What is the DEAL w/ Denver Snuffer?

[alter idem]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

It not the reasoning, but it is the dating of it from his own excommunication that is a red flag for me, as if all the previous excommunications where leaders attempted to compel (as he defines it) others were trivial, but when it happens to him, it seals the deal.

It should have been a red flag to his supporters, but some did not see it. I don't know if he'll ever admit it, but his actions suggest he admits to himself that he's different.  He receives revelation for his group of followers some of the first was his revelation on the Statement of Principles and that sets him apart, whether he is willing to admit it or not.

Revelation given to the Remnant through Denver Snuffer, who is called 'David'.

Quote

You are not excused from writing a statement of principles that I have required at your hands. I forbade my servant David from participating, and again forbid him. But I require a statement of principles to be adopted by the mutual agreement of my people, for if you cannot do so you will be unable to accomplish other works that I will require at your hands. When you have an agreed statement of principles I require it to also be added as a guide and standard for my people to follow. Remember there are others who know nothing, as yet, of my work now underway, and therefore the guide and standard is to bless, benefit and inform them—so I command you to be wise in word and kind in deed as you write what I require of you.

Do you indeed desire to be my people? Then accept and do as I have required.

https://scriptures.info/Principles

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, boo said:

 Your  recollection is correct . It was in the middle of the 10th talk given in Mesa. His point was that Section 121 of the D and C meant what it said.If we use the priesthood to try to compel men we might as well as say goodby to it. D and C 121 :36-37 . In his case his SP acting under the direction of Russel Nelson instructed him to not begin his previously announced 10 talks and stop publishing his book . The order came from the very top of the church. It was an order and was a blatant attempt to compel  some one to do something. Clearly in violation of the express wording of the scriptures. He said no and was excommunicated on the 40th anniversary of his baptism ( I am not making this up). He appealed his excommunication but the appeal was denied. Now you tell me do the scriptures mean what they say or not? Are there really personal or institutional consequences to abusing your priesthood authority by trying to compel others to do what you say. If your answer is no not really as( I think  most believe) then it is foolish to think that just because a Church leader abused his authority and all the other church leadership acquiesced in that abuse there would be any consequences. But if you believe the word of God has power and you ignore it at your peril what Snuffer said may actually make a LOT of sense. See we have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling..

I believe the scriptures mean what they say, but I don't believe that they mean everything that Snuffer says they say.  

[let’s roll]

On 7/19/2019 at 6:35 PM, boo said:

 Your  recollection is correct . It was in the middle of the 10th talk given in Mesa. His point was that Section 121 of the D and C meant what it said.If we use the priesthood to try to compel men we might as well as say goodby to it. D and C 121 :36-37 . In his case his SP acting under the direction of Russel Nelson instructed him to not begin his previously announced 10 talks and stop publishing his book . The order came from the very top of the church. It was an order and was a blatant attempt to compel  some one to do something. Clearly in violation of the express wording of the scriptures. He said no and was excommunicated on the 40th anniversary of his baptism ( I am not making this up). He appealed his excommunication but the appeal was denied. Now you tell me do the scriptures mean what they say or not? Are there really personal or institutional consequences to abusing your priesthood authority by trying to compel others to do what you say. If your answer is no not really as( I think  most believe) then it is foolish to think that just because a Church leader abused his authority and all the other church leadership acquiesced in that abuse there would be any consequences. But if you believe the word of God has power and you ignore it at your peril what Snuffer said may actually make a LOT of sense. See we have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling..

 If, as you say, the “order” came from the “top of the church” then it came from the Savior and thus no man was trying to compel Mr. Snuffer.

Additionally, Church leaders who are called as common judges in Israel are duty bound to inform members of the Church engaged in activities that put their membership at risk of the consequences of their actions.  There’s no compulsion in doing so, as evidenced in this example where Mr. Snuffer proceeded to ignore counsel and do as he pleased.

I believe Section 121 means what it says and I don’t see anything that is, as you suggest, “clearly in violation of the express wording of the scriptures” In the circumstances you related.

