What follows is a collection of thoughts I believe are important since Denver's last talk in St. George titled Things To Keep Us Awake at Night. I have a divided each distinct thought with headings. I have tried to keep the collection in chronological order (oldest at the top), but I didn't always date the entries. Unless otherwise noted, the thoughts are mine. I will usually denote attribution of other's thoughts, by including their initials in bold before their contribution.

Sections

 

Recreating LDS 2.0

The LDS Church and all things that appear like it. Joseph gave the people a New Testament church because that's all the followers wanted and would accept. The "chosen" organization funded the publication of God's revelations, (kind of) into the future. It gave future souls an opportunity to hear truth, of which only faint glimmers were taught every Sunday, and most of it was in total opposition to truth (Brigham's Satanic kingdom). Home and Visiting Teaching are established on the false principles of tattling, assignment and duty. So when I view the LDS church, and all that it does and represents—even back to the days of Joseph—I view attempts to mimic the structure, names, conferences and organization as repulsive. We mimic their methods of teaching by pontification, appeals to authority or closeness to someone who we believe has authority, rather than the authority (truthfulness) of the message, we cast out (of our minds and hearts) those who disagree with us and label them as apostates, inviting them to leave, we imitate their programs and meeting structures, we pretend to have light while still relying on the arm of flesh. We take over the Doctrine of Christ and change/overthrow it like Sherem. We are playing a children's game of church, while still being inauthentic. I've heard statements defending the silliness of mimicking this structure as "its not all bad, there's nothing wrong with imitating this pretentious structure." It is nearly all bad, and what isn't bad is tainted by the disgustingness of the rest.

From what I've seen, we are still just mimicking the LDS church, with mildly more light (borrowed), and we are the new "chosen" organization which will perpetuate, somewhat, the teachings of God into the future for some soul to eventually find.

 

Acceptance of a Covenant

Do you accept the covenant by voting on it or by living it? And if you accept the covenant by living it does that require that you first accept it by voting?

I know in the Gentile world to make a contract you must first accept and sign a contract—because there is a lack of trust. But in the open source software movement the people never sign contracts but they generate all sorts of high quality, freely available software that benefits anyone who wants to use it. So that, to me, is an example, in Gentile terms, of living a covenant without first voting on it and coming to some kind of conditions. The open source software movement, I believe, is based on a Zion principle.

I believe a covenant with God in it's truest sense is simply coming to understand him and agreeing to work with him without any sort of compulsion or contract.

The open-source software movement is kind of a covenant with life. They love what they do and produce all sorts of valuable tools for other people who benefit their lives with the covenant the software developers of made with life themselves. It reminds me of the way Denver described Zion where everyone just does what is interesting and fun and exciting to them and everything works in perfect harmony.

(So never sign contracts is a bit of a hyperbole, and that people use the software usually have to agree to some terms which are very liberal.)

The law of a Celestial kingdom (D&C 105:5), consecration and other things that flow from it, are simply a covenant with life, instead of working in opposition of it. It is holy because it is magnificent and brings great joy to the soul. Not because it is somber, difficult or something that has to be "endured" in the typical sense.

 

Saying and Doing

"But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard. He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went. And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not. Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you." (Matthew 21)

One said and didn't do. The other said he wouldn't and then did. It doesn't seem to matter to Christ what we "say", only that we "do".

 

A Fellowship Discussion of Current Events

TM: Ok, so here's the huge glaring difference I see between Joseph Smith/section 84 and what's going on today with DS.

Joseph miraculously, through the power of God, brought forth the Book of Mormon, an entire volume of scripture that is harmonious and intricately intertwined with the Bible. Angelic ministrations and heavenly visions accompanied that work. All of which JS was quite forthcoming about. God delivered 'thus saith the Lord' type revelations, such as Section 84, discussing the covenant associated with the Book of Mormon.

On the flip side, I have DS who clearly has a gift for expounding scripture - although sometimes he gets it wrong. He has made some inferences at heavenly ministrations and some outright claims. Then we have some committees who got together and have made LDS–like claims at inspiration as they labored through recompiling and attempting to purify Joseph's work. We have DS's John revelation thing. Jeff's governing principles that he 'received'—though we have an ambiguous understanding of what that means. I think Mike Hamill may have some sections in there too. This is from a group who is clamoring for a temple—a command Joseph's people received after coming under condemnation for treating lightly the BOM. Then I have this effort being defended through some LDS—like tactics as well as stronger, seemingly manipulative, aggressive fear tactics.

Am I misrepresenting anything here? I just have so many red flags going off on this current effort. I should probably stop worrying about it and just try to approach God. Must be some FOMO in play.

LE: In Mosiah, Benjamin helps them enter into a covenant but it wasn't like this. Alma didn't do it like this. The only close example I can think of is the freaking Israelites and forgive me for not being eager to follow that example.

TM: Right. How did this 'independent scripture prophet from two different groups' morph into a life or death covenant from God? So confused.

LE: Thinking more about the earthly vs heavenly priesthood. I'm trying to think of an example in scripture where something akin to what DS gave in the 10th talk is demonstrated. Like Alma at the waters. Did he call for a sustaining vote from anyone? Did he provide a certificate or point to a group of people who vouched for him? I don't see anything like that in the record. But like a badass he goes out into the water and petitions for power in front of everyone. God demonstrates acceptance and then the people "sustain" him by allowing him to perform the ordinance. Like when TM blesses the bread, by participating we sustain him in the moment. We accept his offering as KP said and hope God provides the power. I guess my main issue is with the sustaining concept. I just don't see that demonstrated in scripture in the way Joseph and DS present it.

Found it! Orem talk on PH:

"We think there is some magic, big-whammy voodoo, which the Church possesses like a franchise from God. We envision the franchise holders are able to use this powerful magic in order to, push away or gather in people to salvation. We can bless and curse. We can seal and loose. We think we have the power. This enables Church leaders’ families and favored insiders, and the beneficiaries of their favor, and their cronies, can use that franchise from God to get supercharged celestial blessings. And in like manner “the least” can be shunned and held away from this power, thereby costing the disfavored their position in God’s kingdom.

All they are doing is behaving like a parade of fools when they act this way. Don't be taken in. Your faith matters. Your confidence matters. Your driving the power of the Spirit into your life matters. You want an authoritative baptism? Go get someone to baptize you who claims that they know the ordinance and can perform it. You go in faith believing, and let the Holy Ghost ratify the event."

