A Canon of Scripture will mean different things to different groups of people. My audience is a mixture of faithful LDS, former LDS, and never LDS. The subject of this post is mainly directed to former LDS, of which there are many types, but the group in particular I am addressing are those who accept the teachings and writings of Denver Snuffer.
There is a lot happening in that group over the next few weeks with two back-to-back conferences on April 12th and April 13th. And as Denver just pointed out, there is a second women’s website related to the Saturday Women’s Conference for the upcoming April Conference. That website is linked here: 14 Unanimous (lots of history there).
In fact, there has been a lot happening since the publication of the Covenant of Christ, a Modern-English Version of the Book of Mormon in June of 2024. Most of the members of the faithful LDS who used to read my blog, dropped off long ago once Denver Snuffer was excommunicated from the LDS Church in September of 2013. They may not be aware of the publication of this Modern-English Version. That’s too bad. I wish more LDS folks and non LDS would learn about this book.
Modern English Book of Mormon
This is a big deal. It is called Covenant of Christ for a reason. It was written as scripture for our day. It is written in modern English, using the same vocabulary you and I use, not what was used in Elizabethan (1500-1750) or King Jamesian England (1611). The original edition of the Book of Mormon was rendered by the Lord through Joseph Smith in language that sounded like the Bible so it would be accepted by the people of the generation in which it was first published (1830).
At least four generations have passed since the original Book of Mormon was published in 1830. The language we use today is so much different than that of Joseph’s day. If you are thinking it would be nice to have a rendering in modern English, you are thinking like the Lord, who was very involved in the coming forth of this new edition, which he accepted and gave the new title: Covenant of Christ. This is to help a new generation understand the content to help with the Lord’s return.
Definition of Canon of Scripture
Canon is used to denote the authoritative collection of sacred books used by believers in Christ. Although there are other canons accepted by different denominations, for most Christians, the standard canon of scripture includes the books of the Old Testament and the New Testament, and nothing more. The Latter-day Saint concept of canon differs from that of other Christians. In addition to the Bible, the Latter-day Saint canon includes the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.
The Canon of Scripture is defined a little different by the fellowships of the remnant groups that accept the teachings and writings of Denver Snuffer as the Davidic Servant. You can read more about that definition of Canonization here. You may note I am using a title given to Denver Snuffer as the Davidic Servant. I do that purposefully. I know there are those who object to that title, but I have accepted it as part of the Canon I voted to accept in 2017 (see the reference here). And now we have voted to include the modern English version, the Covenant of Christ, as well.
The Canon is to be Defended, not Changed
I wrote previously about this subject in a somewhat provocative post labeled “Worth, Worthiness, Lust, and Adultery.” I gave some real-world examples of how the word lust has messed up the modern LDS church by guilt-tripping it’s members, especially it’s male members, into self-loathing and self-condemnation over conflating two very different words: lust and seduction. I tried to be persuasive as possible that the rendering of 3 Ne 5:27 in the Covenant of Christ is very significant and purposeful.
I attended one of the Zoom meetings discussing some of the proposed changes to the canon, and came away rather discouraged over the spirit of contention, which I equate with the voice of the accuser. I did not attend the additional zoom meetings, but watched the recordings. I agree with those who voiced strong opinions that there should be no changes, because Denver made it clear the Lord had accepted the Covenant of Christ as it was voted upon last year. His job was and is to defend it.
What I Learned From the Discussions
I learned something interesting from the meetings. I decided to hear out one of the most contentious presentations without walking away. I can be an impatient man. I spend a lot of time studying doctrine and trying to understand the word of the Lord. Two things bother me when discussing doctrine: 1) If someone is condescending in their presentation, I tend to cut them off mentally (walk away). 2) If someone has overlooked or rejected a well-established premise declared by the Lord, I discount everything they have to say. Neither response is good. Neither shows mercy.
I desire mercy. I need mercy. Although I want to be persuasive and very much want to be understood, I post my thoughts and leave it up to others to decide if I am full of it, misled, deceived, or if I have something of merit to consider. It was good to hear the viewpoints of others, in particular one individual who was adamant the scripture in 3 Ne 5:27 be changed back. I strongly disagree. I felt the change in the wording was a godsend especially for me. I have long felt condemned by the other renditions of this verse found in other places in the scriptures. This change from lust to seduction was an epiphany. Please don’t try to second-guess the Lord.
