Denver is a modern day Abinadi, someone with the courage to call the LDS leaders to repent, to point out the problems with the church and to promote faith and belief in the restoration and the Book Of Mormon. I may not agree with everything he says or does but he was definitely inspired of God to do what he did. Everything he did and does match the work of true messengers sent by God. I am not part of his movement, I live far way from Utah, but I have read and listened to his teachings and talks and I have no doubt he was inspired to do what he’s done so far. Unlike my past behavior of accepting the general authorities as infallible men of God, I do not see Denver the same way I used to see the LDS leaders, I see him as an ordinary man who was inspired to put things in order. That’s my opinion about Denver. I believe God is sending many messengers to warn us, Denver is not the only one.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism I mentioned I may not agree with everything he said or does, I wouldn’t want any one rewriting the Book Of Mormon, but the current version we have has been altered and several changes were made since it’s translation. I haven’t read Denver’s movement version or modern version of the Book so I can’t say anything yet. I appreciate it your response and enjoy your videos.
@@FFM115 I agree. I would recommend the version I use. simplyscriptures.com/ It is based on Skousen's research using the printer's manuscript with the JST incorporated for the Bible.
@@uncorrelatedmormonismi certainly don’t believe we should be Quranist about the Book of Mormon. KJV language is getting outdated and difficult to understand. And for some odd reason, when we translate the Book of Mormon into other languages, we decide to use primitive versions of those languages as well (the example coming to mind is how the Spanish Book of Mormon uses old Spanish). There’s no reason for this. We should never lose the original the same way we should never lose the Greek and Hebrew for the new and Old Testament, that doesn’t mean adapting it when the language is outdated is necessarily wrong
@@uncorrelatedmormonism Please read the beginning of the Covenant of Christ. It says how and why the book exists. It is irresponsible for anyone to comment on something as important as this subject without knowing and studying it out in there own mind first. And I mean an honest study and honest attempt to understand what is going on. Not just reading what someone said on the internet and one page from a lecture or book he has written. Plant the seed and see where it takes you. But don't ask amiss or throw out the seed because of unbelief or regret will follow.
2:19 I’ll just point out, disagreeing with Denver is not “cursing” him, which is what he was specifically warning against as “unfortunately chosen words.” He later shared an example on his blog (11/24/14) of hearing someone say over the pulpit Denver advocated killing wives and children (which he does not), and that this is the type of thing that draws God’s ire.
18:25 He didn’t select which materials should be canonized, he felt he was told to stay out of it. I seem to recall he mentioned the scripture committee gathered into the T&C things he didn’t think needed to be in there (though I’ll have to look that up to verify). The committee went through his blog posts and books and chose what they felt should fit, then it went to a general vote for the people to decide what should be in it.
Some of his revelations say they should be included. As you know I have a blog, however I would be incredibly shocked if I found a group that canonized some of my writings. I don't believe I said he directly controlled what was canonized. However he certainly does control that to some degree. Would Denver be okay if they canonized fan fiction? Going through blog posts and books to find new scriptures to canonize though is a very strange way to do it. Voting on things like this is strange. The movement is centered around Denver, even though people say its not. Would you vote against Denver's writings? Would you vote against his new edition of the Book of Mormon, which he says is from God and was approved by God?
@@uncorrelatedmormonism I did, actually. I was part of that voting process, and didn’t see the need for some of those posts to be included. But I was outvoted on some of those, since they made it in. This is where it gets weird, I agree. But on the flip side, if someone gathered your letters to people and decided to canonize them like they did Paul’s epistles, would that be weird? I think ultimately, canonization is the people showing what they’re willing to accept and follow, with God (ideally) confirming whether or not what they’ve gathered is acceptable to Him. As for the English translation, I don’t know yet. I need to read it through before I say one way or the other. I appreciate the clarification to “smote off his head” in the deaths of Laban and Shiz, but I still need to study and pray about those changes you mentioned (and likely others).
Interesting. Would you vote though that you think something is uninspired and actually wrong? I can see whether something should be canonized or not. However, something being true or not is a different level, I think.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism True, that’s a different level. I don’t recall seeing things that were untrue among those canonized sections, but I should re-read through those to see if I still believe that. At this point, I’m confident that I would voice a concern if I saw something false in the translation, or if I was told by God something was wrong. I’ll be working through that translation now that it’s available and figure that out. Then I’ll need to figure out how to reach out to somebody and voice concerns, since I’m still an attending Mormon member and haven’t really met with other groups. 😅
@@SirKn1ght47 Thanks. There is nothing wrong with truly believing something. However, we certainly should always be free to speak when things don't line up. Most groups get to a point where they no longer feel free to do this. Classic example is the LDS church. One new scripture that I found in the Covenant of Christ edition is 2 Nephi 14:1 (Isaiah 4:1). I honestly think this is more egregious than the other 2 examples I highlighted. BoM: And in that day, seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, “We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach.” CoC: In that coming day, seven women will sustain the priesthood authority of a man and say: We are self-sufficient; but let us be called by the name of our Messiah through baptism because the Messiah removes our sins. This is clear propaganda. There is not a single biblical scholar that would agree with this translation from the Hebrew. It also directly supports the doctrines of the movement so once someone starts using this version, they will have some trouble going back to the original. I understand why they did it. However, in my opinion this is a classic example of why this is not scripture. This is also completely wrong because this verse should go with Isaiah 3. This is a chastisement not a blessing. This new CoC edition is very dangerous. This is exactly like the LDS releasing a new BoM with "Covenant Path" or "Think Celestial" in it.
I appreciate this video. I've been looking into Denver and the fruit of the Restoration Movement cautiously. Left the Brighamite church and don't wish to be fooled again ... However, I can say that conferences are organized and planned by anyone who wants to take something like that on. Sometimes Denver is invited to speak. No one is paid. We all pay our own costs, including Denver. Also, there is a belief that a temple must be built since the Nauvoo temple was never finished, yes. AND there's been no direction from God on where to build, so it's unfair to say they should be doing that when apparently they've not been instructed further in that regard. Still listening:)❤
This is fair. Thank you. I was caught up with another modern day prophet only to be disappointed when I realized the truth. A lot of what Denver does seems to be good. The members of his groups certainly are generally good people also. I think though that it is so easy to deceive people who hunger and thirst after something. The "prophet" I was caught up with offers something that makes no sense from the outside, but you take it because there is nothing else it seems.
I noticed that, Denver seems to be very transparent in what he is doing, very different than the LDS church leaders. I am not part of the movement, never attended their meetings since I live far way, but as far as what a real church of Christ should look like, they seem to be the closest to what we see in scriptures. It reminds me of Alma after he fled from king Noah and started gathering near the waters of Mormon.
@@holyroller4391 For a while I was caught up with Rob Smith. I really got into his system of exactness which resonated with me. I believe he has lost most of his followers by now. There certainly has been a slow and steady decline. I believe he is not starting a paid ministry around his teachings. Certainly, completely different than the way he started.
I want to preface this comment by saying I really like Denver. I have met him in person a couple of times and he was even kind enough to attend my baptism. But I have come to your same conclusion: that some of what he says is inspired, and other parts are not. He used to constantly preach against having a “strong man” but allows his followers to put him on that pedestal. I also wanted to believe the best in Joseph and that he did not practice polygamy. But I have come to the conclusion that Joseph only had a conduit to heaven while he had the seer stone. I don’t believe he was ever a prophet, and that he ultimately succumbed to pride causing the expulsion of the “saints” as well as his own destruction. Mosiah 2:22
It is really hard to come to a conclusion like this, because you have to reexamine things in your life. However, I think it ultimately is a very powerful place to be since you understand truth better. We can gain a lot of truth from people like Denver. However, ultimately being surrounded by people claiming you are a prophet and God's mouthpiece slowly corrupts even the best of us. Joseph and Denver both did great things. However at least in Joseph's life, the Nauvoo Joseph was a completely different person from the Kirtland or Palmyra Joseph.
Lots could be said, but I would encourage you to study the works of Margaret Barker. The change from "Highly Favored" to "Blessed" has significance if you understand the older religion from Abraham. I don't have time to pull book references, but here's a related sample from her paper "The Pre Christian Roots of Christian Art." “In the older religion, the high priests had given a special blessing: May the LORD bless you and keep you. May the LORD make his face shine upon you and be gracious unto you May the LORD lift up his face upon you and give you peace (Numbers 7.24-26). Seeing and experiencing the ‘face’ of the LORD was the greatest blessing of the older religion, and yet by the time of Jesus, this blessing was so controversial that it was forbidden for a Jew to translate it or to explain it to anyone. The Christians, however, believed it had been fulfilled in Jesus; they had seen the face of the LORD.” - (p. 3) To be “blessed” in the older religion meant they had beheld the face of the LORD, or been in His presence. Nephi is telling you that he has been redeemed from the fall (see Ether 3:13). To understand what the “plain and precious” things are, we must make the effort to understand Joseph’s restoration of the “Gospel.” Modern branches of Mormonism have abandoned Joseph’s teachings and can’t comprehend them, they’ve traded it for a variation of protestantism and are actively seeking to become more “Christian” to attract protestants. Throwing a #BlessedLife bumper sticker on our suburbans won’t help us comprehend the religion that Joseph gave his life to restore.
Thanks. The word "blessed" today is just too diluted. I think you meant Numbers 6. In the LDS circles we interpret "face of God" to mean literal countenance, however generally this is not true. This what Biblehub has to say: The "face" of God is his personality as turned towards man, or else turned away from him. His face hidden or turned away is despair and death (Deuteronomy 31:17, 18; Job 13:24); his face turned against man is destruction and death (Leviticus 17:10; Psalm 34:16); his face turned upon man in love and mercy is life and salvation (Psalm 27:1; Psalm 44:3). It is to the soul of man what the blessed sun of heaven is to his body. And be gracious unto thee. 'Ἐλεήσαι σε, Septuagint. Be kind and beneficent to thee: the effect in and on the soul of the clear shining upon it of the face of God.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism I just copied from her paper. Barker’s work is primarily on the first temple period. Bible hub and most other sources don’t consider the work of some like hers because it challenges Jewish and Christian theology.