Man what a contrast to today! Even contrasts the tenth talk. It doesn't matter what claims of authority are made. God gets to decide if it's legit. If He gives the HG then He approves. If not then He probably doesn't. That was such a freeing moment for me. That quote had a huge impact on me.

Today they require seven women to sign a certificate as evidence of authority although he did say in 10th talk they must still petition God for "power" to baptize. In the quote I posted the emphasis is on God and His ratification (or not) of our best effort. Is His reaction that matters. However the focus is now seemingly on authority vested in men and "voodoo" power through which someone is saved by virtue of getting a specific ordinance from specific people. At the Boise conference ds was saying only those who get the baptism offered by this people would survive the second coming. That sounds an awful lot like the first paragraph of the Orem quote.

KP: Oh, gotcha. Have you heard his differentiation between priesthood in a fellowship and priesthood ordained by God?

The 7 women thing is associated with an earthly priesthood (an earthly brotherhood). It is not a heavenly brotherhood. This priesthood is given to those walking in the light and are reputable among the powers of heaven—the els, the gods, and no one can take that away. Hence the governing principles says:

Sustaining is by women, and removing authority to act within a community or fellowship is likewise to be done by the vote of women [CR-Seven Women].

When I say "this priesthood" I'm referring to the Heavenly Priesthood, not the fellowship or community priesthood.

So, for instance, we may ordain one another to the Aaronic Priesthood in our fellowship. However, that does not mean we have authority from heaven to perform an ordinance. We may have the duties of an Aaronic Priesthood holder, and assignments in the fellowship to perform according to that priesthood—such as the sacrament. However, unless we are acknowledged by heaven that ordinance has no power. Ordaining in a fellowship is basically everyone saying, "Yes, I believe you're living in harmony with the Gospel, we hope you receive power from heaven, but we will accept your offering among ourselves until then."

If you look at what happened with John the Baptist, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery you can see this pattern, I believe. John comes, ordains them (lays hands on them), and then asks them to again ordain each other. This shows John accepted them in heaven. They were given power to baptize from John. But they were also forming an earthly fellowship and were also accepting each other in that fellowship.

I believe the purpose of the earthly fellowship is to provide a stepping stone towards a heavenly fellowship, or one where the gods accept us. However, if this earthly fellowship "terminates" our right to preach among them, our authority among them, it has no bearing on our heavenly fellowship.

MB: KP, that's a really good catch. There's a difference between to "private" individuals trying to worship before God, and setting up a pseudo-church and making rules around it's organization. This seems to be much clearer to me now.

I actually should have sought authority first and 7 women second.

KP: I agree. Heavenly authority should be our highest aspiration, then let us gain the respect of our peers so we can bring that power to them in our earthly fellowships!

KP: I would be interested in having someone check over the John the Baptist experience in JSH. Denver doesn't use that example, but I feel it is the best (better than what you can find in the D&C) to exemplify the principle of the two Priesthoods.

You may also find some joy in rereading D&C 107 and looking at all the places it says "in the church." I was surprised to find how much of the Priesthood in that section has to do with a "fellowship" priesthood, and not the more precious heavenly priesthood.

 

Led Astray

I'm not aware of anyone vocal regarding this proposed covenant, who is making the claim Denver isn't who he claims to be, only that, like Moses, we can be given ordinances that are not good for us (Ezekiel 20), because we have rejected what was previously given.

Can Denver intentionally give us ordinances that are not good for us? Can the Lord?

Has the Lord intentionally deceived before, to work for his glory? Can he do it again?

The question I'm asking is, is this one of those instances?

This is a clarifiation and question I posed on the FB Remnant group

 

Question to Denver

Here's a question I sent to Denver last year, and his response.

Question:
I value your message and search and ponder it constantly, but how can you say "I do not deceive you" with confidence, when God himself deceives (Beloved Enos, Ezekiel 14, 20)?

Denver's Response:
Because God's "deception" is predicated on our worship of idols and unwillingness to accept the truth. It is not God's practice to mislead or "deceive" those meek enough to follow Him, despite the sacrifices He demands of us as a servant.

Idolatry, disobeying the commandments, rejecting the answer first given (as in the 116 pages), or pursuing personal ambitions are all reasons God allows men to be "deceived"--but it is through their own appetites, not according to God's will.

My comments today:
His response is, I think accurate, but it still doesn't give us an answer to this question, because the question for us is: Have we worshiped idols, have we been unwilling to accept the truth. Have we had personal ambitions (appetite)? Have we not been meek enough, but instead accusatory of others? Have we rejected the first answer given?

 

The Distinguishing Characteristic of the Whore

"One of my friends quips, 'It's a terrible thing to find out your mother's a whore.' [pause] And yet that's where, in Mormonism, we largely find ourselves. [pause again] So let's not build ourselves another whore." (DS, St. George "DoC" Conference)

What did Denver describe as the distinguishing characteristic of the whore? The pretense of love. And people go along with the pretense because they think they feel loved. This is why priestcraft goes hand-in-hand with whoredoms. We chuckle at our mother while building the exact same thing.

The amount of abuse one is used to receiving is the amount of pretended love they're willing to endure.

They don't even know what real love is like, or rather they've forgotten. The only need to be reminded. I think it's a sign that we're still apostate because we don't understand, accept or give the Love of God.

 

Out of the Way or Center of Attention

Moses wanted to get out of the way (Note the Angel in Lehi's vision. He left him to cry out to God). But Moses was compelled to become the center of attention.

Denver said in his 10 talks "Heaven is open for business." He didn't need to, but he declared it to help our faith. Now the business must go through an administrator who is compelled to be the center of attention.

Must because if we don't accept the covenant, then we are declared to not be following Christ. The pure doctrine says the way to salvation is simple, and then, when Christ appears, then you do what he tells you. Nephi says there is no other way than through the doctrine of Christ and the doctrine of Christ is very, very limited.

"And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen."

