaging for many) –but in no way do I think ordinances are literal or necessary. I think that what is in our hearts and minds is what counts at the last day and everything else is just a tool or symbol to help us grow.
Claiming to be a prophet is apparently very popular today. All the cool kids are doing it.
I agree on your findings of things you disagree with. I find that Denvers information is very appealing because it contains truth, but it isn’t complete truth, of the information I have seen there seems to be a pattern of truth with a false. Because the truth is compelling, and refreshing, it seems to have the ability to void the false information attached to it, which almost gets included and accepted as truth. It is very very deceptive if it leads people to follow him and turn from the foundation of the church that holds the keys for ordinances. Because of the spiritual nature of his work and his gifts, I feel that there is alot of deception, that possibly angels of deceit act as angels of light to use truth (which they well know) to deceive people. Very fascinating that truth would be used as a tool for deception.
All I can say is I don’t think the person writing this article is in any way qualified to be talking about key points being advocated for by Snuffer. She talks about reading hundreds of reviews of his books and of reading dozens of testimonies shared by his readers, but then says she hasn’t read his books, and merely did some “reading up on him in order to write this post.” (Lori, you actually didn’t even have to say this to some of us because it’s pretty obvious from the very beginning of your article that you hadn’t, but we give you credit for at least being honest and upfront about it.)
Lori, if you’re gonna write about someone else’s views, wouldn’t it be better to actually read what they themselves personally wrote instead of reading what others wrote about what they wrote? If you want to read his books I have both of those you mention in your post, and will let you borrow them. (They were lent to me, but I know the lender won’t mind if I lend them on.) Or do you prefer getting your information down below after the cattle have waded through it and mucked it all up and pooped in it? How can you judge a spring if you’re only sampling it down below after it’s full of piss and manure?
Next time you think about representing another person’s views after spending lots of time reading hundreds of reviews about that other person’s books without ever once taking the time to crack open one of his books to read a little for yourself, consider that you might serve the world better by keeping your mouth shut.
Sorry you didn’t enjoy the post. I downloaded his 10 lectures, looked over the first 9 and read most all of the 10th. I also looked at his own blog and Tim Malone’s blog. I made a link in this post so Denver Snuffer’s words could be available to anyone who wanted to read further. If I misrepresented Mr. Snuffer, I apologize. If there are points here that I am wrong about–I’d be happy to correct them.
This was only meant to be a summary from a 3rd person perspective (which I make abundantly clear). If you are more knowledgeable about it, let us know and perhaps you could write a post here yourself.
What a well-written post. I really enjoy all the discussion around Denver as well. I have found myself deeply inspired but also quite disturbed by him. He is definitely going to be an influential character on Mormonism's evolution. I'm never really comfortable with zeal and unquestioning support around movements like this but I am also uncomfortable when I hear Mormons hastily bash Denver's contributions for all the reasons you mentioned.
I have a hard time accepting Mormonism's narrative but from my perspective this thing happening with Denver looks much closer to the proposed way prophets appear in the Book of Mormon or the early church. I can't help but be interested when I see a scenario closer to that narrative playing out in real life. This guy is closer to the model of an Abinidi or Samuel and he is speaking against an institution defiantly with his own authority similar to Old Testament prophets. I've always thought it was a strange idea to think that a church could rope in a true Old Testament-style, wild man prophet and put him in a seat of authority and claim that he is running the church and saying flattering things about all of its achievements. Prophets are edgy and despised, especially by pious religious administrators. That's the way prophets are described in our scriptures. Prophecy is a gift and not a community-appointed calling.
At this point I am also uncomfortable with the idea of organized communities or re-baptisms but I can't help but be intrigued by this man and the impact of the message to stop looking to prophets as much as becoming prophets. Thanks for such a great article!
Thanks for your comment! I feel comparably about Snuffer and OT prophets. It’s hard to pin down how I feel about Denver Snuffer at this point. I guess we will just have to wait and see what comes of it!
A more interesting question is will “Snufferism” (for lakc of a better word) become Mormonism’s Lutheranism?
Seems like the vacuum of expressed eyewitness testimony from official leaders has created fertile ground for the likes of Denver, Spencer, etc. to make bold claims.
Lori thank you for your response. I asked because you had mentioned it in a few of your comments. However to believe this way you must deny all the prophets and the holy scriptures.(Old Testament,Mark 16:16, DC 52:15-16, DC 84:19-22.
I understand why you want to feel that way(it only matters what is in your heart), but remember this that we look through the glass darkly. All of us will learn much more about GOD, ourselves, and our hearts as we pass through the next life.