@@SaundersClark Maybe. I would really have to look at the sources. From my understanding Jewish belief was that God didn't have a body but was ephemeral. This of course could have been lost at some point.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism that’s exactly why Barker’s work is critical. Joseph was restoring the older religion. The religion Lehi was initiated into. It’s different than what the modern Bible tells us. It’s foreign to modern Mormonism.
A lot of people have claimed that Denver is saying you can disagree all you want, but just don't "curse" him. However, that doesn't seem to be what the text is suggesting. People read what they want into it though. Basically, Denver is saying disagreeing is fine. However, don't disagree too much, whatever that means, otherwise you will get on God's bad side.
Great points in this video! I don’t think there is enough to say that Denver claims disagreeing with him means disagreeing with God, although what he said is close to that. The other points you make are valid and compelling. Great video!
I also struggle with the idea that the bad tree of Brighamism somehow preserved enough of the “priesthood” that flows into the Remnant movement to sustain their practices on some level. Bad tree -> good fruits?? I also don’t agree that entering into their covenant is THE way the gentiles repents and are numbered among the house of Israel. Many remnant members get “lost in the sauce” of doctrine and priesthood without simply turning to Jesus and working out their salvation on their own. They’d rather bicker about things like scripture translations before making sure they’re first right with God-full repentance, calling and election made sure, etc.
This is true. There is a lot to bicker about certainly. 😊 The more I study the more I understand that the whole thing is bad and we need a complete reset. A lot of times we are trimming our spiritual tree by cutting this or that, however we really need to take it down to the stump and let God guide us how we are supposed to go. I doubt God is going to condemn anyone for missing this or that if they really sought him diligently. The idea that Mormonism or any offshoot is a special 1%er club for the most faithful is very dangerous.
28:55 - Now change Denver to Joseph and LDS Church to Christian Church. In your own words you are condemning Joseph Smith, because Smith did the same thing that Denver is doing today. Both claim the same direct revelation from God, and both were trying to turn people away from something. Zero difference.
Can you make a video on the Adam-God doctrine? I received witness and know that Brigham Young's sermons are real revelations and I find it concerning that it seems like the church does not talks about it (and other things, like the current way the WoW is interpreted) to seem more „normal“ to „mainstream Christians“ or to have a „cleaner“ image. I don't have the perfect words to describe it. Thanks for your videos! I just found your channel recently.
I suggest you create a timeline of church leaders and what they believed about God. It is a wonderful exercise. Joseph Smith outlined his belief in Lecture 5 of Lectures on faith. Brigham Young was, as you say a believer in the Adam God Doctrine, where Adam was a premortal polygamist God who came to earth with one of his wives. This belief endured through Wilford Woodruff when Bishop Bunker corrected the president and they pivoted to a definition more closely to main stream Christianity. Joseph F. Smith recorded his struggles with the topic at the end of his life asserting he was just a man who operated the church and never had any interaction with God until in his angst was given a vision to instruct him and soothe his soul. It stay fairly status quo until Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie who wrote volumes on spiritual topics and who ensconced Section 130 as the defacto definition despite being in contradiction with the Book of Mormon. The next major update came during President Hinkley who emphatically stated that Marriage was between one man and one woman, and asserted such was the case eternally, which would include God the Father. Then President Nelson clearly contradicted and said same sex couples could be disfellowshipped members of the church, demonstrating that he as Prophet knew God made an allowance for such. If you are looking for truth, no man has had their views more discounted than Brigham Young. If you somehow found a testimony of his views, please know it was not from God. Repent, seek Jesus.
Have you thought of doing something like this for Mauricio Berger? I’m honestly conflicted with him. My immediate first reaction is “this guys a fraud” and that anyone who actually thinks he’s legit is crazy. But then I realized, that must be exactly how it was to be a follower of Joseph during the beginning of the restoration, or even the apostles. I’ve read a couple of his revelations, and there’s nothing deeply concerning about them in my view. I’ve not had time to read his supposed translation or to actually read up on their theology (as they have a very poor online presence). But I was wondering if there was anything about his claims that you find deeply troubling. There’s been practically radio silence from them since 2022, at least for their online presence that is, which I find extremely odd for the supposed “second gathering of Zion.” I read a “letter” from Mauricio to the church of Christ temple lot talking about how 1 apostle from their church, and 2 from the CoC and LDS church would join him, and that they would gain ownership of the temple lot to build Zion, so I guess if that ever happens that would be the sign lol
I could. That is a good idea. I know next to nothing about him though. I agree that they have a very poor online presence which makes things complicated in an online world. I can research and see. Do you know more about this letter you reference?
We have the original manuscript. Certainly there have been a handful of spelling or grammar fixes. However the 3000 you mention is all punctuation. The scribes included no punctuation in the original.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism The BOM has been through numerous changes from the 1830 addition to the 1832 alone. You said no mistakes there’s tons of mistakes.
@@KendraAndTheLaw You mean the 1837 changes Joseph did? Some claim that was to get the Book of Mormon back to what the original manuscript said, however this is provably wrong. Joseph seemed to just add "son of" because he wanted to.
12:46 - But didn’t Joseph Smith declare the same thing? He declared that all the other scriptures were corrupted. He only has his personal declaration just as this Denver guy, so how can you know for certain who is being truthful? How can either of these be tested?
He asked about which church to join, not which scripture to read. Unless you're referring to something later on, I'm not real familiar with everything.
@@Nunya45573 The Mormon church teaches that the Christian scriptures have been corrupted, but they still use and read them and cannot tell which parts of the Bible is corrupted.
@@Nunya45573 it is what they have taught because there are major differences and contradictions between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. One of the core doctrines of the Christian faith is that the Bible is inerrant which means it is without contradiction, God is a God of order not chaos. However the BOM makes God chaotic. Example in Genesis 6, God gives Noah specific instructions on the building of the Ark, and Noah is able to build the Ark without any difficulty. In the Book of Ether 2:16-3:1, God tells the brothers Jared to build boats without windows. The brothers have to tell God that they won’t be able to breathe in the boats. Then God tells them to put a hole in the top and bottom of the boat so they can get air and to plug up the bottom hole if water starts to come in. So there’s major differences between the God in Genesis and the God in Ether. They are supposed to be the same God, except it seems God became stupid and forgot how to build a boat. Had to be told by the humans that He God had made a mistake and that God’s solution to the problem was to make it possible that the boat would sink. God is not dumb, at least not the God of the Bible. The God of the BOM, he doesn’t seem to have it all together. But it gets worse. Later the brothers Jared asked God if they could put a window in the boat. God response was no because it would be dashed into pieces. Now they didn’t have glass in Biblical times it would be thousands of years before glass would be invented, so how can a hole be dashed into pieces? What God said to the brothers doesn’t make sense. These are contradictions between what the Bible says about God and what the BOM says about God and if you read both books you can clearly see that they are not the same God.
@@darinbracy8433 Haha. It's your interpretation. If the Bible is perfect, which version are you referring to? I wouldn't call God stupid, but you do you.
This was my first next thing after leaving mormonism. Eventually too many things like this started adding up but especially the fighting over changing scriptures was a big turn off. And what i hear about his followers they have gotten wrapped up in silly things and ego which makes me glad i didnt stick around. For anyone worried about being fooled again after leaving Mormonism, well its going to happen. Its our ego that doesnt want to be fooled. Unfortunately if you were a Mormon you dont even have the tools to not be fooled. You have to learn them. In the meantime you're going to be fooled and its ok, its part of the process. Just do better when you know better.
I am glad to hear this. When I was kicked out of the church, I did gravitate towards someone some consider a prophet. It was a bit of a softer landing, however ultimately, I had to leave him and go my own way. We are all on our own journey. Many can help us on the way. However, many can hinder us also.
@@uncorrelatedmormonismare French and Spanish translations of the Book of Mormon suddenly non scripture? I have read plain English versions of the Book of Mormon, and a couple verses of Denver’s version. In my opinion he’s simplifying and interpolating it TOO much. If we are going to rewrite the Book of Mormon, we should do it in the same way the NKJV rewrote the KJV. Simply changing outdated words into modern words. Not completely restructuring sentences, because that’s when interpretation comes in. But you can say the exact same thing about when we translate it into other languages. Who says those languages are correct? Are we as the Muslims are, to say only the English (Arabic) version should be read?
@@zrosix2240 You are making the same argument in a different comment. Language to language is different than language to same language. I agree that it is not inherently bad. However, we also shouldn't do it just because. Denver's version is losing valuable meaning.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism even the Qurans standard Arabic versions don’t use the original Arabic. They have the original Arabic on the left side, and modern Arabic on the right. But to be fair, 1500 years is a lot more time for a language to develop than the few hundred since king James
Truth is different from fact. Truth is something you believe. Fact is something that’s provable. There is no “proving” a belief so members claim it takes faith. But if a fact interrupts that faith, we as members explain it away until we have to face the fact. Then we decide we were wrong about that ONE item. We need to apply critical thinking for the real story and not just “celestial” thinking.
This is true. It is difficult to realize that religious belief does require a fair amount of rational thought. Most people are taught that whatever you believe is true if you really want it to be.
@@Nunya45573 my preaching Bible is the ESV, but I use several different translations during my study and sometimes I use the KJV to read certain verses that are best read in the Old English.
@@Nunya45573 mainly because folks like to make money. But another reason is Greek which is the primary language of the New Testament is a complete language, and we are finding more manuscripts in Greek from that time period that helps us understand what the Apostles were telling us. As an example there are several different words for love in Greek. Phila which is a brotherly love and where the city of Philadelphia gets its name. Agape which is a sacrificial love and is found in John 3:16. So many Greek words have meaning that in English can be translated differently but still have the same meaning. Greek doesn’t function like English so some translation lay out the words just like they are laid out in Greek which makes it sound like you are speaking like Yoda. But we have different translations because people learn differently as well. Bibles like the NIV use what is called a dynamic equivalent method of translation, which means they look at the text and make it sound more modern, but you can lose some meanings when they use this method. All in all the English Bibles we have with the exception of a couple (Joseph Smith translation and the Jehovah Witness one) are 99% the same and the 1% different doesn’t effect any of the core doctrines of the faith. Hope this helps.
