Inside the mind of a "Snufferite"

These may be difficult to understand because they are taken out of context. I apologize for that. They are pieces of postings by a certain Random poster.

And the fact that there are many offended by him, ... is a witness that he is a true prophet. True prophets do not make one "feel good" - neither do they offer praise to those God has told them do not deserve it, no matter how much it may offend. In fact, many prophets have been killed because they said things that the religious found offensive.

So many times, when the discussions turn to DS [Denver Snuffer] and whether he is a prophet, etc., I wonder why we are discussing it. It is rather like getting a letter from a far-off relative (God) and dissecting the envelope, the paper, the ink, and the handwriting (the messenger) then dismissing the message because the envelope was pink, the paper was plain, the ink was green, or the handwriting looked rushed. #

I think the point is to go to the Lord ourselves and find the truth. I think we were never meant to lean on DS, but to hear and recognize when he is speaking the Lord's words and go from there. DS is insisting that we learn to walk, then run, then fly whereas the church seems to insist that we are best off kept in a playpen 24/7 so that we don't get hurt (led astray). #

I think Denver is good at bringing a lot of things to light. I think he is inspired. I think the Lord tells him a lot of what he says. At the same time, it all boils down to "What is the Lord telling me?" The path, though similar to all others in some respects, is still a lone path and has many aspects that are unique to each individual. #

Yes, and this is why Denver is not part of my decision [to leave the church or to stay in it] - except as a concern that the leaders were so blind to have cast out a true messenger. Whatever I choose to do, I will do because God told me. I am seeing that my decisions are mine to make, with God's input. #

DS is A prophet, not THE prophet. "The prophet" is currently a title held by the current president of the LDS church. When he dies, another man will hold that title. DS is not a leader of any organization, church, or movement. He is simply a man who was sent by God to deliver messages, which is what scriptural prophets have done since the beginning of time. As all true prophets do, DS points past himself and to Christ.

So, the answer to your question is no. No one on here believes that DS is "the" prophet.

However, many do believe he is "a" prophet (including myself - but only because I recognized the words of the Master in much of what he has written and said, and because God has told me so). #

Not a rebuttal, but this comment brought about this response in my soul: "I don't care what Denver says. I don't care what he thinks about me. Denver is nothing to me. Yes, I find his words valuable if they are the words of the Lord, but I don't intend to show Denver anything. If the Lord should intend for me to shout praises to Him and DS happens to be in the room, fine by me. If it is in the privacy of my own room, fine by me. Same with declarations of accepting a covenant offered by God."

Let DS sit down like he wants to and another man stand up and speak the words of the Lord and if the Spirit moves us to speak up and say that we view ourselves as less than the dust of the earth and we want to know what we can do, then I say we should speak up - without caring what the speaker thinks and without fearing what [someone] will chastise us about it. #

The following post was in connection with the one above:

My post was just my reaction in light of [ ]'s fervent protection of DS - or contempt for us (I'm never sure which). In fact, none of the posts I made on this thread today were directed toward the people I quoted. 

And [ ], you don't really need to feel contempt for me. I do a good job of that on my own. It still doesn't change the fact that, whether he agrees or not/whether he likes it or not, DS is a prophet of God. That puts him in the same category as other scriptural prophets. Will he fall? I have no idea. That is his choice, his business. But he is what he is - and people will react to that, both pro and con, in ways they have reacted since the times of Adam and Enoch.

We are supposed to be offended at the man. He does try. "Proud descendants of Nauvoo." Words to the effect of "you're all damned," "nobody will listen," "only a very few will come to Zion and it won't be Gentiles," and so forth. He seems to do his best to make people uncomfortable, perhaps even angry.

