Here are a couple of lessons and studies I've shared with my fellowship and others this year and one from last year.
Forest Through the Trees:
Jesus Answered:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i0UlUyK6DMYjb90ou8D7bc3TwBqrwhsrqyffnrExqXo/edit?usp=sharing
Natural Fruit:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1HEi73LplujGdIUe1COnY6YYwPl3DpoyRx6SDuruRryw/edit?usp=sharing
Enjoy!
“[B]y p[r]oving contrarreties, truth is made manifest,” and a wise man can search out the “old paths,” wherein righteous men held communion with Jehovah, and were exalted. <through & obedeanc [obedience]” (JS Letter to Israel Daniel Rupp, 5 June 1844)
Proving contraries can mean a couple of things. It can mean testing each option to see which is good and which is bad. It can also mean finding ways to make apparent contradictions agree with one another. Either way, the process is the same. You stand the “contraries” up against one another, and they either agree through “proving” or they disagree through “proving”. They either hold each other up or one knocks the other down.
At the last women’s conference, Steph began the meeting by including these thoughts among others:
“…it has the potential to reduce disputations if that's uh, if that's your jam. I happen to like disputations. I sort of thrive on conflict. It's the, I think it's the grist for the mill. I mean how in the world am I supposed to become a better person if someone isn't pissed off at me and can't come and tell me. So I have no way of actually working through my stuff if you're not disputing with me. Now I don't want to be disputed with all the time. I don't have that much tolerance, um, but I love, I really do, I love conflict. I'm sorry, I do I think it's great, um, but I would also like to have organized conflict. I don't like chaotic conflict.”
In her recent blog post, she said these things:
“I get emails, text messages, personal proposals, ChatGPT analysis, and chastisements from you about this conference. These communications include quotes from Denver, scripture passages, glossary terms along with explanations and personal analysis about how we “shouldn’t be here” and “it’s wrong.” Many of you have spent a great deal of time in these efforts. I understand that you believe these things deeply. You are kind, gentle, and write and speak with as much of the Spirit as you can muster. All this effort appears to be directed towards the discomfort and fear about the unavoidable experiences of disputing, contention, or conflict.
I have heard you claim “faith over fear.” I get that. However, I still see more fear than faith – probably unconscious.
…
It is entirely naive and overly simplistic to just NOT WANT CONFLICTS OR DISPUTES.
…
To the extent that we think we are “a Zion People/Covenant People/Remnant Group” already, we give ourselves an out and avoid, at all costs, working through our disputes, conflict, and contention (which do exist). We may be dismissing, as evil, insignificant, the lesser law, unimportant, and ungodly, the very opportunities God has, is and will continue to provide to civilize us.
…
You are weary of the conflict. I am weary of the effort being expended in avoiding the conflict.”(Guest post by Stephanie Snuffer, April 4, 2025)
These things taken alone and without context seem oddly incongruous with what Christ said when He presented His Doctrine to the Nephites:
“You must not argue about this as you’ve done before, and you must not argue about the points of My doctrine either, as you’ve done before. In truth I tell you: Anyone who welcomes the spirit of conflict doesn’t follow Me, but is following the accuser, who’s the father of conflict. He incites people to angrily fight with each other. This isn’t My doctrine, to incite angry fighting by people. But this is My doctrine, everything like that should end.” (3 Ne. 5:9)
Let’s add some context and see if we can prove these “contraries”.
Sermon at Bountiful
In 3 Nephi 5:24-26, the Lord teaches,
“All have heard what was said since ancient time, and have also seen it written before you, that you shall not murder, and whoever murders will incur condemnation by God. But I say to you whoever is angry with his brother will be in danger of His judgment. And whoever calls his brother, Worthless, will risk offending the Heavenly Council, and whoever will say, You fool! — risks the fires of hell.”
Point check: Don’t allow anger into your heart. The fruit of anger in the heart is sharp words like “worthless” and “fool”, “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks…for by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned.” (Matt. 6:4)
Therefore if any of you will come to Me, or will start to come to Me, and remembers that your brother or sister holds anything against you, go your way first to your brother or sister to be reconciled with them, and then come to Me with full commitment in your heart and I’ll welcome you.
Point check: “Therefore”, meaning “in the context of what I just said about anger”, if you want to come to the Lord, and remember that someone has not forgiven you for something, go and “reconcile” with them first (Mark 5:35). Only then will the Lord welcome us.
Accept accountability for your misconduct the instant it’s brought to your attention, to avoid leaving this life unrepentant and risking condemnation.I warn you: You’ll discover no way to escape before paying fully for every sin; and while in prison under condemnation, are you able to redeem yourself? I warn you that you cannot.
Point check: Ah! This is instruction regarding righteous reconciliation. If we wish to reconcile with our brother or sister so we can come to the Lord, we have to repair the harm we caused (Helaman 2:19). If we fail to do so, we will suffer the consequences of leaving this life unrepentant (T&C 4:5).
