New Website Completed

The new website is finally completed and hopefully operational. It is located at denversnuffer.com

The new site will allow you to download mp3 versions of the talks. All 10 talks from the Forty Years in Mormonism are now there. Other recordings are not yet there, but will be added. You will be able to download but not stream in an effort to reduce bandwidth requirements and associated costs.

All the papers which have been made available through Scrib'd are now also downloadable from the new site as pdf versions.

The content of this blog has been imported. The old posts from this blog are searchable on the new website. 

This blogger site will remain up, but I will not be adding new material here. Future posts will be made only on the new website.

I appreciate all of the help I have received from others that have made this new website possible.

Equinox

The earth's orbit is ecliptic and asymmetrical. Science prefers neat divisions and imposes symmetry.

This Vernal Equinox is set by the calendar for March 20th. But nature is going to put the sun in the spot crossing the plane of the celestial equator on March 18th.

There are a lot of these differences in nature, planets, star fields that varies from man's desire for even divisions. We have split the Zodiacal constellations into 30 degree increments, despite the fact that some constellations are quite a bit bigger and their star fields occupy much more than 30 degrees (Pisces, Virgo and Aquarius for example) and some are much less than 30 degrees (Aries, Gemini and Cancer for example).

The incongruities between the mathematical order we prefer in contrast to the "chaos" of nature means something if Genesis 1:14 is to be trusted. Despite mankind's desire to make everything fit neatly, God has decreed events to happen on His time-frame.

Star fields overlap. We think we know when one age ends and another begins because of the 30 degrees allocated to each of the twelve constellations. But in the heavens above, Leo invades Cancer, and Pisces invades Aquarius. There is no neat division allowing anyone to say with certainty when God believes one age ends and another has begun. God may have one age begin before another ends for His reasons. Very rarely does man see this.

So you are left to decide if the coming Equinox is March 20th (based on neat divisions of the year) or March 18th (based on the movement of the sun overhead). And also to decide when Pisces ends and Aquarius begins--or if Aquarius has already begun. Many things begin and the world barely notices they are underway. Heaven testifies and men fail to notice.

Jos Smith Letter Sept 1833

Below I have copied and pasted a transcription from the Joseph Smith Papers publication of the LDS Church Historian Press. The letter is written in September, 1833, while Joseph was working on a series of lectures which would eventually become scripture. They would not be published until 1835 as Lectures on Faith. But the thinking of Joseph in September 1833 shown in this letter to his uncle show how the analysis of the later published Lectures on Faith came from the mind of Joseph Smith. This version is taken from the website, but a printed version appears in JS Papers, Documents Vol. 3, pp. 303-308.

________o0o__________

Kirtland Mills Ohio sept 26 1833

Respected Uncle Silas

It is with feelings of deep interest for the well fare of mankind which fills my mind on the reflection that all were formed by the hand of him who will call the same to give  an impartial account of all their works on that great day to  which you and myself in common with them are bound, that I  take up my pen and seat myself in an attitude to address a few  though imperfect lines to you for your perusal.

I have no doubt but that you will agree with me that men will be held accountable for the things which they have and  not for the things they have not or that all the light and intell igence communicated to them from their benifficen [beneficent] creator wh ether it is much or little by the same they in justice will be  judged, and that they are required to yield obedience and  improve upon that and that only which is given for man is  not to live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds [p. 228]

out of the mouth of God

Seeing that the Lord has never given the world to unders tand by anything heretofore revealed that he had ceased forever  to speak to his creatures when saught unto in a proper manner  why should it be thought a thing incredible that he should be  pleased to speak again in these last days for their salvation Perhaps  you may be surprized at this assertion that I should say for the  salvation of his creatures in these last days since we have already in  our possesion a vast volume of his word which he has previously given But you will admit that the word spoken to Noah was not suff icent for Abraham or it was not required of Abraham to leave  the land of his nativity and seek an Inheritance in a strange land  Country upon the word spoken to Noah but for himself he obtain ed promises at the hand of the Lord and walked in that perf ection that he was called the friend of God Isaac the promi sed seed was not required to rest his hope upon the promises  made to his father Abraham but was priviledged with the assu rance of his approbation in the sight of Heaven by the direct  voice of the Lord to him If one man can live upon the revelat ions given to another might not I with propriety ask why the n ecessity then of the Lord speaking to Isaac as he did as is record ed in the 26 chapter of Genesis for the Lord there repeats or rath er promises again to perform the oath which he had previously  sworn unto Abraham and why this repet[it]ion to Isaac Why was not  the first promise as sure for Isaac as it was for Abraham.  Was not Isaac Abraham's son And could he not place implicit confidence in the word of his father as being a man of God.