Continuing to Observe From Afar
This is obviously a very narrow-focus post. Very few will understand the story behind it or why I feel so strongly that the modern English rendering of 3 Ne 5:27 is meant for me and has brought me great relief. Although I am far away in California, and am not worthy to publicly administer in the priesthood, I have a few close friends in the movement that know me and understand me. Thank you for your kindness in reaching out to me, keeping me in the loop and sharing with me your thoughts and feelings about the work of the Lord coming forth in our day.
Thanks also to those who asked about Carol. She is taking her cancer diagnosis well. They say that health is largely a mental exercise. We all know we will die someday, but one of the greatest blessings I enjoy today is Carol’s daily love, support, and companionship. She could have divorced me long ago when I left the church but she didn’t. We continue to participate in our local ward and stake activities and are looking forward to singing in Rob Gardner’s Lamb of God this weekend. God bless.
We’re listed in the choir: https://witnessmusicca.org/program/
Tim I’m a long time reader of your blog, but I don’t believe I’ve ever commented. Thank you so much for your recent post. As we navigated our way into this movement in 2017 your writings helped me progress in understanding and light. Maybe we should do lunch when I’m in SoCal in July.
Thank you for your words. Like you, the clarification from the Lord in 3 Ne 5:27 came as great relief. I struggle with the desires of the flesh, like most men, but would never engage in an act of seduction. I would never do that to myself or my beautiful wife. So grateful for this clarification from the Lord.
Tim, I was standing right beside you in the water (in that picture of your baptism!). And now here we are!
I’m considering your words:
“If you are thinking it would be nice to have a rendering in modern English, you are thinking like the Lord, who was very involved in the coming forth of this new edition, which he accepted and gave the new title: Covenant of Christ.”
Tell me how this happened. Tell me how you report, so matter of factly, that THE LORD did this, “accepted” it, and gave us this new name.
I see you’re now calling Denver Snuffer the Davidic Servant.
This new “translation” has such obvious “weirdities” –highly specific (and exclusionary) “interpretations” that conveniently “match up” with modern-day exigencies — like equating “trusting in the arm of flesh” with “trust[ing] in the scholarly arrogance of man” or “the vain teachings of a man and trust them as if they were truth.” Is that the ONLY acceptable interpretation of this phrase? Scholarly arrogance? How about NOT putting one’s confidence in material wealth, an organization, leadership, one’s own abilities (or limitations), intellect, “common sense”, negating God and supernatural influences, etc?
I would provide MANY MORE examples these weirdly “limiting” interpretations, but this group has made cross referencing the Covenant of Christ with previous versions of the Book of Mormon EXTREMELY difficult — by also changing the numeration of the chapters and verses! (Why was that necessary?) Like changing all the street names and numbers on a map! Everybody gets a new address! And confused! (Why?!)
Now we’re moving even FARTHER AWAY from the (original) scriptures as they were (originally) translated by Joseph Smith, even jettisoning later, helpful conventions (like convenient versification). Yes, I’m aware that the “old” versification has been re-added, but it’s still ridiculously clumsy!
Keep in mind the writers of the Book of Mormon used the ORIGINAL language of the book (“reformed Egyptian”) FOR OVER A THOUSAND YEARS!
Then again, maybe not:
“32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down AND ALTERED BY US, ACCORDING TO OUR MANNER OF SPEECH.”
Isn’t that EXACTLY what’s going on here? We’re doing the same thing again! We’re changing the language of the book we were given to reflect our modern speech! (That’s how we got the Bible in English, too — and in every other language but Latin, Greek and Hebrew!)
Okay, so who’s to say what the original language originally meant? Denver Snuffer? The spirit of the prophets? The Holy Ghost? The Lord himself?
Denver has purported that THE LORD has said this translation MUST now be used for ALL FUTURE TRANSLATIONS!
Wow.
The Kool-Aid gets pretty hard to drink when you read in the latest “translation” language OBVIOUSLY referencing skin color that has purposely been CHANGED to obfuscate that fact. (Again, to placate the sensibilities of those who reject “racism” in all its forms? Modern exigencies? Because Joseph Smith got it wrong? Because “countenance” wasn’t in anyone’s 1830 vocabulary?)