 

Jew/Gentile and the Blood of Abraham

JK: MB I find this really interesting. Sharing Joseph's quote regarding the Holy Ghost and its effect on an Israelite vs a Gentile: "The Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence. It is more powerful in expanding the mind, enlightening the understanding, and storing the intellect with present knowledge, of a man who is of the literal seed of Abraham, than one that is a Gentile, though it may not have half as much visible effect upon the body; for as the Holy Ghost falls upon one of the literal seed of Abraham, it is calm and serene; and his whole soul and body are only exercised by the pure spirit of intelligence; while the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That man that has none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the Holy Ghost. In such a case, there may be more of a powerful effect upon the body, and visible to the eye, than upon an Israelite, while the Israelite at first might be far before the Gentile in pure intelligence."

MB: Joseph was said to be Israelite, of Ephriam, yet his family migrated just like everyone else. I had a lady say once you can identify an Israelite by their fearless curiosity, and you can identify a Gentile by them submitting to and demanding authority. I don't know if there's legitimacy to that or not, but it seems that there is a spiritual lineage that might be going on, and identifiable in their actions.

JK: Add in 3 Nephi 15: 23: "And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice–that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost."

MB: However: 1 Ne 14 "And it shall come to pass, that if the Gentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God in that day that he shall manifest himself unto them in word, and also in power, in very deed, unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks--"

JK: Right. I think this ties into what Joseph was explaining, about the Holy Ghost having an effect of pure intelligence, purging out the "old blood". So if the Gentiles hearken he will come to them, but if Joseph is correct the HG purifies first prior to him manifesting himself in word, power and deed.

"What advantage then hath the Jew over the Gentile? Or what profit of circumcision, who is not a Jew from the heart? But he who is a Jew from the heart, I say, hath much every way, chiefly because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. (Romans 3:1-2)

 

An Open Letter from a Fellowship of Believers

MC: I was sent an email asking if I would post this on the LDS remnant page. I know who forwarded it to me, but I do not know who wrote it nor do I have any affiliation with the fellowship group mentioned. I was told they wanted to remain anonymous so it would be about the message. So, here it is. They are looking for discussion on the points listed.

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing this letter on behalf of myself and a small, loosely-knit fellowship of believers who have been continually seeking Christ in this rapidly declining world. Those in my fellowship have maintained ties and associations with other groups gathering towards what we have believed is a common goal. We’ve enjoyed the felicity shared with these groups and have been greatly blessed by these associations.

We have all read and benefitted by the works of those vocal in this movement; namely that of Denver Snuffer. Obviously, against all of his initial pleadings otherwise, he seems to stand as the ensign or model figure in the awakening of those in and out of the Latter-day Saint community, re-centering our worship on Christ and none else.

A core of his shared message revolves around the need to remove any semblance of a “strong-man” organization, the need of diffused fellowships without any central control, and the woes and stumblings of the LDS church; namely their erred transition to a correlated structure over the past ½ century. We all agree with his observations and recognize both the failings of the LDS church as well as our need to put it and all other worldly organizations into proper perspective; centering our minds, hearts, and souls on Christ, leaving these secondary organizations in the periphery.

Yet the topics and grand announcement of a restoration scripture project made during this past weekend’s conference has raised a flag of warning and concern, as we perceived a great shift in Denver’s message and that of the collective conference. As he recounted the experience of how the project came to be it felt more like a retelling of an LDS church correlation committee meeting than one of a divinely inspired project of which we all are a part. Scriptures attaching meaning and fulfillment were all applied in hindsight while the committee's process became glorified in the re-telling.

The process reminded me personally of a quote made by Elder Russell M. Nelson when talking to BYU Hawaii students regarding the children of same-sex Mormon couples desiring baptism. This quote comes from the Salt Lake Tribune:

"Each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation," Nelson, next in line for the Mormon presidency, told the faith's young adults in the first official explanation of the hotly debated policy's origins. "It was our privilege as apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson."

Nelson explained that revelation from the Lord to his servants is a sacred process.

"The [three-member] First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel, individually and collectively," he said. "And then, we watch the Lord move upon the president of the church to proclaim the Lord's will."

He said that protocol was followed when Monson, in 2012, announced lower minimum ages for full-time Mormon missionary service and again late last year with the new policy on same-sex couples and their children.

Another similar quote by the late Gordon B. Hinckley in 1994, wherein he talked about the process used when major action is taken by the church:

“I add by way of personal testimony that during the twenty years I served as a member of the Council of the Twelve and during the nearly thirteen years that I have served in the First Presidency, there has never been a major action taken where this procedure was not observed. I have seen differences of opinion presented in these deliberations. Out of this very process of men speaking their minds has come a sifting and winnowing of ideas and concepts. But I have never observed serious discord or personal enmity among my Brethren. I have, rather, observed a beautiful and remarkable thing—the coming together, under the directing influence of the Holy Spirit and under the power of revelation, of divergent views until there is total harmony and full agreement. Only then is implementation made. That, I testify, represents the spirit of revelation manifested again and again in directing this the Lord’s work” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1994, 74–75; or Ensign, May 1994, 54, 59; emphasis added).

Much of Denver’s talk echoed this type of mindset and described model followed by the current LDS church. Here are some quotes from his talk, "Things to keep us awake at night” (transcribed from the audio). The bold words emphasize the similarity of the correlation committees process:

"As it turns out each group had faced essentially the same group of questions but they'd reached slightly different conclusions for good and sufficient reasons to them. But as they reasoned together, one example is both had concluded that lectures on faith....etc....one group had concluded that the catechisms, the questions and answers ought to be eliminated because they were simply pedological tools or teaching tools used in the school of the prophets...etc., etc.....one gave voice to the argument that there is some slight ambiguity between the lecture on faith and the question and answer, etc. etc.....he found value in the catechism and so as a consequence of that discussion everything from the original lectures on faith, including the catechism, is now included in the proposed set of scriptures just as it was in 1835. In addition one group was aware as Chris read to you, that JS had announced the intention of publishing the NT and the BOM in a single volume....and the other group was unaware of that...and therefore they reached agreement that was the way it ought be done."

We don’t disagree on the premise of the scripture project. We are humbled and grateful for the hours of work each of those on the respective committees have donated to this great cause. Our concern lies in the following:

1) The committee members. We do not want to condemn or judge. Plainly said, we are concerned by the reputation of some of the members associated with the project from personal experience with them. It brings to mind the words of Alma to his son, when he said, “O my son, how great iniquity ye brought… for when they saw your conduct they would not believe in my words.” (Alma 39:11). We have discussed this and feel to not “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” However, if this project had been undertaken with common consent, we feel it would have started with the election of a committee instead of having a group of individuals take it upon themselves to work it out.