@@darinbracy8433 Sounds like you believe the Bible the way you think I believe the BoM. What Bible is in existence from the time the writers were alive? There's the 1599 Geneva Bible. Sounds like someone kept the records safe and brought them to light later. Kinda like the BoM. I used the NIV most of my life, know it's more of a literal translation. I have a NLT, it's not literal. I was taught to understand how the different translations came about, was protestant most of my life. The BoM has different versions, I think non-LdS prefer 1830 or, I think it's 1835, versions. I know language doesn't translate well, just like Spanish. Can't wait for more people to publish their visits from Jesus. The more people that tell their story, the better we'll understand.
I am grateful for the preserved selected records we call the book of mormon. I believe they are real accounts from a real ancient people. I believe that the accounts are plain and precious as it stands, to those seeking understanding from the Lord, and have no need to be retranslated. The hand selected accounts remind those individuals, seeking to draw near to Jesus Christ, of His Pure Gospel, the doctrine of Christ. I am eternally grateful that the hand selected accounts also condemn our future estate as LDS and are designed to free us from our latter day Dogma. Thank you sir for all your sacrifices to help us, the LDS part of the Vinyard to come to know our God Jesus Christ.
This was fantastic. It is a good thing to expose everyone's works to criticism. And you've given a great critique. Lots of new info here that I didnt know about. Very much appreciated.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism absolutely. I actually read from their very nice leather bound OT+NT JST versions, which are so much better than the LDS version of the Bible. However the changes he made to a few of the BoM verses several years back really bother me. So I share your combined appreciation and bewilderment. Some people from his group have done really great work. But this other stuff is quite disturbing.
I think the Nauvoo Temple may have been too big. If it was made the same size of the Kirtland Temple it would have easily been built. Is this a sign that Joseph may have been overambitious?
I am unsure why it needed to be so big. The Nauvoo temple had roughly 5x the cubic area that the Kirtland temple had. This was a huge challenge. Sometimes building a building that is 2x the size doesn't always mean 2x the time and materials. Things get more complicated as buildings get larger. One thought I had was the architect for the Nauvoo temple was the same architect for the Masonic hall. Both buildings were being constructed roughly during the same time. This had to have also slowed the building down to a degree.
The blog post has links. Very likely earlier statements from Denver. T&C 175:44 - Received Sept 30, 2018 Set up a Temple Fund Website at least as early as Dec 29 2016 scriptures.info/scriptures/tc/section/175.44#44 denversnuffer.com/2016/12/temple-fund-website/
@@uncorrelatedmormonismThe linked paragraph states “there needs to be preparation for the coming commandment.” Meaning, the commandment has not been given yet. This has been discussed in many lectures, both by Denver and by others at the conferences, that no command has yet been given. I appreciate you tackling this subject, but I’m only 4 minutes in and finding multiple assumptions (seemingly from limited research) and multiple paragraphs taken out of context.
@@SirKn1ght47 That is just weasel words honestly and you can see it how you want. Yes, he said there was a coming commandment, however they started gathering funds. Leaders do this all the time. Even trump does this. They make soft statement to gauge interest and then issue the revelation/proclamation/commandment. I agree they weren't "commanded". However, it says God's people always have a temple so what does that honestly mean?
@@uncorrelatedmormonism Weasel-wording, eh? That’s certainly one way to see it. Seems biased to me, but I guess I might be biased too. And on all God’s people having temples, I will need to watch Michelle Stone’s review and your counter-review on the temple before I feel ready to answer. Though my current gut feeling is that… all of God’s people built temples. Just because the records don’t all survive to make it in the Bible doesn’t mean they didn’t make them. But again, I’ll watch your review on this (and read Joseph in the Gap) before I make more direct claims.
@@SirKn1ght47 I think the temple is a tangible link between Heaven and Earth. However once the two worlds collide then we don't need a temple. I think also if we reserved a sacred spot anywhere then it would function the same. Imagine if you reserved a single room in your house for sacred things. That room becomes a temple to you. The temple is really only because we as a people are not very good at approaching God by ourselves.
7:23 - KJV reflects the Trinitarian beliefs of the scholars. Which modern English Bible doesn’t reflect the doctrine of the Trinity? To my knowledge only the Jehovah Witnesses New World Translation has removed and added certain terms to degrade the Trinity. But the bigger issue for Mormon theology from the KJV is monotheism found in Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 43:10, and Mark 12:29. All of these show God as one, singular. This is a direct contradiction of Mormon polytheistic beliefs.
If there is only one, was Jesus using magic to fool his followers? Was he praying to a mirror? Threw his voice for his baptism? Multiple personalities? Hallucinations?
@@Nunya45573 many get confused about the Trinity and it is not the easiest doctrine for many to understand, but it how God has revealed Himself in the scriptures. The basics is that God is three persons, each separate in purpose, but united in their operation. The Father, the Son and the Spirit are the three persons who all share the essence of God. At the baptism of Jesus all three of the members of the Godhead are in attendance. Jesus praying to the Father is not inconsistent with the Trinity, as separate person each can communicate with each other, and Jesus would be modeling the behavior that He would expect from us.
@@darinbracy8433 I grew up protestant. I would ask about the trinity, get it explained to me, I'd think I'd get it, then wouldn't remember and could never figure it out from reading scripture. I pictured God the Father as the mind, Jesus the body, and the Holy Spirit as the soul. But then when it comes to like emotions, I only picture a soul as having those. Yet I believe the son and father both have feelings, so then it doesn't make sense. I hardly ever pray, I don't even know who I'm praying to. I do ask questions of them, just no pattern like a prayer. In Jesus' name. Sounds like He's the receptionist that we go through, like a letter addressed in care of. Then, is there more than one receptionist with access to the father, and we have different rules and rewards based on which receptionist we chose? Are we playing telephone? Message goes one direction only, me to Jesus, Jesus to God, God to the Spirit, the Spirit to me. Jesus is the comforter, yet the prayer chain doesn't sound like He answers prayers, only relays messages.
@@Nunya45573 Most Christians do a horrible job at discipleship, so that’s not surprising that you would have a hard time understanding these things. All members of the Godhead have the bases of personhood, communication, intelligence and emotions, the hardest to see these things is the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit has each of these and it is demonstrated in the scriptures. Praying is just talking to God and since God is one just praying to God is sufficient. Many close their prayers in Jesus name as an acknowledgment of His sacrifice and in the power of His resurrection. But praying needs to be only you asking God to hear the concerns of your heart. Romans 8:26-27 ESV Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27] And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism I don't think you necessarily "missed" anything (I didn't mean for it to sound that way) 🙂 There is that "covenant" they entered in to but it's definately secondary to the primary issues you listed.
I can see wanting a version of the BOM that uses the modern forms of words like saith, thee, thou, hath, art, etc., but any further changes can potentially change the meaning of the scripture. God is the one who gave Joseph Smith the translation, so I don’t understand why someone would alter it, unless you were wanting to make a simplified version for kids.
Totally agree. I like the current language of the Book of Mormon and find great meaning in it. However, I can see the thee/thou being replaced with a modern equivalent word. This is how apostasies happen though. We try to help God by improving things.
I look at the new English translation of the BofM as a supplement, not a replacement. I'm one of those who loves and understands the KJ language. You being up good points to be cautious. Are you aware of their effort to translate into Biblical Hebrew? Adrian Larson spoke on it and how it was going in April at the eclipse conference near Palmyra. Highly recommend watching that!
I did read a bit about the Hebrew version. They are going to present it to 12 Jews and if they accept it then it will be binding on the whole people or something like that. I do understand what they are doing. However, I think it is very dangerous. I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with a supplement with clearer language. I think I mentioned how there were other English versions of the Book of Mormon or Bible which help many people. The problem though, is Denver specifically claimed this is binding scripture for the people and it was received through God's assistance. This is a completely different claim.
Actually, You may want to listen to his recent talk on it at the Top of the Mountain conference as you are incorrect in these points. 1st of all, the C of C is not currently considered binding as there still is to be a vote by common consent, AFTER people have had a chance to read it to vote on it to be scripture. The vote will most likely take place in October. 2nd. It was very specifically mentioned at the said conference by Denver that the original Book of Mormon can be used and that no one is to deter using it, for any circumstance. If the new one is accepted by vote, they can BOTH be used interchangeably, similar to the JST being used interchangeably with the KJV. 3. The Hebrew book of mormon- has been a VERY expensive project because they had to find translators that could go to the easiest version of Hebrew,or it was thought the Jews would not accept it. They prefer the Paleo Hebrew as that sounds like scripture to them, vs. Modern Hebrew. It has been an enormously expensive undertaking. After it is completed THEN it will go to 12 Jews at least to utilize common consent by vote AFTER they have had a chance to read it in the most primitive form.
@@bonniewayne3223 I don't see how anyone is incorrect on points #1, and #3. For #2 though, yes this is technically correct. However the "old" version is absolutely going to be phased out. How many people are going to stick with something that is now inferior? God supposedly worked with Denver to create a new version, which was approved by him, and directed by him. This is better in every way to the old version. If entire fellowships stuck to the old version then what would that say? Very few people will use the old version.
Do you have any evidence that between 1833 & 1844 that the high priesthood wasn't being conferred or used by Smith? I would agree but disagree with you. If your correct about when the Mel. priesthood was removed it would imply Joseph himself was deceived on the matter
@@holyroller4391 The MP likely was removed before 1841, however JS may have had it still. Very hard to say. According to Joseph and several others, the MP was given first at the Morley Farm conference in 1831.
Patriarchal seems to be somewhat similar to what we believe is the Melchizedek in the LDS Church. It is the right to preside and officiate. However very little is known as far as I can tell. The Melchizedek priesthood is completely different. It is given by God and the right to manipulate time and space essentially.