For all of you who find fault with the leaders of the church I say you are of Hollywood. None of you will answer my questions and yet this are some of the questions you want the brethren to answer. One problem we have is that we are quick to give answers but slow to ask questions. You many say no I asked questions that is how I arrived where I am. But what you did is find an answer then tied the answer to the question. Every answer should lead to an other question.
Finally I do not believe Snuffers revelation on the priesthood. His revelation doesn’t agree with what I have received from the LORD. Which makes me believe that he misunderstands the priesthood. Which so do many local leaders of the church(he is just no different).
Though the LDS church doesn’t practice it today, what really surprised me when I first discovered it is that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young clearly taught that re-baptisms were not only acceptable, but recommended at various times of life! I believe it’s very unfortunate that we have lost this aspect of the fulness of the gospel.
Let me give you a couple examples: you might recognize the name of Fredrick G. Williams, who was converted to the Church and baptized in 1830, but during the great period of apostasy in 1837, he lost confidence and activity in the Church. He, like many others, did not leave the Church, nor was he tried for his membership; nevertheless, he was re-baptized. Joseph Smith mentioned the re-baptism of F. G. Williams in the History of the Church: “I attended meeting. Elder Erastus Snow preached, after which I addressed the congregation, and particularly the Elders, on the principles of wisdom, etc. President Rigdon preached in the afternoon, and several were confirmed among whom was Frederick G. Williams, who had recently been re-baptized.” (Aug. 5, 1838, History of the Church vol.3 pg.55) Many other Saints, whose faith had been weakened during these trying times, were also re-baptized. These re-baptisms were not uncommon, and four years later another entry into Joseph’s official Church History mentions re-baptism: “Baptisms for the dead, and for the healing of the body must be in the font (of the Nauvoo Temple), and those coming into the Church and those re-baptized may be baptized in the river.” (HC 4:586) And lastly, an example from the Book of Mormon (as I currently understand it) is what happened in Mosiah 18; Alma the elder, after having repented so completely as a result of receiving the teachings of Abinadi, was visited by God himself and given authority to baptize. When he had the opportunity, he baptized hundreds of other repentant souls in the waters of Mormon. Since he had likely already been baptized, presumably by someone with authority, my personal belief is that he entered the water as a sign of his covenant with God, and as a renewal of previous covenants he had already made.
You also mentioned Denver’s explanation of the wording, “Having authority given me of Jesus Christ” instead of “Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ.” If Denver’s saying everyone ought to start saying “Having authority” as a blanket, then I believe he’s up in the night. Let me quote from a book called Calling and Election by Ogden Kraut (the full book is free to read online at http://ogdenkraut.com/Calling and Election.htm)
“The procedure for using the Priesthood for Gospel ordinances is usually done by the commission of Priesthood. A commission is the authority passed through others from the one who gives it. An officer in the Army receives that authority from the U.S. President, but there were other officers through which that authority came; therefore, it is a commission. If the President gives authority to someone personally, then it is no longer received by a commission but comes direct from the President.
In the Doctrine and Covenants the general use of the Priesthood in ordinance work is by commission. The Lord’s suggested wording to use in baptizing is–“Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you….” (D. & C. 20:73) But notice the difference in the wording for men who were prophets such as Alma, who said–“Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God….” (Mosiah 18:13)
Also, when the Savior personally visited Nephi to give him authority to administer the ordinances of the Gospel, Nephi was told by the Savior: “And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying: Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you….” (3 Nephi 11:24-25)
Thus, Priesthood holders use the words “having been commissioned” until they have been visited by the Savior; then they can say “having received authority from Jesus Christ.” The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “all the prophets had the Melchizedek Priesthood and were ordained by God Himself.” (TPJS, p. 180)
In our own dispensation this distinction between Priesthood qualifications is clearly noted in the following diary entry:
“Prayer by President Orson Hyde. Following members of the board of the United Order were baptized by President Erastus Snow and confirmed by President Hyde. The following ceremony being used at the baptism: “Having authority given me of Jesus Christ I baptize you for the remission of your sins. . .” Then followed Apostle C. C. Rich, “Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize thee for the remission of thy sins, etc.” (Diary of Milando Pratt, Sept. 4, 1886)
Conclusion
Those with the highest Priesthood may enjoy the following powers and privileges:
“Those holding the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood are kings and priests of the Most High God, holding the keys of power and blessings. In fact, that Priesthood is a perfect law of theocracy, and stands as God to give laws to the people, administering endless lives to the sons and daughters of Adam. (TPJS, p. 322)
“All men who become heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ will have to receive the fulness of the ordinances of his kingdom; and those who will not receive all the ordinances will come short of the fulness of that glory, if they do not lose the whole. (DHC 5:424)
“The power and authority of the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood, is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church–to have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have the heavens opened unto them, to commune with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, and to enjoy the communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant. (D. & C. 107:18-19)
“The object of every man should be to obtain the Priesthood and magnify his calling in that Priesthood until he proves himself worthy of the fulness of the ordinances of God’s kingdom. Only then can he possess the power to have the heavens opened to him and commune with God the Father and His Son.”