2) Denver concludes by saying: “Sustaining is planned to happen at the next conference after a chance has happened of a review of the material. This is necessary for the gentiles to claim they have accepted a covenant and a law (2 Ne. 30). Everyone is free to vote when we have reached the end of the line. And they're free to reject it. But if there is some small group who are willing to enter into that covenant, whatever that number is, that will be sufficient. And I hope those who remain opposed will allow those willing to enter into a covenant to depart in peace. Because we've allowed the LDS church or any of the other various sects of Mormonism to depart in peace. I hope that those willing to vote are likewise given the opportunity to depart in peace.”

This quote says that we have a vote, but alludes that to voice disagreement with the process demonstrates opposition and a lack of desire to enter into a covenant. Which is not the case. It feels like those who have concerns with the process aren’t being persuaded (D&C 121), but rather cornered into accepting things as they transpired as totally and wholly inspired. A brief paraphrase of the message is, “we’ve done this work. Accept it and be saved. Reject it at your own peril.” That doesn’t sit right with us.

Our group patiently waits upon the Lord, while filling our time with doing good and helping those around us. We are excited by the prospects presented in the conference and have petitioned the Lord for guidance in this matter. The result of that petition is this letter.

It is not our intent to criticize or complain; but to highlight some incongruities with the way it came about in direct contrast to many of the principles taught by Denver during his 40 Years in Mormonism lecture series, along with others who have been sharing similar concerns.

If you would like specifics on places wherein contradictory comments have been made, we would gladly work on compiling such. However, we felt it shouldn’t be necessary as all of those involved on the committees are most likely aware of these comments themselves.

Thank you for hearing us out as we all strive to come to a unity of the faith.

Signed

-A fellowship of believers

This letter was posted by MC in the Remnant FB group.

 

Rob Smith's Responses on Upward Thought

We Follow a Man Whom We Call a Prophet

Responses to St. George Conference and Thoughts on the Movement from Others

 

Fear, Trembling and Boldness

I wrote this in response to someone who said there was no room for fear and trembling in someone who had faith and said we quoted the statement that we should approach the throne of God with bodlness.

Paul said "Let us therefore approach the throne of grace with boldness..." (Hebrews 4:16)

But the implication is that there is a reason to be fearful, that the grace might not be obtained, and that the proper attitude in approaching God is fear and trembling (as others have written) due to our fallen, and yet unredeemed condition, that we should push through that state and believe it to be possible that God can have mercy on even us. I think those two things work together and are important together. The opposite is the LDS approach where we have a notion of having more truth as a "chosen people" and instead of seeking after God, recognizing our condition, we triumphantly proclaim our worthiness before the Lord has made us worthy.

In Hebrews 4 where Paul makes that statement, it's in connection with statements like these:

"Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before him no creature is hidden, but all are naked and laid bare to the eyes of the one to whom we must render an account."

A terrifying thing indeed. Yet we have reason to hope:

"Since, then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested[d] as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore approach the throne of grace with boldness, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need."

There's a difference in building enough faith (trusting in the unknown) in God to be saved and knowing you're already special when, as the Savior said, they know not that they are still "wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked." Instead of being possessors of "gold tried in the fire" the settle for symbols of gold, and claim the blessings that were given to someone else as their own, and declare their riches, their surety.

Instead of waiting on being qualified to preach, they assume themselves ready to be men's teachers (boldly), but they are still naked, and in reality, should still be struggling to approach God's throne boldly.

The Israelites, knowing their true condition before God at the mount trembled in fear. It is a natural response. It was this fear that Moses encouraged them to be bold through to seek for, and meet God. That's why I think those two things go together.

That's why I think in the scriptures that God intentionally causes men to fear with words like "eternal damnation". Because absent of being in the presence of God and being able to measure our true condition, the words, being fearful, were the only thing that he could use to convey a sense of fear that they would have if they knew better, and that they are to be seeking to relieve, boldly.

 

Holy Ground and the True Temple

When Moses came into God's presence, was redeemed from the fall, and obtained His promise of eternal life, he became the Lord's temple. When we read the Lord's admonition to Moses to "[put] thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standes is holy ground," we tend to put the emphasis on "the place." We should instead put the emphasis on "thou." That is, no matter where Moses stood, having been redeemed from the fall, he always stood on holy ground.

The true temple of God is therefore the redeemed individual. A revelation to Joseph explained:

For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy. The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple. (D&C 93:33-35)

"The Apostle Paul put it more simple: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" (1 Cor. 3:16) (Denver Snuffer, Passing the Heavenly Gift)

 In Kirtland God did visit the temple. He came to Joseph and Joseph reported it to everyone else.

"The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened. We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber. His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying: I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father. Behold, your sins are forgiven you; you are clean before me; therefore, lift up your heads and rejoice. Let the hearts of your brethren rejoice, and let the hearts of all my people rejoice, who have, with their might, built this house to my name. For behold, I have accepted this house, and my name shall be here; and I will manifest myself to my people in mercy in this house. Yea, I will appear unto my servants, and speak unto them with mine own voice, if my people will keep my commandments, and do not pollute this holy house."

God gave others the promise that they could see him too "if my people will keep my commandments." Something those people could have done at any time without a temple, had they done WHAT WAS IN THE BOOK OF MORMON.

 

From "Why a Temple" (note: "holy ground"):

In His mercy, God has made provisions for all people. He loves all mankind equally, has planned for allowing those good and believing people who will not qualify in their own right to ascend the “mountain of the Lord” into His presence to receive it through more ordinary means. God’s purposes cannot be defeated, even by man’s weakness. God has other means to qualify people to be His covenant family.

The purpose of a temple (meaning an actual temple commissioned, ordered, blessed, accepted and visited with His presence) is to substitute for the temporary ascent of a mortal into God’s presence. A real temple becomes “Holy Ground” and the means for making available to faithful people in every state of belief and hope the opportunity to receive, by authorized means, the same covenant, obligation, association, expectation and sealing through an authorized and binding arrangement in sacred space.

 

A Dream: The Correct Answer

LB had this dream around Jan-2017 that I thought was fortifying. She had a couple more that might be relevant to what's going on now.