The original Holy Order was all 3 priesthoods in one- Patriarchal, Melchizedek and Aaronic. The LDS had to have it carved out not unlike the Jews ( D&C 84) and have different portions of it, apparently no one else was ready for the full enchilada.
@@bonniewayne3223 Maybe. However with God there are certainly distinct levels. I don't see how these distinct levels are any different from the 3 orders of priesthood. According to Joseph though, Denver is wrong about the ordering. God gives the MP directly by his own voice so I don't understand why Denver changed this except so he could claim special access to God.
6:54 - Contradictory to the Bible 2 Peter 1:20-21 ESV knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. [21] For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism No single source of information. The Book of Mormon was interpreted and translated by Joseph Smith alone, Peter says that scripture doesn’t come from one person, and notice in verse 21 “men”, 40 different men wrote the Bible not one man.
27:53 - Jeremiah 23 is an indictment against Joseph Smith. Jeremiah 23:16,21,30-32 ESV Thus says the LORD of hosts: "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD. 21] "I did not send the prophets, yet they ran; I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied. 30] Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, declares the LORD, who steal my words from one another. 31] Behold, I am against the prophets, declares the LORD, who use their tongues and declare, 'declares the LORD.' 32] Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams, declares the LORD, and who tell them and lead my people astray by their lies and their recklessness, when I did not send them or charge them. So they do not profit this people at all, declares the LORD.
21:11 - Melchizedek is Messianic, it is only for the Messiah. This is demonstrated in Psalm 110, and Hebrews 6 Psalm 110:4 ESV The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." Hebrews 6:20 ESV where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
24:55 - “Visit from Christ” - Matthew 24:23-25 ESV Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24] For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. 25] See, I have told you beforehand.
This claim is pretty silly. You are saying that because some will claim to have visits from Christ, when they are wrong, then Christ can't or won't visit anyone at all? This makes no sense.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism what does the text say? These are the words of Christ Himself are you doubting what the Lord has spoken? And how do you know it is Jesus? Here’s what Paul says… 2 Corinthians 11:12-15 ESV And what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. 13] For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14] And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15] So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.
@@Nunya45573 Do you reject what Jesus said? The second question is why would Jesus need to? What you are implying is that Jesus was unable to complete God’s plan, but that is clearly not what the scriptures teach. John 19:30, on the cross Jesus proclaimed “It is finished”. This is the declaration that Jesus had indeed completed what He had come to do. So what you are implying is that the God who created the universe was unable to do what He said He was going to do when He said He was going to do it.
Joseph Smith is correct in pointing out that there are three orders of the priesthood. In the LDS church today all worthy male members are allowed to receive the patriarchal or administrative priesthood to administer the work of the final dispensation of the fullness of times. The fullness of the Melchizedek priesthood is given preparatorily in the temple to worthy men and women. Worthy members are washed and anointed and promised that one day they can receive this higher priesthood if they are true and faithful. This is the highest order of the priesthood, referred to in the Book of Mormon as the Holy Order. Most LDS members do not understand what the scriptures teach regarding this, and think they have the Holy Order. This does not change the fact that the keys of the priesthood on this earth today are held by the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Obviously, Denver Snuffer is just another person who does not understand what the scriptures and Joseph Smith teach concerning the priesthood. Joseph Smith said that "all priesthood is Melchizedek." D&C 124 does not say that the church lost the priesthood, unless you have an agenda.
I think D&C 124 is pretty clear when you look at it in the context of the rest of the story. The church openly fought against the neighbor, failed to redeem Zion, failed to follow God in Nauvoo, and started teaching false doctrines. I find it strange to think that the church can do so many negative things, but never have a serious consequence. However, in the scriptures we read about serious consequences all the time.
It blows my mind that anyone can follow that man. I agree that many leave the LDS for very valid reasons, but to then go from bad to much worse is incredible. Why does everyone thinks they need to follow a man? or an organization or group of any sort. The Savior said come to me. I don't recall come to snuffer. Nephi is clear the anyone who follows any man will be damned. How can we be so deceived? Yikes.
You really need to study what Denver has said to fully understand what is going on. It is obvious you haven't and so your conclusions are flawed. One example, the church lost the Melchizedek priesthood previous to Denver, but the Aaronic stayed. Aaronic priesthood is very durable, but when they excommunicated "a prophet of God" such as Denver, the Lord removed the Aaronic priesthood from them. Thus, the church is no longer led by any priesthood. I can't correct all of your mistakes in your video here. Just know that you can't read one little section of what he has said here or there and expect to understand what Denver teaches or is all about. Seriously study what he has said and try to do it without a judgmental heart and see what happens. Much Love!
@@uncorrelatedmormonism If you have been called of God to accomplish a mission, this concept is not silly. The church's punishment for excommunication a true prophet of God was stripping them of the Aaronic priesthood that remained. But now they have no priesthood.
@@garciaparra1977 What proof is there that he was a prophet of God when he was excommunicated? What had he done other than publish his book? What did he say or do prior to that?
Would this be similar to John wresting the kingdom from the Jews in preparation of Christ? There were sign for quite a long time that the Jews had strayed yet there was a specific point in time to accomplish Gods plan. Sounds plausible.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism This is why you should read or listen to what the man has said. How can you have and accurate or honest opinion of him if you have not done this. What "proof" is there that Abinadi was a prophet, or Alma, or Joseph? There isn't any "proof" only their words we can read and then decide how it makes one feel. You are asking for a sign and not acting on faith. Start with the 10 talks Denver gave some years ago. Listen to them on TH-cam. It is just like Moroni's challenge to read the Book of Mormon and then pray about it. Reading the book is a necessary step in getting that conformation. No reading of the book, means no conformation. Correctly understanding Denver is no different. If what he is saying and taught is true, wouldn't you wish you gave him and open and honest look before casting him aside? Of course many did this to Joseph and other prophets too so. . .
Denver contributes his own money for his efforts the publish scriptures, and he is working on a version of the Book of Mormon, written in scriptural Hebrew. You need to gather more background in your criticisms. He didn't translate the Book of Mormon into modern English. He went back to the original manuscript published by Royal Skousen. I am not a follower of Denver Snuffer, and I disagree with some of his doctrine, but I find the bulk of his teachings to be factual. I have demonstrated and proven them in my own life.
I do agree that a lot of what he teaches is good. "Translate" may be a wrong word. "Update" instead? I don't think him watering down the Book of Mormon is good though.
@@uncorrelatedmormonismHis group of followers has produced as good a version of the original BoM as there can be, the restoration edition (RE), the Modern English edition Covenant of Christ (CoC), Jewish Edition - Stick of Joseph and working on a Hebrew edition. At least they are doing interesting things with the “keystone” of our religion.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism With the help of Royal Skousens work, updated punctuation, (the original punctuation was the printers decision), and the last known edits of JS, yeah as good.
@@stephen562 He completely changed the wording though. The edition I use already is based on Skousens work with the JST already added for the Bible. simplyscriptures.com
There are actually several Egyptian writing styles that can accurately be called reformed Egyptian. For instance, Demotic, and Hieratic are two of the most popular.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism No, that’s LDS spin. Egyptian used hieroglyphs until they were conquered by the Assyrians which then they used an early version of Aramaic, which changed to common Aramaic. We have the Alexandrian text of the Bible that has some Aramaic. LDS scholars have tried to contend that the transitional Aramaic is a reformed Egyptian which is nonsense.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism No kidding, multiple other groups shunned that one. But the guy who mainly antagonized us deleted his account (the Qanon-adjacent screenshot poster, I don’t remember his name), so his group is basically dead now.
It sounds like dav... I mean Denver is definitely a false prophet. Years ago I predicted he would come out as the Davidic servant just like a ton of other delirious spiritually deceived people I've run into. I'm not against an open mind, but if your easily deceived by people like this, maybe you should just stay home.
I have been contacted by a number of people now who say they are the One Mighty and Strong, or the Davidic Servant. The bar is very low so people can claim whatever they want.
Denver is a modern day Abinadi, someone with the courage to call the LDS leaders to repent, to point out the problems with the church and to promote faith and belief in the restoration and the Book Of Mormon. I may not agree with everything he says or does but he was definitely inspired of God to do what he did. Everything he did and does match the work of true messengers sent by God. I am not part of his movement, I live far way from Utah, but I have read and listened to his teachings and talks and I have no doubt he was inspired to do what he’s done so far. Unlike my past behavior of accepting the general authorities as infallible men of God, I do not see Denver the same way I used to see the LDS leaders, I see him as an ordinary man who was inspired to put things in order. That’s my opinion about Denver. I believe God is sending many messengers to warn us, Denver is not the only one.
Do you agree that he should rewrite the Book of Mormon?
@@uncorrelatedmormonism I mentioned I may not agree with everything he said or does, I wouldn’t want any one rewriting the Book Of Mormon, but the current version we have has been altered and several changes were made since it’s translation. I haven’t read Denver’s movement version or modern version of the Book so I can’t say anything yet. I appreciate it your response and enjoy your videos.
@@FFM115 I agree. I would recommend the version I use. simplyscriptures.com/
It is based on Skousen's research using the printer's manuscript with the JST incorporated for the Bible.
@@uncorrelatedmormonismi certainly don’t believe we should be Quranist about the Book of Mormon. KJV language is getting outdated and difficult to understand. And for some odd reason, when we translate the Book of Mormon into other languages, we decide to use primitive versions of those languages as well (the example coming to mind is how the Spanish Book of Mormon uses old Spanish). There’s no reason for this. We should never lose the original the same way we should never lose the Greek and Hebrew for the new and Old Testament, that doesn’t mean adapting it when the language is outdated is necessarily wrong
@@uncorrelatedmormonism Please read the beginning of the Covenant of Christ. It says how and why the book exists. It is irresponsible for anyone to comment on something as important as this subject without knowing and studying it out in there own mind first. And I mean an honest study and honest attempt to understand what is going on. Not just reading what someone said on the internet and one page from a lecture or book he has written. Plant the seed and see where it takes you. But don't ask amiss or throw out the seed because of unbelief or regret will follow.