Ha! I love your writing style. Its entertaining, yet informative.
Oh, also, I really liked the post.
Thanks Dallin! I’m glad you enjoyed it, thanks for the comment.
There sure is the possibility of being deceived because many here suppose that Christ only will reveal himself to one person of the billions of mankind . And Mormonism is the common denominator for such deception . Why only Joseph Smith or Denver Snuffer ? Why not many people all across the globe ? Why not someone buried under the heavy hand of false religion in the Middle East ?
Denver wants to keep this community movement independent and organic. That is good. But he also states plans for a temple. If that temple is located anywhere in the U.S., it will be subject to property tax (or it will seek proper exemptions), carry premises insurance, pay utility bills, enter into construction and maintenance agreements, etc. If the building is funded by donations, there will need to be an entity with tax-exempt status and at least one bank account. The organization of the corporate entity will require named officers, directors, board members, shareholders, etc., to legitimize its existence. It will be registered with the state as a corporate entity and receive an identification number from the federal government.
There really is no way around these structures and formalities, which he opposes. If Denver tries to keep the temple free from any corporate organization and influence by, for example, keeping all temple land and properties in his own name, there will be considerable succession issues upon his death.
Denver is an attorney, and he certainly has thought all of this through. I signal these considerations to raise this point: Denver and supporting members in his community will soon find themselves in the same situation as the ancient disciples in 3 Nephi 27, asking, “what shall we call this community?” (because the local, state, and federal government really want to know). When He responded to that question, Christ seemed quite comfortable calling it a “church.”
Yes, we will have to see what he means by temple and how this will all play out. I really applaud his wanting for an egalitarian community, but I have no idea what the real-life application of that will prove to be. Thanks for your great comment!
I bet the entity will be called something like, The First Unorganized Unincorporated Community Led by No Man (or 7 Women), Inc.
(Denver won’t mind a little jab. He says he maintains a “wicked sense of humor,” and I hear he still loves riddles;-)
I don't feel that the prophets and leaders today force us into gender roles. Many others, like this man have and will come out with logically sounding arguments such as his. The church and it's present leaders are true.
jpv,
Awesome!
Snuffer’s a Senior Partner in a Sandy UT law firm, and he states it is a no brainer that D&C 124 clearly states that if the saints are faithful, they will never be driven out.
John Taylor stated “We could defend ourselves with our 5,000 strong Nauvoo Legion, but we choose peace”
And thus, as the Scripture states, they were “rejected as a church with their dead” and the dead on the plains were the sad, most horrific curse prophesied.
Very heavy, but this is irrefutable.
And this goes along with the major prophecy of the fullness of the Gospel, “first to the Jew, then the gentile, ..then in the last days, back to the gentile & they would reject it , than back to the House of Israel by the 144,000.
A the lack of spirituality since Nauvoo,… is his other main point.
As Isaiah 24 states in the last day, “as with the people, so with the priest, ….they are all corrupt, …because they transgressed the law of consecration, changed the law of consecration…”
I am seeking to meet some of these people in these local fellowships, in Utah County,
and am hoping You might help me locate them.
We need to support each other, terrible days are at the door for the unprepared,
And the Messiah, never taught “blind faith”,
but open discussion, His Word as the basis, ….
being respectful of other’s beliefs & walks,
not fearful, not persecuting them, certainly,
…..that only indicates something is deadly wrong ! “-) .
James,
I assume he is pulling from the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis chapter 14:38. This verse is talking about Abraham paying tithes to Melckizedek. It says, “Him whom God had appointed to receive tithes for the poor.”
Lori Burkman,
I have to ask if you have yet listened to his 10 talk series, then. Your post was great and brought up many fine points. But at least listen to the first couple of his talks if you haven’t yet. Reading a few of his books or listening to a few of his talks start to finish is likely to taste very satisfying to your spirit. Much more so than just a few hours of bibliographical research and a rundown of his more famous quotes or stances.