[The email linked to several conversations of some length.] Well, that's a lot to read. I did scan some of it, but not all. I do not mind being criticized, nor people disagreeing with me. They're free to do so. And I mean both criticize me and disagree. The problem is that criticizing me is sort of a misadventure, because doing that detracts from the underlying real questions. Who cares a fig about me? I hope no-one. But the stuff I write about-- meaning an attempt to discuss the Gospel --that is important and certainly worth spending some time thinking about and discussing.
Does he actually claim in the first quote that all the keys of the priesthood are not held by Thomas S. Monson?No. I don't take a position on that. In one chapter I entertain the possibility of that and discuss how important the church remains anyway. As to whether he has them all, that is a matter between him and the Lord. When he became President, I prayed and was told to sustain him and I do. That's enough for me. The Book of Mormon clearly identifies us (the Latter-day Saints) as gentiles. Joseph Smith said we were "identified with the gentiles" in the dedicatory prayer for the Kirtland Temple (D&C 109: 60). Book of Mormon prophecies clearly indicate there will be an apostasy or sorts by the gentile church (us). We either have (in the past) or will (in the future) reject the fullness. I show how a reasonable interpretation of our history could reach the conclusion it was in the past. If it isn't then it is in our future. But if the Book of Mormon can be trusted on the point, and I think it can, then we'll reject the fullness of the Gospel at some point. But that's a quick and altogether distorted treatment of a topic worthy of so much attention and so much care that I've written a 170,000 word book on the subject which will do a better job than a snapshot.
Does Bro. Snuffer actually believe that the sealing power is not with the Church and was lost?No. Don't take a position on that, either. The sealing power is conferred in one way and that way is described in the scriptures. I take some lengths to explain, using scripture, the matter. Beyond laying out the process I never say anything about what the church has. I do explain the church's claims. And I also use the church's explanations to show where the church's authority comes from.
That the GAs over the Church’s curriculum are not teaching what God has instructed them to include in our Church manuals?I'm not sure I understand this question. Where has God instructed someone to do something about curriculum? There are committees that do this stuff. In the fourth phase everything is attributed to the president, and that process is laid out in the book. This question is a product of that process. But I really don't understand the question. So far as I've seen, there is nowhere a claim made that God was involved in writing or developing the church's curriculum.
We have a ‘devalued gospel’ in the LDS Church?There are a list of 72 approved subjects allowed to be taught, as a result of the Correlation process. The Gospel allows everyone to learn all the mysteries of God. It is, you know, given unto many to know the mysteries of God. And those who will give more heed to the matter learn more, those who give less heed learn less. (Alma 12: 9-11.) By the Spirit we can know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10: 5.) Limiting the scope of discussion to the list of approved topics is removing some of the great, even important topics from our permitted discussions. Therefore the most important subjects have now gravitated away from Sacrament, Sunday School and Priesthood/Relief Society and into the Internet. I have seen unapproved subjects on your blog's index.