 

 

[The Nehor]

On 7/19/2019 at 7:35 PM, boo said:

 Your  recollection is correct . It was in the middle of the 10th talk given in Mesa. His point was that Section 121 of the D and C meant what it said.If we use the priesthood to try to compel men we might as well as say goodby to it. D and C 121 :36-37 . In his case his SP acting under the direction of Russel Nelson instructed him to not begin his previously announced 10 talks and stop publishing his book . The order came from the very top of the church. It was an order and was a blatant attempt to compel  some one to do something. Clearly in violation of the express wording of the scriptures. He said no and was excommunicated on the 40th anniversary of his baptism ( I am not making this up). He appealed his excommunication but the appeal was denied. Now you tell me do the scriptures mean what they say or not? Are there really personal or institutional consequences to abusing your priesthood authority by trying to compel others to do what you say. If your answer is no not really as( I think  most believe) then it is foolish to think that just because a Church leader abused his authority and all the other church leadership acquiesced in that abuse there would be any consequences. But if you believe the word of God has power and you ignore it at your peril what Snuffer said may actually make a LOT of sense. See we have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling..

The idea that consequences and compulsion are the same thing is a satanic lie.

[boo]

Let’s Roll. I find your response rather remarkable. First by saying the Savior is the head of the church and by implication the person who directed the ultimatum to Snuffer you are assuming the very question in controversy. Logic 101 failure. Secondly your position ,if I understand correctly, that ultimatums are not compulsion just eviscerated the whole principle of Section 121. Given that corporal punishment or financial penalties can not be imposed upon church members by the corporate church what do you think compulsion means in Section 121 ? Elder Nelson sent the message “do as I say or you will be excommunicated “. What more abusive form of compulsion could there be?

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The idea that consequences and compulsion are the same thing is a satanic lie.

Satan wants to cut people off from the priesthood. He, sadly, was successful with Snuffer and his pack

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, boo said:

Let’s Roll. I find your response rather remarkable. First by saying the Savior is the head of the church and by implication the person who directed the ultimatum to Snuffer you are assuming the very question in controversy. Logic 101 failure. Secondly your position ,if I understand correctly, that ultimatums are not compulsion just eviscerated the whole principle of Section 121. Given that corporal punishment or financial penalties can not be imposed upon church members by the corporate church what do you think compulsion means in Section 121 ? Elder Nelson sent the message “do as I say or you will be excommunicated “. What more abusive form of compulsion could there be?

What would you suggest be done for a true apostate teaching false doctrine to members in a hypothetical situation?

Are you suggesting Joseph Smith believe or never excommunicated anyone or if he did, he was wrong?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, boo said:

Let’s Roll. I find your response rather remarkable. First by saying the Savior is the head of the church and by implication the person who directed the ultimatum to Snuffer you are assuming the very question in controversy. Logic 101 failure. Secondly your position ,if I understand correctly, that ultimatums are not compulsion just eviscerated the whole principle of Section 121. Given that corporal punishment or financial penalties can not be imposed upon church members by the corporate church what do you think compulsion means in Section 121 ? Elder Nelson sent the message “do as I say or you will be excommunicated “. What more abusive form of compulsion could there be?

Which is neither corporal nor financial punishment. In fact from a secular point of view he is forbidden from paying tithing so it could be seen as a financial boon.

As to your “what more abusive form of compulsion could there be” please use some imagination. The threat of death, rape, beatings, imprisonment, slavery, and torture are all much more abusive means of attempting to compel obedience. Denver Snuffer was not excommunicated to force obedience; he was excommunicated for his hypocrisy. He wanted to claim membership while flagrantly violating what that designation means. He excommunicated himself with his actions. The church just ratified his choice. As to it being compulsion the Church did no such thing. They gave him a choice. He has every right to claim revelation and lead people to hell. The Church is just not under any obligation to pretend he is a member in good standing while he does so.

Ultimatums are also not always abusive.

[let’s roll]

4 hours ago, boo said:

Let’s Roll. I find your response rather remarkable. First by saying the Savior is the head of the church and by implication the person who directed the ultimatum to Snuffer you are assuming the very question in controversy. Logic 101 failure. Secondly your position ,if I understand correctly, that ultimatums are not compulsion just eviscerated the whole principle of Section 121. Given that corporal punishment or financial penalties can not be imposed upon church members by the corporate church what do you think compulsion means in Section 121 ? Elder Nelson sent the message “do as I say or you will be excommunicated “. What more abusive form of compulsion could there be?

Thanks to @Calm and @The Nehor for chiming in and expounding on my earlier post.