Perhaps you may say that he was a very peculiar man and  different from men in these last days consequently the Lord  favored him with blessings peculiar and different as he was  different from men in this age I admit that he was a peculiar  man and was not only peculiarly blessed but greatly bless ed. But all the peculiarity that I can discover in the [p. 229]

man or all the difference between him and men in this age is  that he was more holy and more perfect before God and came to  him with a purer heart and more faith than men in this day.

The same might be said on the subject of Jacobs history  Why was it that the Lord spake to him concerning the same prom ise after he had made it once to Abraham and renewed it to  Isaac why could not Jacob rest contented upon the word  spoken to his fathers When the time of the promise drew nigh  for the deliverance of the children of Israel from the land of  Egypt why was it necessary that the Lord should begin  to speak to them The promise or word to Abraham was that  his seed should serve in bondage and be afflicted four hun dred years and after that they should come out with great  substance Why did they not rely upon this promise and  when they had remained in Egypt in bondage four hundred [years] come out without waiting for further revelation but act entirely  upon the promise given to Abraham that they should come  out.

Paul said to his Hebrew brethren that God b[e]ing more abu ndantly willing to show unto the heirs of his promises the immu tability of his council [“]confirmed it by an oath.” He also  exhorts them who throug[h] faith and patience inherit the pro mises.

[“]Notwithstanding we (said Paul) have fled for refuge to  lay hold of the hope set before us which hope we have as an an chor of the soul both sure and steadfast and which entereth  into that within the vail.” Yet he was careful to press upon them  the necessity of continuing on untill they as well as those who  inherited the promises might have the assurance of their salvat ion confirmed to them by an oath from the mouth of him who  cannot could not lie for that seemed to be the example an ciently and Paul holds it out to his brethren as an object atta inable in his day and why not[?] I admit that by reading [p. 230]

the scriptures of truth saints in the days of Paul could learn beyond  the power of contradiction that Abraham Isaac and Jacob had  the promise of eternal life confirmed to them by an oath of the  Lord but that promise or oath was no assurance to them of their salvation but they could by walking in the footsteps <and> continuing  in the faith of their fathers obtain for themselves an oath for  confirmation that they were meet to be partake[r]s of the inheri tance with the saints in light.

If the saints in the days of the Apostles were priviledged to  take the saints for example and lay hold of the same promises  and attain to the same exhalted priviledges of knowing that  their names were writen in the Lambs book of life and that  they were sealed there as a perpetual memorial before the face  of the most high will not the same faithfulness the same pur ity of heart and the same faith bring the same assurance of eternal  life and that in the same manner to the children of men now  in this age of the world[?]

I have no doubt but that the holy prophets and apostles  and saints in ancient days were saved in the Kingdom of  God. Neither do I doubt but that they held converse and com munion with them while in the flesh as Paul said to the cori nthian brethren that the Lord Jesus showed himself to above 500  saints at one time after his resuretion [resurrection]. Job said that he  knew that his Redeemer lived and that he should see him in  the flesh in the latter days. I may believe that Enoch wa lked with God <and by faith was translated. And I may [believe]  that Noah was a perfect man in his generation  & also walked with God.> I may believe that Abraham communed with God and conversed with angels. I may believe that Isaac  obtained a renewal of the covenant made to Abraham by the  direct voice of the Lord. I may believe that Jacob conversed  with holy angels and heard the word of his Maker. that he  wrestled with the angel until he prevailed and obtained a  blessing I may believe that Elijah was taken to Heaven in a chariot of fire with fiery horses I may believe that the [p. 231]

saints saw the Lord and conversed with him face to face aft er his resurection I may believe that the Hebrew Church came  to Mount Zion and unto the city of the living God the Heaven ly Jerusalem and to an inumerable company of angels. I  may believe that they looked into Eternity and saw the  Judge of all, and Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant;  but will all this purchase an assurance for me, or waft me  to the regions of Eternal day with my garments spotless, pure,  and white? Or, must I not rather obtain for myself, by  my own faith and dilligence, in keeping the commandments of the Lord, an assurance of salvation for myself And have I not an equal priviledge with the ancient saints? and  will not the Lord hear my prayers, and listen to my cries,  as soon [as] he ever did to their’s if I come to him in the manner  they did or is he a respecter of persons?