As for myself, I already know that I don't measure up, that I am in sore need of repentance, that I am less than the dust of the earth. I also know that my Savior loves me. He loves me enough to visit me in dreams, and to bring me to angels in dreams to discuss my future with me and allow me the choice to live or die (we call it dying; they didn't). My Lord and my Father love me enough to show me in a dream that I don't measure up so much that when He called me His daughter, I did not believe Him. I "knew" that I was not His. I let Him know he had the wrong girl (in the dream I was a teenager). He told me that even if He had the wrong girl I was still His daughter, and if the other one (He knew she was me) showed up, she would also be His daughter. And what He was doing for me He would continue doing until I was healed and whole, and fit to live with Him. #

It IS discouraging, imo, to believe that so many will not make it. I counteract that by focusing on Christ and not on His servant. The servant does not know everything. He does not know me. He does not know if I will make it or not. He shares what he is told to (with, perhaps, the exception of things like "D cup"  @-) ). What God tells me may not be the same as what He has told someone else, even a true messenger. (I am not talking about commandments and such; I am talking about personal information, personal commandments - which the messenger did address in one of the lectures when he pointed out that we had different lives and what we had to do would be different than him - or something like that.)

I had a dream when my oldest two were little. I was in a house or apartment with a huge glass window. There was a storm raging outside. Every time I focused on the storm, it would break in, crashing through the windows and unleashing its fury in my home. Every time I changed my focus to my little family, to my own life, the storm would back out, the windows would heal and seal, and we would be safe again.

To me, that dream was telling me to focus on my own things, my own life and let the outer world howl and rage. I think it can apply to times I feel discouraged or depressed. I think it can apply to focusing on how many will not make it. All I can do is the best I can do and that will have to suffice, even though my best is not very good. (Christ needs to take up a lot of slack in my life.) #

e-eye: Denver is not the Lord's prophet set to guide his church.[/quote]

Denver would be the first to agree with you 100%. And I also agree with you 100%. #

[quote]I have always considered DS a peer.  He's not above me and I'm not above him - we have parity.[/quote]

Exactly my present point of view, but it was different when I first began to extricate myself from following the brethren. It was only natural to turn that onto DS, but I worked on changing that paradigm because I believed it was a damning one. I think those who listen to that man are on various parts of the path. Now, I see that he is simply a peer who has had more experiences than I have, who has more understanding at the present, and has been told by our common Parent to teach his siblings so that they might also "grow up" so to speak.

...

Meanwhile, whenever I go to the lectures, I usually end up learning some awesome things from my friends. Every person I have ridden with to the lectures has had some great insights that I had not thought of before. Like { }, DS isn't the only reason I go. I go because God provides the way and who am I to argue with Him? I go because I love to mingle and fellowship with like-minded souls. I go because it feeds me in more ways than one. I go because it strengthens bonds between myself and whoever I converse with.  #

Oh that I were an angel and could have the wish of my heart.

New Order Mormon is full of people whose shelves have broken. Their eyes have been opened, and they are right about so many things.

I wish I could help them. I wish I could help them understand that not everything negative they read "proves" the Book of Mormon false, that Joseph Smith Jr was a lecher, and so forth. I wish I could open up their eyes to the incredible information in the Book of Mormon. I wish I had more knowledge - and the power of convincing people to believe and know the truth. Below is one of my recent attempts to share.

[name of poster]: Why would any loving personal god allow truth to be mixed up with lies and pollution to the extent that "his children aren't even aware and have no method of waking up" except randomly a few may wake up?  That is an unreasonable definition of a "loving god" at least for me. 

How exactly are we supposed to discover mysteries for ourselves if we can't tell truth from the lies we are swimming in?  How do we wake up?  Are we supposed to rely on god's special messengers?  If so why aren't we all special messengers so we don't have to be confused by special messengers who are murderers in their hearts?  In your assertions (in my unlearned opinion) the result is god is either a trickster who mixes truth and error for fun, an absentee watchmaker, or not at home.  But maybe I am too blinded by the error I am swimming in to see another alternative.

You have a lot of good questions.

I think we are given inklings that things are not right, but we ignore them because we think the church is right and we are wrong.

I think if we read the BofM, doing all we can to ignore everything we have been taught it says and means, that we will probably understand God better.

Some things that come to mind:

Lehi was not a "special messenger" even though we are taught at church that he was a duly appointed prophet of God, legally put into the hierarchy of his day. In fact, he was an apostate (which is probably why two of his sons kept wanting to kill him). The people at Jerusalem were righteous, according to Laman and Lemuel. "Our father hath judged them."