As to Boo’s claim that the post lacked logic, I point out that it was Boo, not me, who characterized the “order” as coming from “the very top of the church.”  I don’t claim to know if there was an order, and if there was, who it came from.  I was only pointing out that any order that comes from the very top of the church, comes from the Savior, as it is His Church.  No fault in logic there. 

I’d invite Boo to revisit the logic of his/her characterizing something as coming from the very top of the church if he/she doesn’t believe it came from Jesus.

[alter idem]

19 hours ago, let’s roll said:

Thanks to @Calm and @The Nehor for chiming in and expounding on my earlier post.

As to Boo’s claim that the post lacked logic, I point out that it was Boo, not me, who characterized the “order” as coming from “the very top of the church.”  I don’t claim to know if there was an order, and if there was, who it came from.  I was only pointing out that any order that comes from the very top of the church, comes from the Savior, as it is His Church.  No fault in logic there. 

I’d invite Boo to revisit the logic of his/her characterizing something as coming from the very top of the church if he/she doesn’t believe it came from Jesus.

I also question the claim that an order came from the top of the church as it's being presented.  Who was it that made this claim, I wonder?  Was his Stake Pres. apprised of Denver Snuffer's activities by church leaders?  Very likely, but does that mean he was 'ordered' to excommunicate him without even looking into the evidence?  I reject that notion.  I believe some make the claim that an 'order came from the top' because it makes Snuffer a martyr for his cause for him and his supporters to spin it that way.  As I recall, Denver was called in to his SP about his book, Passing the Heavenly Gift. this was the time where Snuffer could have turned this whole thing around.  I don't know if it had been published yet or it was another printing, but he was told to cease the publication and not to give his planned lecture series. If this is the case, someone must have told his Stake Pres. about the book and lectures, IMO, and had likely been reading his blog and his SP was told to look into the situation.  As for me, it didn't take much in reading his writings to see that he was teaching false doctrine as it was blatant.  He was also gaining a following and his book Passing the Heavenly Gift included a lot of misinterpretation of church history, and an indictment of the church and it's leaders and members.  It is the right and responsibility for a Stake President to look into something that is brought to his attention, and obviously, he felt that Denver needed to be warned that he was teaching false doctrine, he was headed for apostasy (which is the way he went) and he was leading others to follow his example (which unfortunately he has) and he refused.  That is why he was excommunicated--because he rejected the counsel of church leaders who preside over him. It was the correct decision, and the fruits of Denver Snuffer's actions since then have only proven that they were right in their decision.  But the fact is, this was always his choice, there was no compulsion or coercion.  Denver Snuffer made a choice and he and his supporters ignore that choice in favor of blaming others for the outcome.

[SettingDogStar]

So what we’ve come to is that we don’t think that it has to be couched one KVJ to be considered legitimate. Just that sometime that can be a red flag.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

So what we’ve come to is that we don’t think that it has to be couched one KVJ to be considered legitimate. Just that sometime that can be a red flag.

I do not think it is an indicator either way.

[Judd]

Out of the entire nearly 200 year history of the church, of all the controversies that could have taken place, of all the leaders who have made mistakes and perhaps even excommunicated people unjustly, I’ve always found it conveniently narcissistic that it was the excommunication of Denver Snuffer that caused the church to lose its priesthood authority. Not every other individual unjustly excommunicated, but Denver Snuffer.

[alter idem]

19 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

So what we’ve come to is that we don’t think that it has to be couched one KVJ to be considered legitimate. Just that sometime that can be a red flag.

 I don't think it matters what Bible version he uses; it's his interpretation of some scriptures that leads him away from truth, IMO.

Caspianrex asked for information about Denver Snuffer jr. I shared what I know.  Granted, I'm critical of his choices and the movement he spawned.

[SettingDogStar]

49 minutes ago, alter idem said:

 I don't think it matters what Bible version he uses; it's his interpretation of some scriptures that leads him away from truth, IMO.

Caspianrex asked for information about Denver Snuffer jr. I shared what I know.  Granted, I'm critical of his choices and the movement he spawned.

Oh I’m not talking about Denver haha I’m more talking about revelation from

the president of the church. The conversation on the thread seems to agree that it wouldn’t really matter to much how the revelation is worded.

