Failure to receive counsel

Nine days after Denver Snuffer was excommunicated (waaay back in September, 2013), my former bishop sent me the following email (among the lengthiest I ever received from him):

Hi Will, 

I send this out as I saw it recently posted on Church News and I felt it contained good advice as a filter on doctrinal content. Not intended to be any comment or judgment on any of the previous material you have forwarded to me. Only intended to be worthwhile advice in the context of previous discussions we have had.

http://www.lds.org/church/news/five-ways-to-detect-and-avoid-doctrinal-deception?lang=eng 

My best, 

Bishop

The list ("Five Ways to Detect and Avoid Doctrinal Deception") appeared to be a coordinated effort between a professional professor of religion, paid clergy, and Church-owned media to distract (detract) from the message of a true messenger sent by God. Its publication was not likely coincidental. I responded:

Thank you, Bishop Risenmay. In case you're interested.... 

I just finished reading Passing the Heavenly Gift. That book and the 2,400 pages of Denver Snuffer's blog, plus the first five chapters (I've read) of The Second Comforter: Conversing with the Lord Through the Veil, have been the most inspiring, prophetic and revelatory reading I've encountered in perhaps 30 years. 

It is amazing how much our society and Church have changed in just my lifetime! Even more amazing when you look back (as Denver Snuffer has) through the lens of scriptural prophecy, Joseph Smith's teachings, and recorded statements made by modern Church leaders regarding our Church's history. It is sobering, unsettling and humbling. The reader is driven to prayer and repentance by Snuffer's words. 

--Will

While I don't know if the bishop scrutinized my offerings, I did take time to examine what he sent me. A month later, (October 21, 2013) I responded:

Dear Bishop, 

I see the list of "5 ways of detecting doctrinal deception" is circulating well. Of course, this list is little more than the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture, the very stuff which will damn anyone to hell who follows it. 

1. Is the person claiming the revelation acting within the bounds of his or her respective stewardship?

This is a loaded question. We sustain certain individuals to act in certain capacities within the Church, but doing so in no way entitles them to unique revelation. All may know anything and everything regarding the kingdom of God by the power of the Holy Ghost. Indeed, one may know the truth of "ALL THINGS". That is a basic tenet of our faith, not the man-invented criteria described above. They, and only they, who have authority -- granted to them by the common consent of the membership, or by the Lord Himself -- may lead and direct this church, establish church policy, doctrine, etc. But revelation is not necessarily required nor relied upon to do what our leaders do, as sincerely as they may strive to receive and follow the same. ("Church" doctrine isn't even necessarily God's doctrine!) Sustaining someone as a "prophet" does not make one a prophet. One either is or one isn't. It is not up to us to decide. And it is not necessary to have a "testimony" that those who lead this Church have indeed stood in the divine council, gained an audience with our Savior in the flesh, and have received their instructions directly from Him in order to sustain our leaders as "prophets, seers and revelators". I will support them just the same, whether or not they do, in fact, prophesy, see, or reveal, so long as they do not contradict or defy the Lord's revealed word or will.

Whether our leaders do what is right or correct is another question entirely. They may or they may not. (We have several examples of both throughout of our long Church history.) However, we are bound by covenant to sustain our leaders. And we are obligated to follow them, unless the Lord directs otherwise. That's another tenet of our faith. "Follow the Savior...He knows the way." In fact, He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man cometh unto the Father but by Him. And certainly no man comes unto the Father by any prophet, bishop or other priesthood holder.

Bro. Millet's question above suggests that one may not receive revelation with regard to his neighbor, his ward, the church, the nation or the world at large -- unless one happens to be his neighbor, a bishop, Thomas Monson, the president of the United States, or maybe even God Himself. This is preposterous! It certainly isn't true doctrine.

It is, in fact, a damnable heresy designed to lull one into trusting in the arm of flesh, to rely upon others for spiritual guidance and doctrine, to set up mere men to be lights unto the people, to stand in the place of God.

All are entitled to come unto Christ and to receive knowledge at His hand, from the least to the greatest. However, not all are privileged to reveal all the knowledge they receive. And, surely, knowledge, in and of itself, does not confer any authority upon anyone to lead or dictate to another.

The statement above has the sedating effect of discouraging others from striving to receive revelation ("to know the mysteries of God" for one's self)...unless one is, perchance, called to serve in some position of LDS Church leadership.

How foolish!

2. Is the person receiving the revelation worthy to receive such?

Was Alma the Younger "worthy" when he received his revelation from the angel? How about the four sons of Mosiah? Laman and Lemuel? Paul? Balaam? The soldiers that guarded the tomb? The 300 who came to murder Nephi and Lehi? The list of "unworthy" receivers of revelation is lengthy!

Surely the Lord revealeth His secrets to His servants the prophets. But did He not also converse with Cain, after the same slew Abel? It is (again) false doctrine to teach that only the supposed "righteous" may converse with the Almighty and learn at His hand. On the contrary, publicans and harlots are, quite often, found in His company -- and may even be more familiar with His voice than those thumping their chests in the temple, trusting in their own "worthiness".

3. Is the communication in harmony with the standard works and teachings of the prophets?

Which prophets? Which standard works? The prophets and standard works we have today? Or the prophets and standard works we had one hundred, two hundred, or two thousand years ago? The scriptures have been changed. So have the prophets and their teachings. To pretend otherwise is to manifest delusion or ignorance. By the standard given here, our own prophets and scriptures would not be "in harmony with" what has come (and gone) before, even in this dispensation! Many of the LDS prophets themselves would be "false prophets"!

4. Does the revelation edify or instruct?

This "criteria" is sufficiently ambiguous to not disqualify practically anything or anyone. Though, I'm certain, some shysters' profferings are so execrable as to defy credulity, today's words masquerading as "revelation" are clothed in words of "dignity". But mere "dignified words" alone do not revelation make.

5. Does the communication build a person’s faith and strengthen commitment?

Bro. Millet wrote: "If what a person is claiming weakens faith in Christ or resolve to follow the leaders of the Church or a desire to do what is right, it is not of God". This query begs the question that the leaders of the Church ought to be followed or that what they teach is "right". Again, this is just another potentially "false" criteria. Would Isaiah, Jeremiah or Lehi have "passed" this "test"? Would Jesus? Didn't they not, in effect, undermine the religious authorities of their day and expose the falsehood of their teachings? And for that, they were killed...at the behest of the leaders of the Church!

So what?

Is there anything in this "list" that is reliable? Is there anything in this "list" that is sound?

No.

For it is not the list the Lord provided for us to follow.

The "right way", we are told, "is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out." (2 Nephi 25:29.)

Nephi taught us "the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost." (2 Nephi 31:17.) He reminded us "ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ", so "ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end". Where may this word of Christ be found? Among the Brethren? Perhaps. Among the scriptures? Perhaps. Nephi spoke of angels speaking the words of Christ. "Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do." (2 Nephi 32:2-3.)

This is a different list than that composed by Bro. Millet. Christ's way is to receive His words by the Holy Ghost and at the hand of angels! "For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do." (2 Nephi 32:5.) "Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ" (2 Nephi 32:6). Not that "list" published by the Deseret News. (Note the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit is nowhere found in that "list".)

Bro. Millet's list is contrary to -- or different from -- the doctrine of Christ and therefore ought to be ignored.

--Will Carter