I dreamt that there was a puzzle or riddle to be put together. It involved mystery, politics, all the past presidents of our nation and who should be president today. My youngest brother Logan was discovered to have drawn the best conclusions and come closest to to solving the puzzle. I was feeling smug, and deeply satisfied that he knew the correct answer.

Then from out of heaven a strong male voice said "There is no answer to this mystery. The correct answer is trust in no man. Trust in God."

 

Losing Another Family?

As I plead for my friends to not cast us off, as I asked them to pray to God, that he would take away this action that is declared to become a separation, I thought of this statement from Denver:

But as I counted the cost of becoming a Mormon, in effect, I was giving up all I ever knew, all the friends I ever had, my own family, I counted the cost, and I became a Latter-day Saint in any event. What is really strange about the Lord’s way of reckoning these things is that I've recently had to count the cost again. And then all those friends that I had now are plagued with yet another dilemma. Yet the Lord always accounts those trades for his purposes, because He's trying to save the individual. He's trying to save each one of us as individuals. I don't care what the cost is. Knowledge of God is worth whatever price you pay, no matter when, no matter what, no matter how often. If He takes away your family, and gives you a new family, and then He takes that family away again, it is a small price to pay. God will ask of you, whatever he will ask of you. The only thing I can say is that no price you pay while tabernacled here is so great that you should withhold it from the altar. Give what He asks. Because it is only by giving what he asks of you, that you can have faith in him unto life and salvation." (Talk 2, Faith)

 

At Odds

"Almost without exception when a soul awakens, to the historic context in which they live, they immediately find themselves at odds with the surrounding culture. And this also the Lord was the great example." (DS, Your Life in Context)

 

A Budding Controversy

So do some of you guys remember when Debbie Hart felt inspired to be the recorder and everybody supported her?

And do you remember when there was going to be an official vote on a recorder and Denver proposed Keith Henderson's name on his website?

Do you remember the uproar, and what an authoritarian Keith turned out to be?

Do you guys know that Debbie is probably one of the most spirit filled people in the movement, and she and her group of ladies were healing homeless people left and right? How she graciously said she would step aside and that it was fine with her, and that she had no problem if someone wanted to take over?

Denver should be allowed to post whatever he wants, and probably shouldn't be held accountable that thousands of people would drop anyone for the sake of Denver's preference. But Denver knew that he had such an influence.

I wonder if the Lord was testing the movement at that point in time. It seemed like a turning point, to see if we would allow him to work among whom ever felt inspired to do the work or if we would bow and submit to whatever came out of the prophet's mouth, simply because he posted it on his website.

And behold, how nearly everyone voted for Denver's suggestion. And what we got instead of feminine submission to the Lord, we got masculine authoritarianism. Because it's what we wanted.

It's also of note that Denver's new blog began with his nomination of Keith Henderson.

 

Condemnation Timelines

From Denver's Teaching post:

"When the Lord determined to renew His work and allow another people the opportunity to receive a covenant from Him, He spoke to me from heaven and provided instruction. Faithful to those instructions, I have labored for years to prepare the minds and hearts any who wish to receive what is offered by a kind and loving God."

 

Denver published The Second Comfroter in 2006, 11 years ago

Joseph first published the BoM in 1830. The church was under condemnation 2 years later in 1832 for taking the message lightly. According to Daymon's research and my own reading of history and the later Journal of Discourses this was because restorationists only wanted the book as a symbol, and not for its contents.

I don't know how many years it was with Moses, but it seemed to be only a very few.

 

Denver continues:

"At present, the gentiles [us] have been condemned and rejected by the Lord. Therefore, some few must repent and return."

If Denver is the Lord's messenger, then the Lord waited an incredible amount of time before placing anyone in our generation under condemnation for failing to live what was revealed and expounded upon in The Second Comforter.

If we are under condemnation, and still haven't repented, then perhaps all we are worthy of is a lesser law, which means we have failed and only worthy of something lesser. Perhaps we only want and place a trust in a symbol as well.

Perhaps we think a man can mediate for us, but Christ said he is the gate, and he employs no servant there.

Denver said there are varying levels of priesthood. So far, at most we are worthy of only an association with angels. If that is the level at which we accept a covenant, are we not accepting an Aaronic covenant? The Lord said he would save His covenant people, but that implies we need a Melchizedek covenant, that is to covenant with God himself, without man, a servant, intervening, or becoming an obstacle.

Lastly, if God is moving Denver to offer something lesser, and we are still under condemnation and the only way we are willing to come out of it, is by accepting a lesser law, then of course, when you ask God, he's going to tell you to accept the covenant.

If this is the stake we have set for God, that he can come thus far, but not to us personally, then it seems it will be as Paul said, we are obligated to obey the whole law, and we cut ourselves off from Christ.

I posted this on March 25, 2017 in the Remnant FB group. I don't know where it falls in the timeline of the other sections, since I didn't date them, but this seemed like a good place before the new Phases of Mormonism section.

 

New Phases of Mormonism

I owe the original thoughs on these phases to my wife, LB.

  • Phase 1: The Second Comforter
    • Began with his book The Second Comforter, published in 2006
  • Phase 2: Remembering the Covenant
    • Noted by: "Still not getting it, still need help."
    • Began with his blog. Ended before 40YIM with A Sign, though the blog continued for two more years, almost exactly, lasting six months after the last 40YIM talk.
    • Ended with A Sign and the next post was an announcement publishing a 5 volumes series of Blog. The Fifth volume ends with A Sign.
    • Started 2/2010 (blog start date)
    • Ended 3/2013 (blog titled A Sign. Blog continues for two more years)
  • Phase 3: Forty Years in Mormonism
    • Noted by: 40 Years in Mormonism talks
    • These talks contained a mix of "get your own" and setting up a non-legal organization, loose fellowships with rules on how to act in those fellowships so there would be some order (public vs. private). For example, authority was only to be had between the individual and the Lord. Authority to act in the fellowship required a vote.
    • Announcement of an eventual temple.
    • Forty years was a condemnation given to Israel until the current generation died off. On 4/2017 Denver posted a scripture that referenced the number 10. "Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice; Surely they shall not see the land which I sware unto their fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me see it."
    • Started 9/2013 (first talk)
    • Ended 9/2014 (last talk)
  • Phase 4: Suffering an Idolatrous People
    • Creation of DenverSnuffer.com (3/2015). His first real post and action on the site was to nominate a recorder.
    • Recorder’s Clearing house and objections are raised to Keith using the official site/logo to promote his opinions. (4/2015)
    • Adrian Larsen’s logo. (9/2015)
    • Claimed that “Moses” gave the higher law and now we are getting something lesser. Noted by Why a Temple blog post where he states temples are a mercy for those who can’t “obtain the covenant” on their own. (4/2016)
    • Claimed by some that there is an effort to “overthrow the doctrine of Christ” by adding requirements for salvation.
    • Announcement of scriptures as a covenant and that those who make a covenant should be allowed to depart those who didn’t. (3/2017)

 

"The Lord Will Enforce"

Denver has said that it is only the Lord that is making this covenant. That, through a man, Lord is making a covenant and telling you to obey it.