2:19 I’ll just point out, disagreeing with Denver is not “cursing” him, which is what he was specifically warning against as “unfortunately chosen words.” He later shared an example on his blog (11/24/14) of hearing someone say over the pulpit Denver advocated killing wives and children (which he does not), and that this is the type of thing that draws God’s ire.
Thank you. It is sometimes hard to gauge meaning from the text alone.
18:25 He didn’t select which materials should be canonized, he felt he was told to stay out of it. I seem to recall he mentioned the scripture committee gathered into the T&C things he didn’t think needed to be in there (though I’ll have to look that up to verify). The committee went through his blog posts and books and chose what they felt should fit, then it went to a general vote for the people to decide what should be in it.
Some of his revelations say they should be included. As you know I have a blog, however I would be incredibly shocked if I found a group that canonized some of my writings. I don't believe I said he directly controlled what was canonized. However he certainly does control that to some degree. Would Denver be okay if they canonized fan fiction? Going through blog posts and books to find new scriptures to canonize though is a very strange way to do it.
Voting on things like this is strange. The movement is centered around Denver, even though people say its not. Would you vote against Denver's writings? Would you vote against his new edition of the Book of Mormon, which he says is from God and was approved by God?
@@uncorrelatedmormonism I did, actually. I was part of that voting process, and didn’t see the need for some of those posts to be included. But I was outvoted on some of those, since they made it in.
This is where it gets weird, I agree. But on the flip side, if someone gathered your letters to people and decided to canonize them like they did Paul’s epistles, would that be weird? I think ultimately, canonization is the people showing what they’re willing to accept and follow, with God (ideally) confirming whether or not what they’ve gathered is acceptable to Him.
As for the English translation, I don’t know yet. I need to read it through before I say one way or the other. I appreciate the clarification to “smote off his head” in the deaths of Laban and Shiz, but I still need to study and pray about those changes you mentioned (and likely others).
Interesting. Would you vote though that you think something is uninspired and actually wrong? I can see whether something should be canonized or not. However, something being true or not is a different level, I think.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism True, that’s a different level. I don’t recall seeing things that were untrue among those canonized sections, but I should re-read through those to see if I still believe that.
At this point, I’m confident that I would voice a concern if I saw something false in the translation, or if I was told by God something was wrong. I’ll be working through that translation now that it’s available and figure that out.
Then I’ll need to figure out how to reach out to somebody and voice concerns, since I’m still an attending Mormon member and haven’t really met with other groups. 😅
@@SirKn1ght47 Thanks. There is nothing wrong with truly believing something. However, we certainly should always be free to speak when things don't line up. Most groups get to a point where they no longer feel free to do this. Classic example is the LDS church.
One new scripture that I found in the Covenant of Christ edition is 2 Nephi 14:1 (Isaiah 4:1). I honestly think this is more egregious than the other 2 examples I highlighted.
BoM: And in that day, seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, “We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel; only let us be called by thy name to take away our reproach.”
CoC: In that coming day, seven women will sustain the priesthood authority of a man and say: We are self-sufficient; but let us be called by the name of our Messiah through baptism because the Messiah removes our sins.
This is clear propaganda. There is not a single biblical scholar that would agree with this translation from the Hebrew. It also directly supports the doctrines of the movement so once someone starts using this version, they will have some trouble going back to the original.
I understand why they did it. However, in my opinion this is a classic example of why this is not scripture. This is also completely wrong because this verse should go with Isaiah 3. This is a chastisement not a blessing. This new CoC edition is very dangerous. This is exactly like the LDS releasing a new BoM with "Covenant Path" or "Think Celestial" in it.
I appreciate this video. I've been looking into Denver and the fruit of the Restoration Movement cautiously. Left the Brighamite church and don't wish to be fooled again ...
However, I can say that conferences are organized and planned by anyone who wants to take something like that on. Sometimes Denver is invited to speak. No one is paid. We all pay our own costs, including Denver.
Also, there is a belief that a temple must be built since the Nauvoo temple was never finished, yes. AND there's been no direction from God on where to build, so it's unfair to say they should be doing that when apparently they've not been instructed further in that regard. Still listening:)❤
This is fair. Thank you.
I was caught up with another modern day prophet only to be disappointed when I realized the truth. A lot of what Denver does seems to be good. The members of his groups certainly are generally good people also.
I think though that it is so easy to deceive people who hunger and thirst after something. The "prophet" I was caught up with offers something that makes no sense from the outside, but you take it because there is nothing else it seems.
I noticed that, Denver seems to be very transparent in what he is doing, very different than the LDS church leaders. I am not part of the movement, never attended their meetings since I live far way, but as far as what a real church of Christ should look like, they seem to be the closest to what we see in scriptures. It reminds me of Alma after he fled from king Noah and started gathering near the waters of Mormon.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism which false prophet fooled you?
@@holyroller4391 For a while I was caught up with Rob Smith. I really got into his system of exactness which resonated with me. I believe he has lost most of his followers by now. There certainly has been a slow and steady decline. I believe he is not starting a paid ministry around his teachings. Certainly, completely different than the way he started.
I want to preface this comment by saying I really like Denver. I have met him in person a couple of times and he was even kind enough to attend my baptism. But I have come to your same conclusion: that some of what he says is inspired, and other parts are not. He used to constantly preach against having a “strong man” but allows his followers to put him on that pedestal. I also wanted to believe the best in Joseph and that he did not practice polygamy. But I have come to the conclusion that Joseph only had a conduit to heaven while he had the seer stone. I don’t believe he was ever a prophet, and that he ultimately succumbed to pride causing the expulsion of the “saints” as well as his own destruction. Mosiah 2:22
It is really hard to come to a conclusion like this, because you have to reexamine things in your life. However, I think it ultimately is a very powerful place to be since you understand truth better.
We can gain a lot of truth from people like Denver. However, ultimately being surrounded by people claiming you are a prophet and God's mouthpiece slowly corrupts even the best of us.
Joseph and Denver both did great things. However at least in Joseph's life, the Nauvoo Joseph was a completely different person from the Kirtland or Palmyra Joseph.
Lots could be said, but I would encourage you to study the works of Margaret Barker. The change from "Highly Favored" to "Blessed" has significance if you understand the older religion from Abraham. I don't have time to pull book references, but here's a related sample from her paper "The Pre Christian Roots of Christian Art."
“In the older religion, the high priests had given a special blessing:
May the LORD bless you and keep you.
May the LORD make his face shine upon you and be gracious unto you
May the LORD lift up his face upon you and give you peace (Numbers 7.24-26).
Seeing and experiencing the ‘face’ of the LORD was the greatest blessing of the older religion, and yet by the time of Jesus, this blessing was so controversial that it was forbidden for a Jew to translate it or to explain it to anyone. The Christians, however, believed it had been fulfilled in Jesus; they had seen the face of the LORD.” - (p. 3)
To be “blessed” in the older religion meant they had beheld the face of the LORD, or been in His presence. Nephi is telling you that he has been redeemed from the fall (see Ether 3:13). To understand what the “plain and precious” things are, we must make the effort to understand Joseph’s restoration of the “Gospel.” Modern branches of Mormonism have abandoned Joseph’s teachings and can’t comprehend them, they’ve traded it for a variation of protestantism and are actively seeking to become more “Christian” to attract protestants. Throwing a #BlessedLife bumper sticker on our suburbans won’t help us comprehend the religion that Joseph gave his life to restore.
Thanks. The word "blessed" today is just too diluted.
I think you meant Numbers 6. In the LDS circles we interpret "face of God" to mean literal countenance, however generally this is not true.
This what Biblehub has to say:
The "face" of God is his personality as turned towards man, or else turned away from him. His face hidden or turned away is despair and death (Deuteronomy 31:17, 18; Job 13:24); his face turned against man is destruction and death (Leviticus 17:10; Psalm 34:16); his face turned upon man in love and mercy is life and salvation (Psalm 27:1; Psalm 44:3). It is to the soul of man what the blessed sun of heaven is to his body. And be gracious unto thee. 'Ἐλεήσαι σε, Septuagint. Be kind and beneficent to thee: the effect in and on the soul of the clear shining upon it of the face of God.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism I just copied from her paper. Barker’s work is primarily on the first temple period. Bible hub and most other sources don’t consider the work of some like hers because it challenges Jewish and Christian theology.
@@SaundersClark Maybe. I would really have to look at the sources. From my understanding Jewish belief was that God didn't have a body but was ephemeral. This of course could have been lost at some point.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism that’s exactly why Barker’s work is critical. Joseph was restoring the older religion. The religion Lehi was initiated into. It’s different than what the modern Bible tells us. It’s foreign to modern Mormonism.
@@SaundersClark What is stopping someone from claiming an even older religion and changing everything again? At what point do we have the original?
I’m pretty sure disagreeing with someone is not the same as cursing them.
A lot of people have claimed that Denver is saying you can disagree all you want, but just don't "curse" him. However, that doesn't seem to be what the text is suggesting. People read what they want into it though.
Basically, Denver is saying disagreeing is fine. However, don't disagree too much, whatever that means, otherwise you will get on God's bad side.
Great points in this video! I don’t think there is enough to say that Denver claims disagreeing with him means disagreeing with God, although what he said is close to that.
The other points you make are valid and compelling. Great video!
@@ThomasFackrell Thanks.
I also struggle with the idea that the bad tree of Brighamism somehow preserved enough of the “priesthood” that flows into the Remnant movement to sustain their practices on some level. Bad tree -> good fruits??
I also don’t agree that entering into their covenant is THE way the gentiles repents and are numbered among the house of Israel.
Many remnant members get “lost in the sauce” of doctrine and priesthood without simply turning to Jesus and working out their salvation on their own. They’d rather bicker about things like scripture translations before making sure they’re first right with God-full repentance, calling and election made sure, etc.