Denver’s February 25, 2024 blog post titled Monsters… explains,
If someone offends me, it is my responsibility to confront the offender and let them know exactly what they did to offend. I owe it to them. If I have not confronted him and set out clearly his offense then I have done him a disservice and have failed in my duty. “And if your brother offend you, you shall take him between him and you alone, and if he confess, you shall be reconciled.” T&C 27:5.
When offended I need to explain to the offender what they did, why it offended, and explain that the injury or offense has harmed me. If he does something offensive and I fail to directly call him out on it, in time he will become a monster as the misconduct continues and inevitably escalates. If that process is to be interrupted and reversed, it requires me to bring it directly and personally to his attention.
When, instead of confronting the offender, I go about complaining to others, then those others are brought into the sad cycle of gossip and character assassination. This is why the first indispensable step is for me to “take him between him and [me] alone” to address the matter. Then, “if he confesses, [we] shall be reconciled.” This is not optional. This is mandatory. And if followed will reconcile the offender with the offended.”
Parable of the Master’s House
Those who had built the family of God (House) then returned to their fellow laborers gathering stone, and helped them lay down their strongly-held dispute that stone was needed for the House. They did not run from the dispute, but engaged with it (not in, with) and willingly labored alongside their fellow servants to find a use for it. (T&C 176 10:11). “Ah ha!” they must have thought, “These stones can go under our feet, keep the dust off of them, and show the path to the Master’s House!”
It was their compassion for their fellow man that caused them to engage in this labor over former disagreements. If we believe ourselves to be correct and our brother or sister to be wrong, we are guided to “...respect your brothers and sisters and to come together by precept, reason, and persuasion, rather than sharply disputing and wrongly condemning each other, causing anger.” (T&C 157:54). This is the labor of engaging with disputes. We’re also told that “although a man may err in understanding concerning many things, yet he can view his brother with charity and come unto me [after reconciling with others], and through me he can with patience overcome the world. I can bring him to understanding and knowledge. Therefore, if you regard one another with charity, then your brother’s error in understanding will not divide you.” (T&C 157:53).
This is starting to sound like what Steph is explaining...
June 20 Revelation
The June 20 revelation speaks of resolving existing disputes,
There have been disputes among the women about the conduct of women’s councils and disputes about how they are to proceed…
Let the women call a conference at a suitable time and place convenient to allow interested women to attend. Have your wife, Stephanie Snuffer conduct the conference deliberations and let any who want to speak present their concerns. Reason together and draw upon the experiences from those past women’s councils. Let the women learn to come to agreement [sounds like learning to respect, etc. from T&C 157:54] and the voice of that conference decides all matters raised. And I remind you that the majority of those who vote decide the voice of the conference of women. If 100 vote, the vote of 51 decides the matter. And, if another dispute later arises from other women’s councils, and there is a need, call another conference of the women and resolve the dispute by the voice of the women’s conference, as often as need arises.
“As need arises” suggests that as we grow, there will be disputes that arise. The Lord would have us get rid of disputes, but that doesn’t happen through magic; it happens through the process outlined in the above revelation. It could be said that when disputes arise (and they will) that we shouldn’t engage in disputing, but engage with it to help put it down (parable of the Master’s House). This is done first by reconciling with those we’ve offended through our sharp words by accepting accountability for our wrongs to show we’ve repented of our sin against them (See 3 Nephi), then by reasoning together and meekly presenting our dispute before the Lord, or said another way, “coming unto [Him]”. He will then tell us His part (T&C 157:54).
This then shows that the above revelation is not a condemnatory “lesser law”, rather it is a vehicle for practicing the Higher Law delivered by the Lord in Bountiful.
Brother Joseph Smith, Jr. said: We have assembled together to do the business of the Lord and it is through the great mercy of our God that we are spared to assemble together, many of us have gone at the command of the Lord in defiance of everything evil, and obtained blessings unspeakable, in consequence of which our names are sealed in the Lamb’s book of life, for the Lord has spoken it. It is the privilege of every Elder to speak of the things of God; and could we all come together with one heart and one mind in perfect faith the veil might as well be rent today as next week, or any other time, and if we will but cleanse ourselves and covenant before God, to serve Him, it is our privilege to have an assurance that God will protect us at all times. (General Conference Minutes, 25–26 October 1831)
In an often partially quoted remark by Denver, he said,
"To keep ideas pure, they cannot become subject to a hierarchy, controlled by an institution, or embedded inside any organization in this world.
I will leave no seat for another man to occupy. I will leave no institution for another man to compromise. You will not have another person who says," I sit in his seat." I won't even explain to you what seat it is I occupy. I want you [the group he's talking to] to occupy a seat with God, not as my equal, but **as my better** if I can help you." (Denver Snuffer, 40 Years of Mormonism, Talk 6; emphasis and inserts mine.)