He's also said that it is only the Lord that will enforce the covenant, and then alluded to famine, pestilence, earthquake etc, as if to put people's minds at ease.

So using that same logic, however, if it is only the Lord offering you a covenant (through a man), then what is to stop "the Lord" from enforcing the covenant through a man and his followers (who then become the Lord's "pestilence"), saying that it's also "through the Lord?"

Otherwise if only the Lord is offering the covenant, and only Lord is enforcing the covenant, then maybe the Lord should actually be doing both. Otherwise, all bets are off as to what will be done in the name of the Lord, through men.

 

Receiving What's Already There

When we experience the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost and we don't receive the love of God, we realize that we've always had it. That God has always loved us, and has loved us first. We are accepting (or "receiving") that love which we then realize we've always had.

That's part of why I believe all of the blessings we receive from God are not something that he bestows upon us because of some event, but it rather it's something that already exists, something that we are already a part of. We already live in a covenant but don't realize it. When God is manifested to us and we come to understand Him, we come to the realization that we are already in a covenant with God, and we accept (most normal people would accept), or we fight against it, the way we fight against the covenant that we are in, in our normal every day lives, unaware. And so accepting just means realizing what's already there, and finding it the most peaceful and beautiful way to live, we accept it.

 

Some Thoughts While Reading Scripture, Prophecy and Covenant

Denver uses the word "adopted" to reference the scriptures whereas previous to this point, adoption was into the house of God, so it seems like a substitute.

No scripture to back up the claim.

Christ employs no servant there, He is mediator of the new covenant.

Louis Naegle in the Forward to Denver's book Preserving the Restoration, asserted that time of Gentiles had ended, but it seems like were establishing yet another Gentile church. Gentiles were already first in Joseph's day why would they be first again today?

Christ said to Joseph their creeds were an abomination. Denver talks about how the intent was to bring the gospel to the Israelite remnant. Instead they brought on the Campbellite movement and created a New Testament church, with a creed. And the Lord called them an abomination and they welcomed false spirits. The false spirits, and false priests created yet another abominable creed that made slaves of the souls of men.

"The glory of the Lord in the terror of the Lord shall be there." They were doing the same thing as us and we think ours is going to be successful even though we've done nothing different.

The Gentiles don't receive Christ therefore they get more scripture, under an covenant to perpetuate, similar to how Denver asserts Joseph's sealing power gave the LDS scriptures and other ordinances with the responsibility to perpetuate since that is all they were willing to receive.

 

Lucifer was an Authorized Messenger

You know how the end of one round is basically the beginning of another? I have to find other references at some point, but it's interesting that the end/beginning there is as, Joseph called Satan, "the next heir". In other words was there a true messenger, a father that said "I cannot lead you astray" that became Satan for the people on the next round? I posed that question in the havens a couple years ago, mostly as a curiosity. Now, I'm a little worried.

It is interesting to consider that if Lucifer was the next heir, or had climbed the ladder to being an El, and if, as Joseph stated, the unpardonable sin cannot be committed after the dissolution of the body, that Lucifer must have committed such an act while mortal, while being among the chosen ones sent here to prove us, an likely had a many who believed he delivered a true message. (I origninally posted this on FB in The Havens on June 3, 2015 as a curiosity)

"Have you ever noticed how the descriptions of the pre-earth organization and the Millennium seem alike?" (Denver, Lecture 7)

"And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency; And they were thrust down, and thus came the devil and his angels." (D&C 29:36-37)

See also Revelation 12

War in heaven in the preexistence = the war with Michael in the millennium, etc.

See also Denver's description of Jacob 5.

The Lord's Strange Act, is that we finally no longer rely on the arm of flesh. (see article, The Lord's Strange Act)

 

Myself Included

"He thought about it “again and again knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did…” You should be asking God so that you can understand Scripture. You should not be trusting the expositions of anyone, myself included. These Scriptures have a message for you. God has a message for you. God would like to talk to you. Not through me or any other man. God would like to talk with you." (DS, Lecture 1)

"Well, this brings us then to the Third Lecture on Faith. Now we are starting to get into some really important stuff. Verse 2 of Lecture 3: 'Let us here observe, that three things are necessary in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.' Faith in God, not in man, not in men, not in an institution, not in some magic talisman, faith in God. To the extent that anyone is trying to displace your faith in God, and attract attention to themselves, myself included, that is a perversion and it will not save you. It is a distraction, it is evil, and it is wrong. It is damnable. Anyone who tries to attract your worship, myself included, ought to be sent to hell. It's why I continually remind you, talking about me is a waste of time. Talking about the things that I'm saying, talking about the content of the scriptures, talking about the doctrines that will save you, that is very important. But you can leave me out of that. You don't ever need to mention my name again in your life. But pay attention to the doctrine that we are talking about. Pay attention to the message that comes to us through scripture. You will never be saved because you relied upon some other guy to elevate you. The only way that will happen is when you connect with God. You have to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation." (DS, Lecture 2)

 

9th Parable: The Great Competition

For those that have read Denver's 9th parable. We seem to be living it: "I knew when the competition was devised it would divide the people. I knew, too, that some would flee rather than participate. I also knew if I invited back to a feast all of the citizens, both those who stayed and those who fled, that it would result in a great division. This was my purpose all along."