This is true. There is a lot to bicker about certainly. 😊
The more I study the more I understand that the whole thing is bad and we need a complete reset. A lot of times we are trimming our spiritual tree by cutting this or that, however we really need to take it down to the stump and let God guide us how we are supposed to go.
I doubt God is going to condemn anyone for missing this or that if they really sought him diligently. The idea that Mormonism or any offshoot is a special 1%er club for the most faithful is very dangerous.
28:55 - Now change Denver to Joseph and LDS Church to Christian Church.
In your own words you are condemning Joseph Smith, because Smith did the same thing that Denver is doing today. Both claim the same direct revelation from God, and both were trying to turn people away from something.
Zero difference.
Can you make a video on the Adam-God doctrine? I received witness and know that Brigham Young's sermons are real revelations and I find it concerning that it seems like the church does not talks about it (and other things, like the current way the WoW is interpreted) to seem more „normal“ to „mainstream Christians“ or to have a „cleaner“ image. I don't have the perfect words to describe it. Thanks for your videos! I just found your channel recently.
Thanks. I have never looked at Adam-God too deeply. However, that is a good idea.
I suggest you create a timeline of church leaders and what they believed about God. It is a wonderful exercise. Joseph Smith outlined his belief in Lecture 5 of Lectures on faith. Brigham Young was, as you say a believer in the Adam God Doctrine, where Adam was a premortal polygamist God who came to earth with one of his wives. This belief endured through Wilford Woodruff when Bishop Bunker corrected the president and they pivoted to a definition more closely to main stream Christianity. Joseph F. Smith recorded his struggles with the topic at the end of his life asserting he was just a man who operated the church and never had any interaction with God until in his angst was given a vision to instruct him and soothe his soul. It stay fairly status quo until Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie who wrote volumes on spiritual topics and who ensconced Section 130 as the defacto definition despite being in contradiction with the Book of Mormon. The next major update came during President Hinkley who emphatically stated that Marriage was between one man and one woman, and asserted such was the case eternally, which would include God the Father. Then President Nelson clearly contradicted and said same sex couples could be disfellowshipped members of the church, demonstrating that he as Prophet knew God made an allowance for such. If you are looking for truth, no man has had their views more discounted than Brigham Young. If you somehow found a testimony of his views, please know it was not from God. Repent, seek Jesus.
Have you thought of doing something like this for Mauricio Berger? I’m honestly conflicted with him. My immediate first reaction is “this guys a fraud” and that anyone who actually thinks he’s legit is crazy. But then I realized, that must be exactly how it was to be a follower of Joseph during the beginning of the restoration, or even the apostles. I’ve read a couple of his revelations, and there’s nothing deeply concerning about them in my view. I’ve not had time to read his supposed translation or to actually read up on their theology (as they have a very poor online presence). But I was wondering if there was anything about his claims that you find deeply troubling.
There’s been practically radio silence from them since 2022, at least for their online presence that is, which I find extremely odd for the supposed “second gathering of Zion.” I read a “letter” from Mauricio to the church of Christ temple lot talking about how 1 apostle from their church, and 2 from the CoC and LDS church would join him, and that they would gain ownership of the temple lot to build Zion, so I guess if that ever happens that would be the sign lol
I could. That is a good idea. I know next to nothing about him though. I agree that they have a very poor online presence which makes things complicated in an online world.
I can research and see.
Do you know more about this letter you reference?
6:37 - No mistakes? - The BOM has been changed over 3,000 times to correct numerous mistakes.
We have the original manuscript. Certainly there have been a handful of spelling or grammar fixes. However the 3000 you mention is all punctuation. The scribes included no punctuation in the original.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism The BOM has been through numerous changes from the 1830 addition to the 1832 alone. You said no mistakes there’s tons of mistakes.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism "son of" added is not merely grammar
@@KendraAndTheLaw You mean the 1837 changes Joseph did? Some claim that was to get the Book of Mormon back to what the original manuscript said, however this is provably wrong. Joseph seemed to just add "son of" because he wanted to.
12:46 - But didn’t Joseph Smith declare the same thing? He declared that all the other scriptures were corrupted. He only has his personal declaration just as this Denver guy, so how can you know for certain who is being truthful? How can either of these be tested?
He asked about which church to join, not which scripture to read. Unless you're referring to something later on, I'm not real familiar with everything.
@@Nunya45573
The Mormon church teaches that the Christian scriptures have been corrupted, but they still use and read them and cannot tell which parts of the Bible is corrupted.
@@darinbracy8433 That's not what they believe.
@@Nunya45573 it is what they have taught because there are major differences and contradictions between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. One of the core doctrines of the Christian faith is that the Bible is inerrant which means it is without contradiction, God is a God of order not chaos. However the BOM makes God chaotic.
Example in Genesis 6, God gives Noah specific instructions on the building of the Ark, and Noah is able to build the Ark without any difficulty.
In the Book of Ether 2:16-3:1, God tells the brothers Jared to build boats without windows. The brothers have to tell God that they won’t be able to breathe in the boats. Then God tells them to put a hole in the top and bottom of the boat so they can get air and to plug up the bottom hole if water starts to come in.
So there’s major differences between the God in Genesis and the God in Ether. They are supposed to be the same God, except it seems God became stupid and forgot how to build a boat. Had to be told by the humans that He God had made a mistake and that God’s solution to the problem was to make it possible that the boat would sink.
God is not dumb, at least not the God of the Bible.
The God of the BOM, he doesn’t seem to have it all together.
But it gets worse.
Later the brothers Jared asked God if they could put a window in the boat. God response was no because it would be dashed into pieces. Now they didn’t have glass in Biblical times it would be thousands of years before glass would be invented, so how can a hole be dashed into pieces? What God said to the brothers doesn’t make sense.
These are contradictions between what the Bible says about God and what the BOM says about God and if you read both books you can clearly see that they are not the same God.
@@darinbracy8433 Haha. It's your interpretation. If the Bible is perfect, which version are you referring to? I wouldn't call God stupid, but you do you.
This was my first next thing after leaving mormonism. Eventually too many things like this started adding up but especially the fighting over changing scriptures was a big turn off. And what i hear about his followers they have gotten wrapped up in silly things and ego which makes me glad i didnt stick around. For anyone worried about being fooled again after leaving Mormonism, well its going to happen. Its our ego that doesnt want to be fooled. Unfortunately if you were a Mormon you dont even have the tools to not be fooled. You have to learn them. In the meantime you're going to be fooled and its ok, its part of the process. Just do better when you know better.
I am glad to hear this. When I was kicked out of the church, I did gravitate towards someone some consider a prophet. It was a bit of a softer landing, however ultimately, I had to leave him and go my own way.
We are all on our own journey. Many can help us on the way. However, many can hinder us also.
12:58 - “Meaningless scriptures devoid of truth” - Congratulations you have reached your destination.
he and his friends "re-did" the Book of Mormon into 'modern language' which is a big problem for me.
It does seem to be a problem to me also. I get that it is easier to read. However, calling it scripture?
@@uncorrelatedmormonismare French and Spanish translations of the Book of Mormon suddenly non scripture? I have read plain English versions of the Book of Mormon, and a couple verses of Denver’s version. In my opinion he’s simplifying and interpolating it TOO much. If we are going to rewrite the Book of Mormon, we should do it in the same way the NKJV rewrote the KJV. Simply changing outdated words into modern words. Not completely restructuring sentences, because that’s when interpretation comes in. But you can say the exact same thing about when we translate it into other languages. Who says those languages are correct? Are we as the Muslims are, to say only the English (Arabic) version should be read?
@@zrosix2240 You are making the same argument in a different comment. Language to language is different than language to same language.
I agree that it is not inherently bad. However, we also shouldn't do it just because. Denver's version is losing valuable meaning.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism even the Qurans standard Arabic versions don’t use the original Arabic. They have the original Arabic on the left side, and modern Arabic on the right. But to be fair, 1500 years is a lot more time for a language to develop than the few hundred since king James
Truth is different from fact. Truth is something you believe. Fact is something that’s provable. There is no “proving” a belief so members claim it takes faith. But if a fact interrupts that faith, we as members explain it away until we have to face the fact. Then we decide we were wrong about that ONE item. We need to apply critical thinking for the real story and not just “celestial” thinking.
This is true. It is difficult to realize that religious belief does require a fair amount of rational thought. Most people are taught that whatever you believe is true if you really want it to be.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism I appreciate your videos. Keep up the good work.
@@ChrisFBartlett Thanks. I would encourage you to have an open mind about the one coming out later today. 😊
8:30 - Which shows you the problem with the BOM , because it is a single source, while the Bible has numerous copies in Greek as to compare it to.
Which translation of the Bible?
@@Nunya45573 my preaching Bible is the ESV, but I use several different translations during my study and sometimes I use the KJV to read certain verses that are best read in the Old English.
@@darinbracy8433 Why so many variations if it's correct as is?
@@Nunya45573 mainly because folks like to make money. But another reason is Greek which is the primary language of the New Testament is a complete language, and we are finding more manuscripts in Greek from that time period that helps us understand what the Apostles were telling us. As an example there are several different words for love in Greek. Phila which is a brotherly love and where the city of Philadelphia gets its name. Agape which is a sacrificial love and is found in John 3:16. So many Greek words have meaning that in English can be translated differently but still have the same meaning.
Greek doesn’t function like English so some translation lay out the words just like they are laid out in Greek which makes it sound like you are speaking like Yoda. But we have different translations because people learn differently as well. Bibles like the NIV use what is called a dynamic equivalent method of translation, which means they look at the text and make it sound more modern, but you can lose some meanings when they use this method. All in all the English Bibles we have with the exception of a couple (Joseph Smith translation and the Jehovah Witness one) are 99% the same and the 1% different doesn’t effect any of the core doctrines of the faith.
Hope this helps.
@@darinbracy8433 Sounds like you believe the Bible the way you think I believe the BoM. What Bible is in existence from the time the writers were alive? There's the 1599 Geneva Bible. Sounds like someone kept the records safe and brought them to light later. Kinda like the BoM.