This indicates not that there won't be a continuation of the Holy Order after the millennium, only that there will not be an institution that can be corrupted. There was no "seat" left to Abraham by Melchizedek, but there was an Order passed to him and his enclave.
Denver has said:
"Abraham is the father of the righteous and the prototype of the saved man in his generation because he was able to claw back out of a state of apostasy into a state of faithfulness, communing with God and renewing an order that had fallen into disuse everywhere except for a tiny enclave headed by someone [Melchizedek] who had been an antediluvian and who had the right (because the right continued right up into the flood) to be translated into Heaven, but he stayed behind to fulfill a mission. But having fulfilled the mission (that is, handing it off to Abraham), Melchizedek then likewise ascended and, with him, his city." (Righteousness, pg. 7, Salem, Utah, November 11, 2022; emphasis and inserts mine.)
Joseph Smith said,
"Christ and the resurrected Saints will reign over the earth during the thousand years. They will not probably dwell upon the earth but will visit it when they please, or when it is necessary to govern it [planet hopping, yo!]. There will be wicked men on the earth during the thousand years. The heathen nations who will not come up to worship will be visited with the judgments of God, and must eventually be destroyed from the earth." (Joseph Smith, December 30, 1842; emphasis and inserts mine.)
It's interesting to consider that while all of the antediluvians were taken off the Earth, Melchizedek and his "enclave" stayed behind to maintain a place of holiness on the Earth. People think Christ and the saints will hang around to govern during the millennium, but we know that isn't true. They'll visit when needed, just like they do now. Except the people will have a more sure knowledge of what's going on because there will be a temple at the center of a new society. But it will likely operate the same way it did at the time of Abraham and Melchizedek. Abraham was essentially a new Adam, which means Melchizedek essentially "reigned" (taught) during a sort of millennium until he could pass the creation off to someone else who was willing to stick around. Christ and the saints continued to govern through Abraham by visiting to give instruction as needed. It appears that's how it always works.
One of the main things I find interesting is that Melchizedek's people stayed with him. Abraham's people stayed with him. The Holy Order is a family, and that family will continue into the millennium awaiting further instruction as needed from Christ and those who have been translated until another worthy people rise up to relieve that group, who will then "reign" until another worthy group rises up, etc.
I've been contemplating some admittedly frightening ideas. My initial reaction to the thoughts is "how arrogant" but, then, the thoughts really originated with the Lord. So they can't be arrogant, can they?
The thought is basically this: can we be better than the prophets who went before us? What about the fathers?
Oof. It's as uncomfortable to write down as it is to think.
Could Nephi have been gentler with Laman and Lemuel?
Was there a better way for Jacob to interact with Sherem?
Could Peter and Paul have done better in their interactions?
The answer to this last example is obvious: yes. The Lord Himself not only suggested they could have, He told us we must do better than they. (T&C 157:3)
Man, the concept really opens us from there. What other things are we dogmatic about because the prophets did something a certain way?
Oof, there's the uncomfortable feeling again. Merky waters. I'll keep asking questions though...
If they could have done something better, and we could also, how would we know which things they did poorly?
There was an unbroken line of fathers from Adam all the way down to Joseph of Egypt. Yet, only Enoch and Melchizedek brought Zion. Was it because they did "better" than the others?
It's hard for this to not sound like a judgment. It isn't intended to be a judgment, just lessons to learn from and improve upon.
Another interesting example to consider might be Joseph and Hyrum Smith. They were clearly Sons of God sent to minister among us. Yet the structure they established turned into a corruptible hierarchical organization, even before they died. This isn't to fault them. They were obedient to God, accepted of God, and delivered such light to the world so as to change the course of history for the better. Nevertheless, we have to do better. So we ditched D&C 20 and made our own governing principles.
What of Abraham and Sarah? They are known as the father and mother of the righteous. Nevertheless, several people have wondered if Abraham fathering children with Sara's concubines was errant, since the Lord caused Sara's womb to open in her late age, and the promised son was given. So can we be better? Do we need to learn life-long patience?
Moses is another very interesting example to consider. Exodus 2:67 reveals that Moses placed limits on what he was willing to do, and the Lord worked with and around those limits. We read:
Perhaps one hallmark of a righteous person is leaving an honest record of the missteps they made so that their children can learn and do better. It's certainly a mark of humility.
Well, there are many examples to explore, and I'm left to conclude that not only can we be "better" than those who went before, but both they and God expect us to be if we're serious about Zion.
But hey, we're not supposed to compare ourselves to each other. It breeds envy, judgment, insecurity, and competition. Or does it? After all, the Lord pointed out that, "These two facts do exist — that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they. I am the Lord, your God; I am more intelligent than they all."
Maybe comparing ourselves to those who went before us could be viewed through the lens of gratitude for their examples, mistakes, and honesty. Without their courage in coming down here to engage, learn, and leave a record of what works and what doesn't, we wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell.
Mmm, it's always better when we're together.