 

Two Tracks

"We had a bunch of enthusiasm when the missionary success in Kirtland took place and we brought on board this enormous aneurysm of converts. It's like a skinny snake swallowing a huge pig. There's this gosh awful lump there. That was the Kirtland experience with the conversion of the Campbellites, Sidney Rigdon and Parley Pratt. They came on board and they distorted what happened thereafter in the restoration. Long before meeting Mormon missionaries their goal was to have a New Testament church. That is what they demanded from Joseph Smith after they began to follow him, despite Joseph’s encouragement to look for something else. And that is what they got through Joseph Smith. This is one of the reasons Ezekiel 14 was a subject or topic or lessons he taught early and he taught again late when talking to the Saints. He warned them about how they get through the Prophet, what they want and deserve. It's not necessarily what God wants. For example, you can see in section 107 two tracks, and they are very evident. One track is trying to figure out church government, and you get that revealed in Section 107. But the other track talks about the very beginning. It talks about Adam-ondi-Ahman. It talks about a dispensation at the beginning, where all of this started. You can see that the church, the converts, the people who wanted a church government got what they were asking for. You can see God pleading for another topic, another subject, and another return to something much more ancient." (DS, Talk 3, Repentance)

I think this "scripture as a covenant" (rather than scripture containing records of covenants) and the temple are a separate track, because they wanted it (and God gives us what we want), like with Moses when they provoked the Lord ten times. God could well be commanding it, and Denver could be witting or unwitting. He could well be gathering out idol worshippers to their doom, and they're all too willing to cast us aside. Seems like he's gathering the opposite of what ought to be gathered.

 

Parable of the Happy Meal

This is a story created by another fellowship which they sent to the scripture project team.

Let's say that the Lord tells you to go to McDonalds and place an order (covenant). Through the scriptures He tells you that one day you will need to order the hamburger with everything on it (the fullness of the scriptures aka the full revision of the Bible by Joseph Smith). You will also need to get a water (the covenant of the Book of Mormon 3 Nephi 21).

You go to McDonalds and a group of men who own the eatery (scripture committee) stand and your conversation goes like this:

You: I'd like a hamburger with everything on it and a water please.

The group of men: Sure - no problem. Here's your happy meal.

You: The Lord told me that I needed a hamburger with everything on it and a water ONLY. I don't need the happy meal.

The group of men: Yes, okay. This is how you have to take the hamburger and water. We have spent a long time working on the happy meal concept and the french fries, toy, and sliced apples complete the meal.

You: Can you show me where the Lord directed that there should be a combo-happy meal? All I can see is He said "hamburger with everything on it and a water". I LOVE all this extra stuff. But it's not what the Lord is asking of me. You will lose my business if you force me to accept MORE than what the Lord counseled me to order.

The group of men: You must take it all or face peril. It was from the Lord.

You: Can you show me where the Lord declared I must have the Happy Meal for my salvation?

The group of men: We obtained it. Go and pray about it and receive your own confirmation.

You: Sure. Okay, can you show me BY the scriptures? All I can find is that He wanted 1. A Hamburger with everything on it, and 2. A water. If you can prove to me, using the scriptures, that the Lord wants me to order the Hamburger and Water WITH the combo-Happy Meal. I will do it.

The group of men: .......

As you can see, that example was very inadequate. But we are seeking to align all things with the scriptures. This is why we left the LDS church. Things don't align with scripture. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: When the Happy Meal Combo aligns with scripture - You.Will.Have.Consensus. En masse. This issue SHOULD NOT be sifting people. What sifts people is when there is no foundation in the scriptures to support the command. WE WANT TO COVENANT. WE WANT TO BE THE LORD'S PEOPLE. Prove it with the scriptures. PLEASE.

 

Worshiping the Host of Heaven

The Israelites rejected the difficulty in knowing God, but said they would obey Moses, and according to Stephen "God turned away from them and handed them over to worship the host of heaven."

Joseph said Moses, though merely a messenger, was a god to Israel. They chose to listen to him over God, thus worshipping the host of heaven.

This was the end of Steven's discourse, which right after he condemns the Jews and their temple worship and says that God does not dwell in temple made with hands. He said they resisted the Holy Spirit, as their fathers did. And then they took up stones and killed him, God witnessing the truth of his words.

Paul, Stephen's persecutor, who assented to Stephen's death, later took up Stephen's discourse and repeated it, declaring God does not dwell in temples made with hands.

 

No Other Way

Christ explains how to become numbered among Christ's people. If you are numbered among His people, you have received the same covenant. Christ is describing a group. "For thus it behooveth the Father that it should come forth from the Gentiles, that he may show forth his power unto the Gentiles, for this cause that the Gentiles, if they will not harden their hearts, that they may repent and come unto me and be baptized in my name and know of the true points of my doctrine, that they may be numbered among my people, O house of Israel." (3 Nephi 21:6)

"And now, behold, my beloved brethren, I would speak unto you, for I, Nephi, would not suffer that ye should suppose that ye are more righteous than the Gentiles shall be. For behold, except ye shall keep the commandments of God ye shall all likewise perish. And because of the words which have been spoken, ye need not suppose that the Gentiles are utterly destroyed. For behold, I say unto you that as many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord, and as many of the Jews as will not repent shall be cast off. For the Lord covenanteth with none save it be with them that repent and believe in his Son, who is the Holy One of Israel." (2 Nephi 30:2)

"And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen." (2 Nephi 31:21)

 

DW's Thoughts on How the Book of Mormon is a Covenant

Thanks for starting this group [FB Scripture Project Questions]. I'd like to have those of you here critique something I've been trying to work out. I've been working through this Book of Mormon as covenant issue for a couple weeks (as I'm sure many of you have). I'm trying to figure out what that really means. The paragraphs below are from my scripture study journal. I've written out my thoughts in a blogpost-esque format and I would like you to point out the weaknesses and flaws in my thinking. If you agree, great, but I'm mainly interested in critiques right now. Also, I'm mainly focusing on just the Book of Mormon as covenant, and not yet dealing with "the other commandments" as referenced in D&C 84. Anyway, with that intro, here's the post:

Given all the talk recently of accepting the Book of Mormon as a covenant, this led me to wonder what that phrase actually means. Typically, when I think of “a covenant” I think of some stated promise from the Lord. One example is this covenant from God to Abraham:

"Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." — Genesis 12:1-3

It’s a clearly worded statement describing exactly what God will do. That’s what I tend to think of as a “covenant."