I see a parallel to us. The LDS people are righteous. The NOMs have judged them.

"Why have you polluted the holy church of God?" Moroni asks us who believe the book (e.g. "Mormons"). He calls us wicked, perverse, and stiffnecked, and asks, "Why have ye built up churches to yourselves to get gain?" "Why have ye transfigured the holy word of God, that ye might bring damnation upon your souls?"

He says we walk in the pride of our hearts. Mentions very fine apparel, envying, strifes, malice, persecutions - that every one of our churches have become polluted because of the pride of our hearts.

I have been quoting from Mormon 8, and in verse 35, Moroni tells us he's speaking to us as if we were present because he has seen us. Us. Mormons. Us. All of the offshoots that hold the BofM to be a sacred book.

If we read that as it says, we see that our church is polluted, greedy, and changing God's words. We, according to the book as I read it, are about to lose the gospel because we have rejected the truth, we have rejected the fulness.

It is a scathing rebuke. So is some of what Nephi says when he notes that in our day people will say, "All is well in Zion. ... Zion prospereth." He knew full well it wouldn't be Zion, but that we would consider ourselves as such. (2 Nephi 28)

I honestly believe that the answers to your questions lie in the book that tells us (all who are offshoots of JS) we are not as good as we think we are, and answers lie in realizing that there is no middle-man between you and God. False prophets in sheep's clothing, even if they think they are not, are never going to give us true answers. They don't know the true answers - or feel threatened by the true answers.

And, in regards to the sanitized idea that God will never speak to a man outside the duly organized hierarchy: Jesus was considered apostate. Samuel the Lamanite was a total outsider. Abinadi was not part of the religious hierarchy. Abraham looks to me like he started his own church. Joseph Smith was outside that church (the last "duly authorized" one being what became the Catholic church, near as I can discover, and all other Christian religions being offshoots of that church).

Anyway, the answers are inside of us, if we can cut out the jibber-jabber. We each are connected to God, and it doesn't matter if someone disagrees with our path.

The actual right each person possesses is the right to live and believe as they think God (however they determine who or what s/he is) would have them live and believe, and no more. I should not be telling you what to think or be. Neither should a church - or any individual or entity be telling you that. The idea that there is a man who has all the answers has caused a tremendous amount of damage, both physical and spiritual/emotional.

I don't know if I have answered your questions, but that is the best I can do.

The Blind Spot

I believe there are messages hidden in nature that reflect truths. For example, birds singing in the dawn while it is still dark remind us that Christ rose from the tomb "while it was yet dark."

This morning I have been thinking about the blind spot. Our eyes have a blind spot.

How to find it with your thumb.

More info:
Experiments with the blind spot

Wikipedia on the blind spot

Seeing your blind spot in action

And one last one.

We don't usually know we have a blind spot unless we are taught about it, except for those exceptionally curious folk who search to know everything about everything.

Apply this to our spiritual lives. Apply it to how we live, how we view God, how we view ourselves: We don't usually know we have a blind spot unless we are taught about it, except for those exceptionally curious folk who search to know everything about everything.

A lesson on pride fits in here somewhere, but I think there is more to it than that. Ignorance. We often think we know so much, that our own perception is accurate and that we are seeing the whole picture. The lesson of the blind spot is that we don't see it all. We don't know all that we think we know. We have a flaw that is invisible to us.

It would do us good to be exceptionally curious, to leave no stone unturned, to bravely face what we think we know and find out what the truth is.

Jesus Said What?!?

My daughter brought this interpretation to my attention. It seems that Jesus was not preaching pacifism at all when he preached to turn the other cheek, give someone both your cloak and coat (in this interpretation, shirt and coat), and to go the extra mile.

I love this interpretation. It is from Tumblr.

