The following talk by Denver Snuffer was presented at the “Let Us Rejoice” General Conference, held in the Jewett Auditorium at the College of Idaho, Caldwell, Idaho, on Sunday, August 31, 2025.

I don’t want to stand on a soapbox [moving the step at the podium].

First, I’d like to thank all of the people involved in the organizing of this conference and for the clever innovation that they chose for this conference, because normally, every minute is accounted for with talks and audiences and a few people participating. This one had essentially everyone who was involved participating.

(Hey, Rob, I’m gonna ask you to do something in a minute. So get off your damn phone. [chuckling] Dan, I’m gonna ask you too in just a minute.) 

The second edition of the Scriptures has been ordered. The funds have been collected, the deposit has been paid, the paper has been ordered, the leather has been selected, the work on that project has begun, and the typesetting is awaiting a decision on two matters.

When the work of getting it to a print-ready submission (which is a deadline coming up in just a few days) presented a couple of issues, I was asked about approving some changes to be made to the Scriptures. And because the issue has been previously addressed by a vote, it was my position that I don’t have the right to make any change to anything that has been voted upon. And so it presented a dilemma, and the solution was to take a vote today about two matters that need to be approved by the voice of the people and not by me.

The first one is that as the type-setting was being done, a prayer and an answer to the prayer were submitted for approval as a single section of the Teachings and Commandments. That is not at all like the division of the prayer into one section and the answer to the prayer into a second section, as the precedent that was followed throughout the Teachings and Commandments otherwise. So I was asked if we could take and divide 182 from 183—section 182 from 183—instead of having them both combined into a single section. And I said I don’t have that right. We will take a vote. 

The second issue is the… For some reason, when the original Scriptures were being submitted and approved, the Book of James was renamed Jacob because that is a more accurate representation of the original Hebrew name. But by doing that, it required any reference that had been previously made to James to be altered to Jacob, and then a parenthetical inserted that says “(James)” so that you knew who you were talking about. In type setting the new Scriptures, it just makes sense to get rid of the Jacob and go back to James and leave it consistent with what is otherwise found in the New Testament. Instead of Peter, Jacob, and John, we’ll go back to Peter, James, and John, and the Book of James [Jacob] would revert back to James. 

Likewise, Jude was changed to Judas. And so the Book of Judas needs to go back to being the Book of Jude to be consistent, since we are now incorporating in[to] the text the King James versification. It just makes sense to go all the way and make it more consistent. 

So we need to have a vote to finalize the typesetting on two matters: 

• The first matter is getting approval to divide the prayer and the answer from one another into two sections instead of leaving them as one. 





• And the second is to revert the names of Jacob and Judas back to James and Jude. 

Now, I knew when I got up here, it was gonna be really hard for me to be able to see the vote, which is why I said, “Dan and Rob, I’d like you to help me out.” Would you guys stand and face the audience? I’m gonna have people raise their hand and vote yes, and then vote no. And I need both of you (who probably have better line of sight without these in your eyes) tell me if the vote carries. So, if you’d stand… I’d like everyone to raise your hand if you vote yes and to raise your hand if you vote no on this first matter. 

It’s proposed that we divide the prayer and the answer that has been voted upon previously as a single section into two separated sections, one being the prayer and the second section being the answer. 

All of those who are in favor of voting “yes” for that, would you please raise your hand? [voting]

Okay, lower your hand. And all of those who are opposed to doing that, would you please raise your hand? [voting]

Is… Both of you agree that the vote carried, that we’re…? [acknowledgment from Dan and Rob that the vote carried] Okay.

The second matter is: It’s proposed that we revert from Jacob back to James and from Judas back to Jude in the books of the New Testament and in the references found there. 

All of those who can approve that change, would you please raise your hand? [voting]

Okay, lower your hands. And anyone who is opposed to that, would you please raise your hand? [voting]

Lower your hands. And Dan and Rob, do you agree that the vote carried? [acknowledgment from Dan and Rob that the vote carried] 

Okay. Well, that takes care of that. And I’m no longer responsible for making any changes that are beyond what I view my limited role to be.

—————

Today’s talk is really intended only for Covenant Christians. It probably won’t make much sense at all to those who are outside this viewpoint.

Although we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies so that our children can know to what source they can look for a remission of their sins (2 Nephi 11:8), there remains much that is unacknowledged about Jesus Christ. This talk will defend His status as the greatest of God’s creations. The title of this talk is “In Defense of Jesus Christ.” 

There are misunderstandings about Him that need to be corrected. He explained to Abraham: …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 (Abraham 5:4). We can read those words without any idea of how significant they are and how much they tell us about our Lord.

It is possible this talk will challenge long-held religious beliefs for many of you. If so, be patient and let this settle on your mind to see how it illuminates your understanding. Nothing is better suited to helping us progress than receiving new truth. On the other hand, when truths are rejected, it interferes with our progress. Rejecting or refusing to receive new truth is what damns us. 

Nephi wanted for mankind to keep an open mind capable of welcoming new instruction from Heaven. Nephi wrote: 

Woe to those who say: We’ve received God’s word; we don’t need more of God’s word because we have enough. This is what the Lord God has said: I’ll give mankind line upon line, a teaching here and a teaching there, a little here and a little there. Those who follow My teachings and listen to My counsel are blessed since they’ll learn wisdom. And I’ll give more to those who receive; but from those who say we have enough, even what they have will be taken away. Those who put their trust in the scholarly arrogance of men or follow the false teachings of a man are cursed, because only those teachings given by the power of the Holy Ghost are true. The Lord God of Hosts has said: Woe to the Gentiles; because despite extending My welcoming arm to them from day to day, they will deny Me. (2 Nephi 12:6-7 CE)

With this talk, you can consider things you have already heard in a new light that changes the picture by removing shadows. You do not need new or additional Scriptures to learn what’s in this talk. All you need is to be willing to accept what the Scriptures state.

Because of the mission of Joseph Smith and, in particular, the funeral sermon for King Follett, we know more than other Christians about the Lord and the plan for mankind’s salvation. Sometimes that additional understanding results in unwarranted assumptions about how similar we are to Him. LDS Church President Lorenzo Snow stated it this way: “As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be[come].” This brief assertion foolishly omits any recognition of the nearly incomprehensible gulf between who and what Jesus Christ is and all that He has accomplished, on the one hand, and where and what we are, on the other. The Follett sermon and Lorenzo Snow’s statement are both true but have proven to be quite misleading. A great deal separates and distinguishes Him from us. This talk will address that great gulf.

There’s a necessary balance between the awesome stature of Jesus Christ compared with our weak and embryonic state, on the one hand, and recognizing He cares for and wants to comfort us on our journey, on the other hand. We should be in awe about Him and recognize His willingness to accompany us on our way. I’m so humbled by Him that even as I talk respectfully of Him, it seems completely inadequate. 

Defending Jesus Christ begins by explaining the reasons for justified awe and amazement. He is the “gatekeeper” on the upward path to God’s Throne. Everyone must confront Him before we will be permitted to enter God’s Kingdom. Before that, we should attempt to understand Him, His role, His accomplishments, and how very dependent we are upon Him, in order to help understand that upward pathway to God’s Throne.

Christ progressed over eons in “worlds without end” on a journey that prepared Him before His birth in this world. He completed His long journey here in this world. How long the Lord’s development took is not fully revealed in Scripture, but Scripture makes