The “old” Book of Mormon says:
“21 And [God] had caused the cursing to come upon them [Nephi’s brethren, the Lamanites], yea, even a sore cursing because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint. Wherefore, as they were WHITE and EXCEEDING FAIR and DELIGHTSOME, that they might NOT BE ENTICING UNTO MY PEOPLE, the Lord God did cause a SKIN OF BLACKNESS to come upon them.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be LOATHSOME unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
23 And CURSED SHALL BE THE SEED OF HIM THAT MIXETH WITH THEIR SEED, for THEY SHALL BE CURSED EVEN WITH THE SAME CURSING. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.” 2 Nephi 5.)
Can this be understood in ANY other way but sexual and genetic? Do you imagine “mixing seed” is just “hanging out” with or “associating”, like a “mixer”? So if we share enough time or proximity with these SPIRITUALLY REPULSIVE people, we (and our descendants) will become SPIRITUALLY REPULSIVE as well? This is what God meant? It was NEVER about skin color?!
BUT THE SCRIPTURES SPECIFICALLY STATE that a “mark” or “skin of blackness” was PLACED BY GOD on the Lamanites — as a symbol and sign of their inward spiritual hardness and deficiency. (We know this because Mormon referred to a red mark that (otherwise white) wicked Nephites placed on their foreheads to identify themselves as “not Nephites” — I guess to make distinguishing themselves (while murdering other white Nephites) easier? (Rather than take the time, I guess, to observe whose spiritual “countenance” would “shine through”.) Mormon equated this red mark with the “skin of blackness” befalling the Lamanites. (Was the red mark some “spiritual emanation” as well, or merely a sign of it?)
I infer — as any NORMAL English speaker would in 1830 — that talking about “mixing seed” (as Nephi does) is speaking in sexual (ie, genetic), not just spiritual terms. Alma 55 (LDS edition) gives us a vignette of a Lamanite (conveniently named Laman), the former servant of a murdered Lamanite king, who was chosen by the Nephites to take wine to their enemies (the Lamanites) in order to intoxicate them. Now, obviously, this former servant named Laman was chosen for his abilities — his familiarity with the language, culture, and customs of the enemy, his natural affinity with and similarity to those to whom he was sent, etc. (Maybe he found them “enticing”, not “loathsome”!) He couldn’t possibly have been chosen by the Nephites because he was similarly DARK-SKINNED and LOOKED LIKE A LAMANITE…BECAUSE HE WAS ONE, right? No! It must have been because he and his men would all “blend right in” because they had that otherwise so evidently obvious — oh, I don’t know! — SPIRITUAL “skin of blackness” on their “countenance” that the enemy would immediately recognize?
It’s just such absurd “lawyering” to propose such a convenient and twisted interpretation, I’m disgusted by it!
This new translation renders 2 Nephi 5 (LDS) above as: “the Lord God made their DARK COUNTENANCE SHOW THROUGH so they wouldn’t be attractive to my people.”
Ugh. “Show through”? I’m not denying this reality, I’m just saying THIS kind of spiritual manifestation has NOTHING to do with race… and matters of “race” are OBVIOUSLY a major component of the Book of Mormon!
What’s happening here is that the “translator”, Denver Snuffer (aka “the Lord”) is conflating the SYMBOL (skin color) with the INTERPRETATION (spiritual wickedness). But it’s NOT either/or! It’s both!
After a thousand years of Nephite history, Mormon boasted: “I am Mormon, and a pure descendant of Lehi” (3 Nephi 5:20) — indicating that his culture, heritage and genetic line had NO AMALGAMATION with the indigenous population (who were dark-skinned, wicked, etc.). He specifically referenced DESCENDANCY, not condition! (What else could a “pure descendant of Lehi” be?) One (of Lehi’s posterity) who just happened to be pure? Why even bring it up, if Mormon’s ancestry wasn’t pertinent or important? Why didn’t he just say “I am Mormon, and my countenance is pure”?
Because the Jews (and Nephites and Lamanites et al) were characteristically perhaps THE GREATEST RACISTS ON EARTH! (Is that not CLEAR to EVERYONE, even today?) The Jews were COMMANDED BY GOD NOT to “mingle their seed” with (marry) foreigners! (Could anything be MORE racist than that?) It’s NOT surprising that the WICKED priests of King Noah married Lamanite women. (What about the divine admonition against “mingling one’s seed”?) And yet this new “translation” pretends that Jesus ALWAYS meant these passages to refer to some “spiritual” emanation of “countenance” that “shows through”, not skin tone or race, when these words are OBVIOUSLY referring to BOTH! It’s preposterous (and insulting) to aver otherwise. Like saying “I’m talking about money, not dollars!” — when dollars are SYMBOLS (or tokens) of money!