On the other hand, the Book of Mormon is 500-something-odd-page work containing stories, speeches, prophecies, and visions. There are some passages that contain specific promises from God about what the Lord will accomplish among the remnant of the Lehites and some few Gentiles, but those don’t form the majority of the book. If the covenant were simply those explicitly spelled out prophetic promises, then why call the entire book the covenant? Moreover, dealing with a text as large as the Book of Mormon allows for many interpretations. If you ask people what the central theme of the Book of Mormon is, you can get different answers depending on the person’s view of the gospel (for example, I once saw a paper from a scholar who claimed the central message of 1 Nephi was the importance of record keeping). So is there one interpretation that is the correct main theme around which the covenant is based? If we claim to accept the Book of Mormon as a covenant, but we misidentify it’s main theme, are we really accepting the covenant. Will we be held to a standard we don’t even comprehend because we didn’t correctly interpret “the fine print?" God’s covenant to Abraham in Genesis 12 is clear and understood. Saying the new covenant is a large book can lead to confusion, can’t it?

I think it could. But I think the confusion can be mitigated by looking at what God has stated about this new covenant.

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." — Jeremiah 31:31-34

God’s new covenant with Israel is that he will put His law within them, and then they will be His. They will know Him, and He will forgive them. On the face of it, that seems nearly as straightforward as Abraham’s covenant in Genesis 12. But it also raises some questions. What is God’s law? And how does He write it within us?

We can start addressing these questions by contrasting this inward covenant with the old covenant. As Paul taught in Hebrews, the old covenant Jeremiah is referring to involved priests offering gifts and sacrifices (Hebrews 8:3). These gifts and sacrifices were a type or copy of heavenly things. The priests were many in number because death ended their performance of their duties (Hebrews 7). These priests are beset with weakness (Hebrews 5). The covenant involved these priests acting on behalf of men in relation to God to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins (Hebrews 5). This old covenant was written into the outward aspects of life: their daily performances, ordinances, and the roles that other mortal men (priests) played in their lives. Observing this covenant required spelling out of exactly what one must do, and what they would receive in return. This is what I traditionally viewed as a covenant.

In his 2nd letter to the Corinthians, Paul talks about what it means to have something written in our hearts:

"Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." — 2 Corinthians 3:2-3 (KJV)

"You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all. And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." — 2 Corinthians 3:2-3 (ESV)

When God writes in our hearts, it’s not by outward ink, but rather by the Spirit.

"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God." — Ezekiel 36:26-28

Therefore, if God’s covenant is that He will write His law (which is His word (D&C 132:12)) in our hearts, He will apparently accomplish this by the power of His Spirit. So how then does God accomplish this work? What are the means whereby God’s Spirit writes His law in our hearts?

And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation. And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.

"And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion." — D&C 84:54-58

Apparently this covenant is the Book of Mormon and the “former commandments" that composed the Book of Commandments (many of which are now included in the Doctrine and Covenants). But I thought that the new covenant was God writing His law in our hearts by the power of His Spirit. So which is it? Is the covenant the book? Or the actions God takes?

Perhaps these are functionally the equivalent. Perhaps saying and doing according to the Book of Mormon puts us in a position where the Lord can place his law and word within us. When this has happened, He can forgive us and make us His people (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

Therefore, the entirety of the message contained in the Book of Mormon is the content of the covenant, not just a few prophecies or sermons. The teachings of the book allow God’s Spirit to change our hearts and minds so that rather than observe a serious of outward ordinances, our hearts are fundamentally aligned with Christ through the reception of the Holy Ghost which allows us to become one with the Father and the Son. Our keeping of this covenant is not so much evaluated based on whether or not we observed a list of things to do, but rather by the outcome. Is God’s Spirit within us? Are we really God’s people? Do we know Him? If these things have occurred, then it’s a sign that we have accepted the covenant. If they lack, we haven't (regardless of how many written orders we observe), and we need to more carefully do and say according to that book until it has wrought its intended change in our hearts.

Therefore, the define this new covenant in terms similar to pervious covenants fundamentally undermines the entire endeavor. If I want a bulleted list of “I do this, and God will do that,” then I'm seeking after an old covenant written in ink on stone. In that case, my heart is also stone. The Book of Mormon’s covenant is written out in the reception of the Spirit (and in my view, the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost) by the reader.

Earlier, I wondered whether we understand which of all the possible interpretations of the Book of Mormon should be “the one true interpretation” that serves as the basis for the covenant. But I think my question has the directionality backwards. The wording and instructions surrounding the covenant instruct us on how we should interpret the book’s offered covenant, and what the purpose of the book should be in our lives. If the purpose of the Book of Mormon is to fulfill the new covenant, then it should be viewed as God’s message to us that can prepare us to fully receive His Spirit in our mind and in our hearts. The sermons that teach how His Spirit is obtained form the theological structure to help us understand what is required, and learning from the stories, prophecies and everything else in the book helps us through the process of obtaining His Holy Spirit.

There may be other reasonable interpretations of the Book of Mormon, but the interpretation that extends from the described covenant in Jeremiah, Hebrews, and D&C is likely the same interpretation that we can use to bring God’s promises into our own lives.

If you're still reading, thank you. I'm interested in your response.

MB: Holy cow this is well thought out.

MB: If the Book of Mormon contains the covenant, perhaps we would see in it heaven acting outside normal conventions of the outward covenant and authority.

Perhaps a priest could come from an splinter group that wanted to reclaim their homeland. Perhaps he would hear the message of a prophet who had no claims of authority, no last name, no racial identity and believe them. Perhaps he would baptize without using "proper" words and heaven would validate his "inward" authority.

Perhaps we would find murderers with their hearts changed that those who have "kept the commandments" have not.

Lehi had no mention of authority. All of the mighty acts in the Book seem to occur without any mention of authority or lineage.

The most obvious commandment these people seem to keep is to "believe", as a result of a broken heart and contrite spirit.

DW: It's interesting to me I've felt that way for a couple years now. But I've always thought that, "Well, a book that size, you can come away with all sorts of different ideas about what its main message is. I believe the main message is of the BoM is ascending to Christ by following His doctrine, but I can't prove that that's the main message." But when writing up this little post just now, I realized that God's promised covenant provides the framework through which we should interpret the BoM, and He spoke about it in three separate, non-Nephite dispensations (OT w/ Jermiah, NT w/ Hebrews, Gentile w/ D&C 84). And so it's not just my opinion that the DoC is central to the BoM, it appears that's exactly how it's designed to fit within the latter-days covenant.