I must now close this subject for the want of time; and I  may say with propriety at the begining; we would be pleased to see  you in Kirtland and more pleased to have you embrace the New  Covenant. I remain.

Yours affectionately

Joseph Smith Jr [p. 232]

Apostles And Assumptions

A quorum of twelve apostles did not exist in Mormonism until February 1835. Even though no quorum existed, the term “apostles” was used and many individuals were identified as “apostles.” The term meant someone sent with a message from God. The term was used to identify all the missionaries sent to preach the Book of Mormon and restoration.

The revelations given through Joseph Smith specifically identified the following men as “apostles” in the following sections and dates:

Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer, D&C 18:9 (June 1829)

Joseph Smith, D&C 20:2 and Oliver Cowdery, D&C 20:3 (April 1830)

Joseph Smith, D&C 21:1 and Oliver Cowdery 21:10 (April 1830)

Sidney Rigdon, Parley Pratt and Leman Copley, D&C 49:1, 11 (March 1831)—sending them forth “like unto mine apostle of old, whose name was Peter”

A series of revelations likewise referred to “apostles” and included the following admonitions, instructions, and commandments to the following audiences:

1.  November 1831 - D&C 1:14: “the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people.”

This did not, indeed could not, refer to a non-existent quorum of the twelve. At that time, it referred to any of the “disciples” he sent out as missionaries in the early church as explained in the same revelation, D&C 1:4-9.

2. March 1830 - D&C 19:8: refers to giving information to Martin Harris because “it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.”

Meaning that Martin Harris was entitled to have a mystery revealed to him.

3.  The language in D&C 27:12 is not part of the original revelation given in August 1830. It was added apparently by Sidney Rigdon sometime between 1834 and 1835.

4.  December 1830 - D&C 35:6: informs Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon that they could then give the gift of the Holy Ghost “by the laying on of the hands, even as the apostles of old.”

This is consistent with everywhere else in scripture which associates “laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost” with the status of “apostle.” See, e.g., D&C 20:38, 43; 3 Ne. 18:36-37; Moroni 2:2-3.

5.  September 1831 - D&C 64:39: “they who are not apostles and prophets shall be known.”

Given to the elders of the church, many of whom were calling themselves “apostles” as is mentioned two months later in the November 1831 revelation (D&C 1:14, discussed first above). All the missionaries called themselves “apostles.” The revelation meant that the unworthy who were sent as missionaries will be exposed to be unworthy.

6.  September 1832 - D&C 84:63: “you are mine apostles”

Given to the missionaries who were now returning, having been sent out the prior year. All the missionaries were identifying themselves as “apostles” and the Lord was acknowledging and confirming this was true.

7.  June 1833 - D&C 95:4: “For the preparation wherewith I design to prepare mine apostles to prune my vineyard for the last time,”

Referring to the Kirtland Temple the Lord wanted built (and they had delayed commencing). He said it was necessary to prepare all these “apostles” who were serving missions.

8. February 1834 - D&C 102—minutes of a meeting written by Oliver Cowdery which identifies the “traveling high council composed of the twelve apostles.” This council would not come into existence for another year.

9. March 1835 - D&C 107:23: The twelve apostles are identified as “twelve traveling councilors”

These particular “apostles” were a traveling council with authority equal to the many other “apostles” in the church. The apostles in the first presidency, and in the seventy, and in the other standing high councils are all equal in authority to these traveling high council apostles. 

In 1835, the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris, were asked by Joseph Smith to choose the first twelve members of the newly announced quorum of the twelve. The witnesses made their choices at a meeting on February 14, 1835. The three witnesses were also the ones who ordained the twelve chosen men as apostles between February and April 1835. Ordination was accompanied by a charge given by Oliver Cowdery that explained their ordination was not complete until they qualified. In part it included:

“It is necessary that you receive a testimony from heaven to yourselves; so that you can bear testimony to the truth of the Book of Mormon, and that you have seen the face of God. That is more than the testimony of an angel. When the proper time arrives, you shall be able to bear this testimony to the world. When you bear testimony that you have seen God, this testimony God will never suffer to fall, but will bear you out; although many will not give heed, yet others will. You will therefore see the necessity of getting this testimony from heaven.  Never cease striving until you have seen God face to face. Strengthen your faith; cast off your doubts, your sins, and all your unbelief; and nothing can prevent you from coming to God. Your ordination is not full and complete till God has laid his hand upon you. We require as much to qualify us as did those who have gone before us; God is the same. If the Savior in former days laid his hands upon his disciples, why not in latter days? . . .  The time is coming when you will be perfectly familiar with the things of God. . . . You have our best wishes, you have our most fervent prayers, that you may be able to bear this testimony, that you have seen the face of God. Therefore call upon him in faith in mighty prayer till you prevail, for it is your duty and your privilege to bear such a testimony for yourselves. (DHC, 2:192-98.)  