How the Lamanites became dark-skinned (like the indigenous population) is left to our imagination. But to conveniently contrive some legalistic, linguistic mumbo jumbo, speaking in “code” to obfuscate the ACTUAL AND APPARENT RACISM of the Nephites and Lamanites, claiming “Jesus” wants this moving forward — consequently “wrapping up” this conflation in an “unassailable” context, MAKING US HAVE TO SWALLOW THIS “LIE” — leads me to wonder if the followers in this group aren’t falling for the very same “trap”, the very “arm of flesh”, their “new” scriptures apparently decry!
It’d be ironic if that were true, because I also see how the same “condemnation” I’m “dishing out” could apply to *me*, a “nobody”, “railing” against the “inspired” and “divinely appointed” Denver Snuffer — a man who, as a person and for his spired work, I actually very much love and appreciate! (I trust he’s “big enough” to handle my “pushback”.)
“Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” (John 20:25.)
What next? We’ll call whoredoms and abominations “celestial marriage” and “spiritual wifery”?
I HATE THIS! (Changing the plain meaning of words to suit our sensibilities.) I LOVE modernizing the scriptures, just not THIS execution.
I guess there’s NO OTHER WAY but stumbling forward, seeing through a glass darkly, making LOTS of mistakes. (Like this one!)
Will,
Thank you for your comment—and for reminding me of our shared baptismal moment back in 2014. That memory is dear to me, and seeing your name again brought it back with clarity. I remember well the group of us who studied, prayed, and worshipped together during that time. It was a sacred season of learning and stepping into new spiritual territory, and I will always be grateful that you were part of it.
We may not see eye to eye today on some of the things we discussed back then, and that’s okay. Life moves us all in different directions, shaped by our experiences and the light we receive along the way. I’m not writing to argue points or challenge what you’ve shared—I believe Denver has already spoken to that clearly. My desire is simply to acknowledge the journey we walked together, however briefly, and to say thank you for the good you brought into my life during that time.
I miss the spirit of those early gatherings—the wine in the sacrament, the heartfelt discussions, the feeling of being among fellow believers searching together. You were part of something that shaped me, and I don’t forget that.
Whatever our present differences, I wish you peace, light, and joy as you continue your walk with the Lord. I hope we can each continue to grow in faith and understanding, even if our paths diverge.
—Tim
I feel the same way you do, Tim. Thank you for your kind words.
I guess I was being argumentative… because I have an argument. I have a REASON for being suspicious, dubious, incredulous. (Many, in fact!)
We were so susceptible (as LDS) to “go with the flow”, “trust the Brethren”, “doubt your doubts”, believe what we were told, and take everything at face value without critical evaluation. “Once the decision has been made, the thinking has been done!”, we were taught. “Refusing to receive counsel” was an excommunicatable offense!
So I do not wish to fall back into atavistic old patterns and be beguiled (again!) by false doctrines.
What are the false doctrines here? Well, I mentioned one: asserting that Nephites and (to some extent) Lamanites and (certainly) Jews in general were NOT avowed racists! (They VERY MUCH WERE! It was practically their entire identity!) They boasted of it, counted on it, and defended it vigorously, even violently! They married cousins and half sisters to preserve it! (The Pride movement has NOTHING on Jews when it comes to group identity!)
Through the gospel of Jesus Christ, these barriers were broken down. Ammon didn’t think it an insult (or impossibility) when a Lamanite king offered his own daughter to wife. The converted four sons of Mosiah pledged to spend the rest of their lives among these dark-skinned people, if it would save some. Apparently these Nephites found these (often) murderous Lamanites NO LONGER “loathsome”, but perhaps even “attractive” and “enticing” now! — despite the Lord God surely continuing to make their “dark countenance show through”!
Am I wrong to mock something so laughably absurd? The modern editors of this great book — The Book of Mormon — have now left a horrible (however well-intentioned) impression of their own bias on the record, claiming they are doing God a service (and are even on his errand!) by FALSIFYING the record, OBSCURING the fact (by use of clever language) that the original writers of the record were evidently racists. Worse than that, they conflate, confound and confuse the physical symbol (“skin of blackness”) with the underlying spiritual condition (“hardness of heart”, or disbelief). They apparently don’t believe the “science”: that the spiritually recalcitrants’ skin color changed due to their harden hearts — so they have to “explain it away”, changing “skin of blackness” to “dark countenance show through”. It’s insulting and absurd!