I used the NIV most of my life, know it's more of a literal translation. I have a NLT, it's not literal. I was taught to understand how the different translations came about, was protestant most of my life. The BoM has different versions, I think non-LdS prefer 1830 or, I think it's 1835, versions.
I know language doesn't translate well, just like Spanish. Can't wait for more people to publish their visits from Jesus. The more people that tell their story, the better we'll understand.
I am grateful for the preserved selected records we call the book of mormon. I believe they are real accounts from a real ancient people. I believe that the accounts are plain and precious as it stands, to those seeking understanding from the Lord, and have no need to be retranslated. The hand selected accounts remind those individuals, seeking to draw near to Jesus Christ, of His Pure Gospel, the doctrine of Christ. I am eternally grateful that the hand selected accounts also condemn our future estate as LDS and are designed to free us from our latter day Dogma. Thank you sir for all your sacrifices to help us, the LDS part of the Vinyard to come to know our God Jesus Christ.
Thank you. I love the scriptures also. They are the words of God to us today.
This was fantastic. It is a good thing to expose everyone's works to criticism. And you've given a great critique. Lots of new info here that I didnt know about. Very much appreciated.
Thanks. I do like a lot of what Denver does, however I do worry when people start to change scripture.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism absolutely. I actually read from their very nice leather bound OT+NT JST versions, which are so much better than the LDS version of the Bible. However the changes he made to a few of the BoM verses several years back really bother me. So I share your combined appreciation and bewilderment. Some people from his group have done really great work. But this other stuff is quite disturbing.
I think the Nauvoo Temple may have been too big.
If it was made the same size of the Kirtland Temple it would have easily been built.
Is this a sign that Joseph may have been overambitious?
I am unsure why it needed to be so big. The Nauvoo temple had roughly 5x the cubic area that the Kirtland temple had. This was a huge challenge.
Sometimes building a building that is 2x the size doesn't always mean 2x the time and materials. Things get more complicated as buildings get larger.
One thought I had was the architect for the Nauvoo temple was the same architect for the Masonic hall. Both buildings were being constructed roughly during the same time. This had to have also slowed the building down to a degree.
Show me where Denver was commanded to build a temple in 2018?
The blog post has links. Very likely earlier statements from Denver.
T&C 175:44 - Received Sept 30, 2018
Set up a Temple Fund Website at least as early as Dec 29 2016
scriptures.info/scriptures/tc/section/175.44#44
denversnuffer.com/2016/12/temple-fund-website/
@@uncorrelatedmormonismThe linked paragraph states “there needs to be preparation for the coming commandment.” Meaning, the commandment has not been given yet. This has been discussed in many lectures, both by Denver and by others at the conferences, that no command has yet been given.
I appreciate you tackling this subject, but I’m only 4 minutes in and finding multiple assumptions (seemingly from limited research) and multiple paragraphs taken out of context.
@@SirKn1ght47 That is just weasel words honestly and you can see it how you want. Yes, he said there was a coming commandment, however they started gathering funds.
Leaders do this all the time. Even trump does this. They make soft statement to gauge interest and then issue the revelation/proclamation/commandment. I agree they weren't "commanded". However, it says God's people always have a temple so what does that honestly mean?
@@uncorrelatedmormonism Weasel-wording, eh? That’s certainly one way to see it. Seems biased to me, but I guess I might be biased too.
And on all God’s people having temples, I will need to watch Michelle Stone’s review and your counter-review on the temple before I feel ready to answer. Though my current gut feeling is that… all of God’s people built temples. Just because the records don’t all survive to make it in the Bible doesn’t mean they didn’t make them. But again, I’ll watch your review on this (and read Joseph in the Gap) before I make more direct claims.
@@SirKn1ght47 I think the temple is a tangible link between Heaven and Earth. However once the two worlds collide then we don't need a temple.
I think also if we reserved a sacred spot anywhere then it would function the same. Imagine if you reserved a single room in your house for sacred things. That room becomes a temple to you.
The temple is really only because we as a people are not very good at approaching God by ourselves.
7:23 - KJV reflects the Trinitarian beliefs of the scholars. Which modern English Bible doesn’t reflect the doctrine of the Trinity? To my knowledge only the Jehovah Witnesses New World Translation has removed and added certain terms to degrade the Trinity.
But the bigger issue for Mormon theology from the KJV is monotheism found in Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 43:10, and Mark 12:29. All of these show God as one, singular. This is a direct contradiction of Mormon polytheistic beliefs.
If there is only one, was Jesus using magic to fool his followers? Was he praying to a mirror? Threw his voice for his baptism? Multiple personalities? Hallucinations?
@@Nunya45573 many get confused about the Trinity and it is not the easiest doctrine for many to understand, but it how God has revealed Himself in the scriptures. The basics is that God is three persons, each separate in purpose, but united in their operation. The Father, the Son and the Spirit are the three persons who all share the essence of God. At the baptism of Jesus all three of the members of the Godhead are in attendance.
Jesus praying to the Father is not inconsistent with the Trinity, as separate person each can communicate with each other, and Jesus would be modeling the behavior that He would expect from us.
@@Nunya45573
th-cam.com/video/_QMflzQ-XbI/w-d-xo.htmlsi=3V3hhdtlxyWj7o8Q
@@darinbracy8433 I grew up protestant. I would ask about the trinity, get it explained to me, I'd think I'd get it, then wouldn't remember and could never figure it out from reading scripture. I pictured God the Father as the mind, Jesus the body, and the Holy Spirit as the soul. But then when it comes to like emotions, I only picture a soul as having those. Yet I believe the son and father both have feelings, so then it doesn't make sense.
I hardly ever pray, I don't even know who I'm praying to. I do ask questions of them, just no pattern like a prayer.
In Jesus' name. Sounds like He's the receptionist that we go through, like a letter addressed in care of. Then, is there more than one receptionist with access to the father, and we have different rules and rewards based on which receptionist we chose?
Are we playing telephone? Message goes one direction only, me to Jesus, Jesus to God, God to the Spirit, the Spirit to me. Jesus is the comforter, yet the prayer chain doesn't sound like He answers prayers, only relays messages.
@@Nunya45573 Most Christians do a horrible job at discipleship, so that’s not surprising that you would have a hard time understanding these things. All members of the Godhead have the bases of personhood, communication, intelligence and emotions, the hardest to see these things is the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit has each of these and it is demonstrated in the scriptures.
Praying is just talking to God and since God is one just praying to God is sufficient. Many close their prayers in Jesus name as an acknowledgment of His sacrifice and in the power of His resurrection. But praying needs to be only you asking God to hear the concerns of your heart.
Romans 8:26-27 ESV
Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.
27] And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
Thank you. Excellent summary of most of the major problems.Much needed!
Thanks. Do you know of something else I missed?
@@uncorrelatedmormonism I don't think you necessarily "missed" anything (I didn't mean for it to sound that way) 🙂 There is that "covenant" they entered in to but it's definately secondary to the primary issues you listed.
@@ElizabethRussell144 Thanks. I am sure there is more, but I think this is sufficient at a high level.
I can see wanting a version of the BOM that uses the modern forms of words like saith, thee, thou, hath, art, etc., but any further changes can potentially change the meaning of the scripture. God is the one who gave Joseph Smith the translation, so I don’t understand why someone would alter it, unless you were wanting to make a simplified version for kids.
Totally agree. I like the current language of the Book of Mormon and find great meaning in it. However, I can see the thee/thou being replaced with a modern equivalent word.
This is how apostasies happen though. We try to help God by improving things.
I look at the new English translation of the BofM as a supplement, not a replacement. I'm one of those who loves and understands the KJ language.
You being up good points to be cautious.
Are you aware of their effort to translate into Biblical Hebrew? Adrian Larson spoke on it and how it was going in April at the eclipse conference near Palmyra. Highly recommend watching that!
I did read a bit about the Hebrew version. They are going to present it to 12 Jews and if they accept it then it will be binding on the whole people or something like that.
I do understand what they are doing. However, I think it is very dangerous.
I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with a supplement with clearer language. I think I mentioned how there were other English versions of the Book of Mormon or Bible which help many people. The problem though, is Denver specifically claimed this is binding scripture for the people and it was received through God's assistance. This is a completely different claim.
Actually,
You may want to listen to his recent talk on it at the Top of the Mountain conference as you are incorrect in these points.
1st of all, the C of C is not currently considered binding as there still is to be a vote by common consent, AFTER people have had a chance to read it to vote on it to be scripture. The vote will most likely take place in October.
2nd. It was very specifically mentioned at the said conference by Denver that the original Book of Mormon can be used and that no one is to deter using it, for any circumstance. If the new one is accepted by vote, they can BOTH be used interchangeably, similar to the JST being used interchangeably with the KJV.
3. The Hebrew book of mormon- has been a VERY expensive project because they had to find translators that could go to the easiest version of Hebrew,or it was thought the Jews would not accept it. They prefer the Paleo Hebrew as that sounds like scripture to them, vs. Modern Hebrew. It has been an enormously expensive undertaking. After it is completed THEN it will go to 12 Jews at least to utilize common consent by vote AFTER they have had a chance to read it in the most primitive form.
@@bonniewayne3223 I don't see how anyone is incorrect on points #1, and #3.
For #2 though, yes this is technically correct. However the "old" version is absolutely going to be phased out. How many people are going to stick with something that is now inferior? God supposedly worked with Denver to create a new version, which was approved by him, and directed by him. This is better in every way to the old version.
If entire fellowships stuck to the old version then what would that say? Very few people will use the old version.
Interesting concept of the patriarchal priesthood, I know others associate it with the right of the first born, what do you think it is?
Do you have any evidence that between 1833 & 1844 that the high priesthood wasn't being conferred or used by Smith? I would agree but disagree with you. If your correct about when the Mel. priesthood was removed it would imply Joseph himself was deceived on the matter
@@holyroller4391 The MP likely was removed before 1841, however JS may have had it still. Very hard to say. According to Joseph and several others, the MP was given first at the Morley Farm conference in 1831.