Oliver’s charge was nothing new. Joseph Smith had already explained to the “School of the Prophets” that to be an “apostle” required a visit from Christ and the Father. Oliver was just repeating what everyone already knew.

So when the language of D & C 1 (“the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people”) is put into context, it really has nothing to do with a non-existent,  traveling high council that was formed later. That later group displaced and overthrew church government, establishing itself as a controlling oligarchy that is non-scriptural, non-historical. Fortunately, we can know the Lord intends that “they who are not apostles and prophets shall be known.” If we compared the claims being made now to the scriptures, I suppose that might be possible to accomplish even now.

Babylon

The God of Heaven tells me all the world should pray that Baghdad does not fall.

Follow and Receive

We should only "Follow" Christ. See, e.g., Matt. 4:19; 9:9; 16:24; 19:21; Mark 2:14; 8:34; 10:21; Luke 5:27; 18:22; John 12:26; 21:19.

Prophets are not to be followed; only "received" or, in other words, to be heard. See, e.g., Matt. 10:14; Mark 16:11; D&C 76:101. If sent by Him they testify of Him and not of themselves.

If you will not receive Christ's prophets and apostles, you will be condemned. See John 3:10-11.

But you are under the burden of determining whether a man is a true or false prophet, true or false apostle, because following a false one will condemn you. Christ will expose the false prophets and apostles. D&C 64:39. But that will be by-and-by, for they must be given their season to claim falsely to be prophets and apostles.

If you will not hear a prophet, you will be rejected. See D&C 1:14.

Those who claim you should "follow" them put themselves in the place of Christ. They are, in effect, a false Christ. We were promised they would come in the last days to deceive the "very elect" as false Messiahs. See, JS-Matt. 1:22.

The trial is underway. The world must choose correctly.

Incompatible

It is impossible to have religious freedom of expression and protection of gay rights without requiring the religious expression to include endorsement of homosexual conduct.

Can gay rights be protected without demanding churches stop denouncing homosexuality as "sin" or as "offensive to God" or "evil?"

If a church believes homosexuality is sinful, offensive to God and evil, but cannot say what it believes because law protects against "discrimination" against such conduct, how are the two reconciled? One must trump the other. One must be given priority over the other. Which? How?

Can a church be called "hateful" when it expresses its honest view that homosexuality is morally wrong and sinful without any legal protection against the "hate?"

Should we be free to hate?

If a Muslim hates a Jew, does he have the right to say it publicly? Advocate for others to likewise hate Jews?

Should ideas be free from legal control? If they are, will we see KKK rallies, jihadist news broadcasts, black liberation ministers advocating revolution, white supremacists denouncing "mud people?" Is that sort of fall out bad?  Bad in an absolute sense, not in a relative sense. Is foolishness portrayed as insight bad in a relative sense? That happens everywhere and all the time. Should the limits of free speech be nearly absolute?

The Supreme Court set a limit using the analogy of "crying 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" that results in injuries and even death. That analogy has been adopted to limit speech elsewhere by saying "hate" will result in injuries and even death, and therefore it is no different.

When it comes to freedom, however, there must be absolutes or freedom will continually be eroded and eventually lost.

We must allow people to say things we disapprove of, disagree with, resent and wish were never said. Tolerance has no meaning if we only permit things we like to be done, said or thought. The meaning of "tolerance" is to permit what I absolutely disagree with to be "tolerated." I don't have to love it, nor do I have to approve it. I only need to "tolerate" it.

If we "tolerate" it, is there an obligation to leave it unmolested, uncontrolled and uncurtailed by law? Whether that is homosexual conduct or condemnation of homosexuality.

The role of legislation is not to carve out ideas for suppression and punishment. Until someone actually assaults another, shouldn't he be able to think what he wants, and say what he thinks? If anyone assaults another it is a crime. Whether the crime was motivated by hatred of homosexuals, hatred of Jews, or Catholics, or Hindus, or Mexicans or Mudbloods or any other group, no one is allowed to assault another person. The crime consists in the act, not in the thought.

Thought should be as near to absolutely free as possible. No matter how peculiar or offensive, thought ought to be unrestricted. It is not possible to police thought without losing other freedoms.