I, for one, think the spiritually hard-hearted and wicked simply procreated with the (unbelieving) indigenous population — or associated and mistook the indigenous population for descendants of Laman and Lemuel! “Believers” (including Nephi apparently) believe ALL SORTS of nonsense things!
IT DOESN’T ALWAYS HAVE TO MAKE SENSE!
I’ll throw you a bone here: Hebrews are very concrete thinkers. Behavior language is concrete, not abstract. Everything is couched in physical terms. The proud are called “stiff necked”. The unbelieving “hard-hearted”. A wicked demeanor and personality could be said to have a “dark countenance show through”. I have manifest such accountants many times myself,: and I CERTAINLY encounter it another’s. I find such accountants repulsive. So are these changes “wrong”?
They’re wrong only because they’re NOT what the original writers meant! It would be similarly wrong to add new words to the scriptures and say “Jesus said this!”, when he didn’t. Denver REMOVED from his record of John the beloved the scene where Jesus knelt down and wrote in the sand, forgiving the adulterous woman, saying to her “Go and sin no more.” I asked Denver why he removed it. “It wasn’t there,” was all he said. (Denver gets curiously ambiguous when he wants to be!) The implication was that it didn’t happen and that this vignette was added to the scriptures — because apparently it was too good a story to leave out, even if it wasn’t true.
That’s what I think about this whole “dark countenance show through” bit. It’s a spiritual truth “too good to leave out”! Especially since it’s so useful — like the whole “global climate crisis” schtick is useful for raising taxes and controlling behavior. This new “translation” removes the stigma of “racism” from the Covenant of Christ (that otherwise plagues the original Book of Mormon) and it further elevates Denver Snuffer (or whoever authored this new book) to be more of a prophet, seer and revelator, perhaps even the Davidic Servant, who will come and correct and restore all things! A twofer!
What’s next on the list of historical deconstructions for these modern Book of Mormon revisionists?
Anyway, instead of rehashing my old argument, I’d like to know why you consider Denver Snuffer to be a Davidic Servant (whatever that means). Yes, I’ve read what he’s written about himself. (It’s much like Joseph Smith writing a book that claims that he, Joseph, was foreordained by God to write it! Some would say “How convenient!”) And, yes, I’ve read Denver’s observation that the wicked will always be able to find an alternative “explanation”, even “evidence” for disbelief. (There’s “two sides to every coin”!)
The question for me is “Which side am I looking at, heads or tails? True or false? Wicked or righteous? True prophet or false prophet?” It can’t ALWAYS be projection! We can’t always be judged by how we judge?
Or can we? If we call evil good and good evil, we most certainly can!
I like Denver. I would say that I love Denver! But do I believe Denver or follow his lead when he leads us to say that we KNOW Jesus Christi as directed Denver to do all this? That he (Jesus) dictated this, received this and “accepted” it? WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE that ANY of that is true?
I like Denver’s teachings. I find them very insightful and PACKED with truth. Inspired. Amazing actually! Like you, I’ve spent hundreds of hours marveling at how Denver has “pulled out” so much truth from such seemingly ambiguous and unimportant verses of the Book of Mormon! His “untangling” of Mormonism — both sniffing and Snuffering out the heavenly gift! — was absolutely phenomenal!
But he MUST “make the case”. ALWAYS. Not by “priesthood authority”, but persuasion, etc. There has to be second witnesses — SOMETHING! — to convince me that Denver Snuffer is ACTUALLY interacting with Jesus Christ really and not just having seances with Satan!
Now the difference between the works and words of Denver Snuffer and “the Brethren” (of the LDS Church) is night and day. One is chicken salad and the other is chicken @$&#. One inspires, educates and informs while the other placates, patronizes, puts down, and puts to sleep.
I have thought Denver to have a tremendous gift, be inspired, and be a useful tool in the Lord’s hand from the very beginning. But I have also found Rob Smith to be equally inspired (if not more so). And I don’t see Rob Smith jumping on Denver bandwagon! (On the contrary!)