Patriarchal seems to be somewhat similar to what we believe is the Melchizedek in the LDS Church. It is the right to preside and officiate. However very little is known as far as I can tell.
The Melchizedek priesthood is completely different. It is given by God and the right to manipulate time and space essentially.
The original Holy Order was all 3 priesthoods in one- Patriarchal, Melchizedek and Aaronic.
The LDS had to have it carved out not unlike the Jews ( D&C 84) and have different portions of it, apparently no one else was ready for the full enchilada.
@@bonniewayne3223 Maybe. However with God there are certainly distinct levels. I don't see how these distinct levels are any different from the 3 orders of priesthood. According to Joseph though, Denver is wrong about the ordering. God gives the MP directly by his own voice so I don't understand why Denver changed this except so he could claim special access to God.
6:54 - Contradictory to the Bible
2 Peter 1:20-21 ESV
knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. [21] For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
What is contradictory?
@@uncorrelatedmormonism
No single source of information. The Book of Mormon was interpreted and translated by Joseph Smith alone, Peter says that scripture doesn’t come from one person, and notice in verse 21 “men”, 40 different men wrote the Bible not one man.
27:53 - Jeremiah 23 is an indictment against Joseph Smith.
Jeremiah 23:16,21,30-32 ESV
Thus says the LORD of hosts: "Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD.
21] "I did not send the prophets, yet they ran; I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied.
30] Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, declares the LORD, who steal my words from one another.
31] Behold, I am against the prophets, declares the LORD, who use their tongues and declare, 'declares the LORD.'
32] Behold, I am against those who prophesy lying dreams, declares the LORD, and who tell them and lead my people astray by their lies and their recklessness, when I did not send them or charge them. So they do not profit this people at all, declares the LORD.
I see it describing false prophets, nothing saying Joseph. Why not say it's referring to every person that claimed to prophecy in the Bible?
21:11 - Melchizedek is Messianic, it is only for the Messiah. This is demonstrated in Psalm 110, and Hebrews 6
Psalm 110:4 ESV
The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."
Hebrews 6:20 ESV
where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
You may be right on this point. I'm still studying for myself.
Comment for the algorithm 🧙♂️✨
Thanks. The mighty algorithm is our master now. 😊
24:55 - “Visit from Christ” -
Matthew 24:23-25 ESV
Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it.
24] For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.
25] See, I have told you beforehand.
This claim is pretty silly. You are saying that because some will claim to have visits from Christ, when they are wrong, then Christ can't or won't visit anyone at all?
This makes no sense.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism what does the text say? These are the words of Christ Himself are you doubting what the Lord has spoken?
And how do you know it is Jesus? Here’s what Paul says…
2 Corinthians 11:12-15 ESV
And what I am doing I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do.
13] For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
14] And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
15] So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.
@@darinbracy8433Do you believe that He still visits His people, or did He stop when the Bible stopped?
@@Nunya45573 Do you reject what Jesus said?
The second question is why would Jesus need to? What you are implying is that Jesus was unable to complete God’s plan, but that is clearly not what the scriptures teach. John 19:30, on the cross Jesus proclaimed “It is finished”. This is the declaration that Jesus had indeed completed what He had come to do. So what you are implying is that the God who created the universe was unable to do what He said He was going to do when He said He was going to do it.
@@darinbracy8433 Paul is Christ? You said they're Jesus' words, then quoted Paul.
Joseph Smith is correct in pointing out that there are three orders of the priesthood. In the LDS church today all worthy male members are allowed to receive the patriarchal or administrative priesthood to administer the work of the final dispensation of the fullness of times. The fullness of the Melchizedek priesthood is given preparatorily in the temple to worthy men and women. Worthy members are washed and anointed and promised that one day they can receive this higher priesthood if they are true and faithful. This is the highest order of the priesthood, referred to in the Book of Mormon as the Holy Order. Most LDS members do not understand what the scriptures teach regarding this, and think they have the Holy Order. This does not change the fact that the keys of the priesthood on this earth today are held by the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Obviously, Denver Snuffer is just another person who does not understand what the scriptures and Joseph Smith teach concerning the priesthood. Joseph Smith said that "all priesthood is Melchizedek." D&C 124 does not say that the church lost the priesthood, unless you have an agenda.
I think D&C 124 is pretty clear when you look at it in the context of the rest of the story. The church openly fought against the neighbor, failed to redeem Zion, failed to follow God in Nauvoo, and started teaching false doctrines.
I find it strange to think that the church can do so many negative things, but never have a serious consequence. However, in the scriptures we read about serious consequences all the time.
Love the magic artwork in the first slide!
Thanks.
Awesome work
Thanks
It blows my mind that anyone can follow that man. I agree that many leave the LDS for very valid reasons, but to then go from bad to much worse is incredible. Why does everyone thinks they need to follow a man? or an organization or group of any sort. The Savior said come to me. I don't recall come to snuffer. Nephi is clear the anyone who follows any man will be damned. How can we be so deceived? Yikes.
No one is between us and God, yet we constantly put people there.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism we sure do thus 41000 denominations
You really need to study what Denver has said to fully understand what is going on. It is obvious you haven't and so your conclusions are flawed. One example, the church lost the Melchizedek priesthood previous to Denver, but the Aaronic stayed. Aaronic priesthood is very durable, but when they excommunicated "a prophet of God" such as Denver, the Lord removed the Aaronic priesthood from them. Thus, the church is no longer led by any priesthood. I can't correct all of your mistakes in your video here. Just know that you can't read one little section of what he has said here or there and expect to understand what Denver teaches or is all about. Seriously study what he has said and try to do it without a judgmental heart and see what happens. Much Love!
This concept is just silly. Many people have been unjustly excommunicated.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism If you have been called of God to accomplish a mission, this concept is not silly. The church's punishment for excommunication a true prophet of God was stripping them of the Aaronic priesthood that remained. But now they have no priesthood.
@@garciaparra1977 What proof is there that he was a prophet of God when he was excommunicated? What had he done other than publish his book? What did he say or do prior to that?
Would this be similar to John wresting the kingdom from the Jews in preparation of Christ? There were sign for quite a long time that the Jews had strayed yet there was a specific point in time to accomplish Gods plan. Sounds plausible.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism This is why you should read or listen to what the man has said. How can you have and accurate or honest opinion of him if you have not done this. What "proof" is there that Abinadi was a prophet, or Alma, or Joseph? There isn't any "proof" only their words we can read and then decide how it makes one feel. You are asking for a sign and not acting on faith. Start with the 10 talks Denver gave some years ago. Listen to them on TH-cam. It is just like Moroni's challenge to read the Book of Mormon and then pray about it. Reading the book is a necessary step in getting that conformation. No reading of the book, means no conformation. Correctly understanding Denver is no different. If what he is saying and taught is true, wouldn't you wish you gave him and open and honest look before casting him aside? Of course many did this to Joseph and other prophets too so. . .
Denver contributes his own money for his efforts the publish scriptures, and he is working on a version of the Book of Mormon, written in scriptural Hebrew.
You need to gather more background in your criticisms. He didn't translate the Book of Mormon into modern English. He went back to the original manuscript published by Royal Skousen.
I am not a follower of Denver Snuffer, and I disagree with some of his doctrine, but I find the bulk of his teachings to be factual. I have demonstrated and proven them in my own life.
I do agree that a lot of what he teaches is good. "Translate" may be a wrong word. "Update" instead?
I don't think him watering down the Book of Mormon is good though.
@@uncorrelatedmormonismHis group of followers has produced as good a version of the original BoM as there can be, the restoration edition (RE), the Modern English edition Covenant of Christ (CoC), Jewish Edition - Stick of Joseph and working on a Hebrew edition. At least they are doing interesting things with the “keystone” of our religion.
@@stephen562 "As good"? Better than the one God produced?
@@uncorrelatedmormonism With the help of Royal Skousens work, updated punctuation, (the original punctuation was the printers decision), and the last known edits of JS, yeah as good.
@@stephen562 He completely changed the wording though. The edition I use already is based on Skousens work with the JST already added for the Bible.
simplyscriptures.com
6:24 - No Joseph looked into a hat filled with rocks. There’s no such language as Reformed Egyptian, it is fictional just as the entire BOM is.
There are actually several Egyptian writing styles that can accurately be called reformed Egyptian. For instance, Demotic, and Hieratic are two of the most popular.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism
No, that’s LDS spin. Egyptian used hieroglyphs until they were conquered by the Assyrians which then they used an early version of Aramaic, which changed to common Aramaic. We have the Alexandrian text of the Bible that has some Aramaic. LDS scholars have tried to contend that the transitional Aramaic is a reformed Egyptian which is nonsense.
Telavian?
I do use that account across a number of platforms.
Someone from the Gab group? (Gab reunion party) 🎉
@@SirKn1ght47 It is sad there was so much animosity towards that group. Few people want to discuss things contrary to their beliefs.
@@uncorrelatedmormonism No kidding, multiple other groups shunned that one. But the guy who mainly antagonized us deleted his account (the Qanon-adjacent screenshot poster, I don’t remember his name), so his group is basically dead now.
In the spirit of revisionism - yo tru dat!😂
I can't wait for the Ebonic scriptures. 🤣
@@uncorrelatedmormonism 😂I’m digging your lighter side Patrick. You just added 10 minutes to my lifespan! 😂
It sounds like dav... I mean Denver is definitely a false prophet. Years ago I predicted he would come out as the Davidic servant just like a ton of other delirious spiritually deceived people I've run into. I'm not against an open mind, but if your easily deceived by people like this, maybe you should just stay home.
And he got the name wrong. Shows how inspired he actually is
@@holyroller4391 What name did he get wrong?
I have been contacted by a number of people now who say they are the One Mighty and Strong, or the Davidic Servant. The bar is very low so people can claim whatever they want.
@@garciaparra1977 David is the incorrect name.
@@garciaparra1977 this is only one of the reasons you can spot a liar. I'm that they have the wrong name
6:37 - No mistakes? - The BOM has been changed over 3,000 times to correct numerous mistakes.
Duplicate.