Matt 5:39

This specifically refers to a hand striking the side of a person’s face, tells quite a different story when placed in it’s proper historical context. In Jesus’s time, striking someone of a lower class ( a servant) with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. Another alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect putting an end to the behavior or if the slapping continued the person would lawfully be deemed equal and have to be released as a servant/slave.   
(via thefullnessofthefaith)

I can attest to the original poster’s comments. A few years back I took an intensive seminar on faith-based progressive activism, and we spent an entire unit discussing how many of Jesus’ instructions and stories were performative protests designed to shed light on and ridicule the oppressions of that time period as a way to emphasize the absurdity of the social hierarchy and give people the will and motivation to make changes for a more free and equal society.

For example, the next verse (Matthew 5:40) states “And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.” In that time period, men traditionally wore a shirt and a coat-like garment as their daily wear. To sue someone for their shirt was to put them in their place - suing was generally only performed to take care of outstanding debts, and to be sued for one’s shirt meant that the person was so destitute the only valuable thing they could repay with was their own clothing. However, many cultures at that time (including Hebrew peoples) had prohibitions bordering on taboo against public nudity, so for a sued man to surrender both his shirt and his coat was to turn the system on its head and symbolically state, in a very public forum, that “I have no money with which to repay this person, but they are so insistent on taking advantage of my poverty that I am leaving this hearing buck-ass naked. His greed is the cause of a shameful public spectacle.”

All of a sudden an action of power (suing someone for their shirt) becomes a powerful symbol of subversion and mockery, as the suing patron either accepts the coat (and therefore full responsibility as the cause of the other man’s shameful display) or desperately chases the protester around trying to return his clothes to him, making a fool of himself in front of his peers and the entire gathered community.

Additionally, the next verse (Matthew 5:41; “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.”) was a big middle finger to the Romans who had taken over Judea and were not seen as legitimate authority by the majority of the population there. Roman law stated that a centurion on the march could require a Jew (and possibly other civilians as well, although I don’t remember explicitly) to carry his pack at any time and for any reason for one mile along the road (and because of the importance of the Roman highway system in maintaining rule over the expansive empire, the roads tended to be very well ordered and marked), however hecould not require any service beyond the next mile marker. For a Jewish civilian to carry a centurion’s pack for an entire second mile was a way to subvert the authority of the occupying forces. If the civilian wouldn’t give the pack back at the end of the first mile, the centurion would either have to forcibly take it back or report the civilian to his commanding officer (both of which would result in discipline being taken against the soldier for breaking Roman law) or wait until the civilian volunteered to return the pack, giving the Judean native implicit power over the occupying Roman and completely subverting the power structure of the Empire. Can you imagine how demoralizing that must have been for the highly ordered Roman armies that patrolled the region?

Jesus was a pacifist, but his teachings were in no way passive. There’s a reason he was practically considered a terrorist by the reigning powers, and it wasn’t because he healed the sick and fed the hungry. (via central-avenue)

I'm not sure how valid the interpretation is. If anyone knows, I'd appreciate the input.

In my search, I found this thread:

www.online-literature.com/forums

I also found an article that is awesome, and talks about this. It is found here.

Jesus never taught passivity in the face of evil. Jesus also never taught that violence is the appropriate response to evil.

What makes much more sense is to find a meaning that meshes with all the other passages that call us to love our enemies and do good to them that misuse us. You do them no good by reflecting back their violence; that is what is meant by resisting evil - being so resistant that we act as a brick wall and bounce the evil back - retaliate in a like manner. 

You do them no good by fleeing and letting them think that they've won 

YOU LOVE YOUR ENEMY when you show them how they are being unjust and when you give them the opportunity to grow and learn from that experience and to be open to God's grace to change their violent and unjust and oppressive ways.

Nothing can be assumed when you read the Bible. It contains the word of God, but you have to dig it out for yourself - you have to read between the lines and set the words in the context of the time so that you hear what is being said the way the writer and the listeners meant it and heard it to mean at the time it was spoken.
Let me demonstrate this and describe the social situation at the time and what this word picture would have meant to those who heard it in the first place.

Let's look at each of these three directives from Jesus to those who would lead Jesus' third way of creative, loving, non-violent resistance.

Okay, it looks like the bottom line for this interpretation may come from Walter Wink, a Professor Emeritus of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City.