I love them both. I find BOTH to be amazing, inspiring conduits of truth! While Rob’s focus is “atomistic” — he wants EACH INDIVIDUAL to come to Christ, REGARDLESS of their associations with others — Denver’s focus is decidedly “collectivist”. He seeks to bring us (as a group) to God.
I believe both are “right”! I want to come to God individually and I want to be gathered in a group! I just don’t want to be told “bow your head and say yes”! I DON’T BELIEVE THAT ANYMORE! I want to be gathered by Jesus, not Denver! I want to be taught by God, not Rob!
That is all.
In my comment above “accountants” should be “a countenance”. Makes a difference!
I’d briefly respond to Will Carter’s complaints based upon my understanding of the matter as follows:
Unlike Will’s complaint that it is a challenge to compare the texts because of the return to the original chapter divisions, it’s quite easy to do a comparison, as the website read.covenantofchrist.org provides every verse of both the Book of Mormon and Covenant of Christ in two columns running the same materials side-by-side allowing an easy review of both to take place.
Second, the conversions of Lamanites to the faith of the Nephites, and the rebellion of the Nephites that resulted in their moving to live among the Lamanites shows in both instances that the appearances of the two groups was not superficial and easily noticed. It was not their “skin” but their behavior, conduct and dress that distinguished them. There is never any mention of physically discernible attributes that mark them as physically distinct when the different groups ‘changed sides’ in the cultural conflicts. True enough, the Lamanites abandoned the traditional Bedouin garb kept by the Nephites, dressed in loincloths and therefore would have had some recognizable differences as a result. But the different groups homogenized into divided sides based on political and religious differences, and freely intermingled so much so that in the end it required groups to self-identify as Lamanites and Nephites, Jacobites, Zoramites, Lemuelites, etc. because they were one family distinguished by behavior and not by genetic composition. The “darkness” understood by the early Book of Mormon readers is akin to cowboys wearing black hats or white hats in 1940s movies from Hollywood. It was a moral and religious division that was detectible by conduct of the respective sides.
Denver,
So you’re saying “skin of blackness” is perhaps a hebrewism, an idiomatic expression describing abstract behavior in concrete terms — like “stiff necked” means proud, “hard-hearted” means disbelieving, cruel, stubborn, or insensitive to the Spirit of God (and others); likewise “blind of eye” (or mind) and “deaf of ear” means ignorant, unable or unwilling to acknowledge or receive more, etc., or “hungering” and “thirsting” after righteousness.
You’re saying the Lamanite spies that were sent to provide fortified wine to their brethren were chosen not because of their dark skin (because they didn’t have any), but rather because they were Lamanites — and therefore familiar with the customs and culture, behavior and language of their brethren. They could speak “German” without a “British” accent (unlike the Nephites). They knew who last year’s Pok-A-Tok champion was!
So you’re saying “skin of blackness” means “an outward manifestation of inward filthiness and disbelief” — the opposite of Christ’s countenance, which “radiates” and is holy, sinless, pure, spotless, clean, and “white”, not vulgar, slothful, crude, indolent, disrespectful, lascivious, or having any other “worldly” trait. The “converted” were different. They “shined like a light”! They were transformed! Even born again!
I can’t say that’s a bad argument, Denver. That’s actually a VERY GOOD argument! I’m going to have to check, but I think you’re on to something!
I brought you my “strong reasoning” — my strongest! — and you brought fourth reasoning that was even stronger! I shouldn’t have brought a knife to a gunfight!
I have to admit, Denver, YOU’VE DONE IT AGAIN! You’ve BLOWN MY MIND and SOFTENED MY HEART! (That’s TWO MORE concrete metaphors for you!) I’m weeping as “scales of darkness” are literally “falling from my eyes”. (That’s TWO MORE!) You have brought forth light out of darkness and pulled truth, as it were, out of the ground!
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. You’ve been doing it for many many years–for as long as I’ve known you. Your works and your words speak for themselves.
I’m going to continue to study and pray about this, with this new understanding, until I make it my own. Forgive me if I was over-bearing. I had to punch as hard as I could! I don’t want to be knocked down again!
But, in reality, that’s really not the right metaphor for this situation. I’m GLAD you knocked me down. I ALWAYS want to lie prostrate before the TRUTH.
Thank you.
Pingback: The Covenant of Christ: How It Came to Be and Why It Matters - Latter-day Commentary - Last Days - Signs of the Times