[SettingDogStar]

1 hour ago, Judd said:

Out of the entire nearly 200 year history of the church, of all the controversies that could have taken place, of all the leaders who have made mistakes and perhaps even excommunicated people unjustly, I’ve always found it conveniently narcissistic that it was the excommunication of Denver Snuffer that caused the church to lose its priesthood authority. Not every other individual unjustly excommunicated, but Denver Snuffer.

If he had literally picked almost anything else it would have made his claim a little more legitimate. At least the break offs like RLDS and FLDS have better claims lol

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, SettingDogStar said:

Oh I’m not talking about Denver haha I’m more talking about revelation from

the president of the church. The conversation on the thread seems to agree that it wouldn’t really matter to much how the revelation is worded.

God talks in our own language as He said in the Doctrine and Covenants. Unsurprisingly the Holy Ghost sometimes uses sarcasm to communicate to me.  

[Judd]

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, SettingDogStar said:

If he had literally picked almost anything else it would have made his claim a little more legitimate. At least the break offs like RLDS and FLDS have better claims lol

The FLDS suffers a bit when you look at their revelations. Here is Jesus on plural marriage:

 “Let my holy will now be of full knowing. I had many wives during my holy way of ministry on earth, which was a reason leaders of Jews wanted me to be of a way of not dwelling among men on earth. They learned I was of full living Celestial Plural Marriage Union. I was husband on earth to wives pure, holy, noble, of only pure holy way. Let this be to thy knowing that my Eternal Union Order is holy, of me, thy Lord.”

And God is mad at us:

“For that branch called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, known by the world, has become corrupt, and broke away from my Priesthood authority, and they rejected by Celestial Law of Marriage, and I, the Lord, have rejected them. And they shall be brought low, and feel the chastening hand of God for all their abominations against the laws of God. And I say unto this people of this nation, repent ye, repent ye, for my judgments are already upon you, and will soon be poured out without measure, beginning at the house of God; those who have professed to know my name, and have blasphemed against me, and changed the law and ordinances of my Gospel, and submitted to the ways and persuasions of men.”

And at everyone else in the Americas. Not about general sinfulness. Nope, it is all about plural marriage and being a meanie to Warren Jeffs:

“Let my warning be to you, as Isaiah prophesied, that the covenant with death and agreement of evil, with the doing away of my Celestial Plural Marriage Law and you fighting against my Priesthood, all shall come to an end, when I cause my judgments to cleanse Zion, even all North and South America, to prepare for my glory in New Jerusalem. . . . I shall cleanse my land of Zion. My warnings have now gone forth.” 

Then you have his ban on sex while he was in prison and then his secret (or possibly sacred) announcement that 15 men (seed bearers) were to have sex with all the women in the community to impregnate them even though this is quite clearly adultery. 

And this radical take on race:

“The black race is the people through which the devil has always been able to bring evil unto the earth.”

And some reviews of Jeff’s book:

“First this book is by Warren Jeffs, the FLDS leader in jail for child molestation, not "C. Christ". I was just curious what all the news about this book was about. Even for a "scripture" type book, which can often be hard to read, it was so hard to follow I gave up. There was no order or flow to his ramblings. It made me think of that guy on the street corner holding up a sign titles "The end is near", and covered in the ramblings of a person with a mental illness.”

“This book makes a decent door prop, table leveler and self-defense weapon.

I often enjoy unsolicited mailings, phone calls, text messages and knocks on my door. I often even respond graciously saying I am at dinner, even if it is 10am; especially if they cannot say my name correctly.

I would compost this book but I am afraid all my tomatoes would start sprouting prophetic verse. Oh, I could use them to fend off the saturday morning evangelicals who want to pray with me. Perhaps if I leave the book on my front porch, they wouldn't come to the door as they would think this is a house of the insane.

In any event, don't just toss the book, recycle it and rest easy that these folks are killing millions of trees just to fill up landfills with their words of wisdom that will never decompose!”

“This was just sent to our High School library. It is going to make the perfect white elephant at our faculty party tonight!”

And a believer....maybe:

Warns of coming Judgements. I would recommend this book above all others for all people in all lands to read as soon as possible.”

[Calm]

On 7/22/2019 at 10:52 AM, Calm said:

What would you suggest be done for a true apostate teaching false doctrine to members in a hypothetical situation?

Are you suggesting Joseph Smith believe or never excommunicated anyone or if he did, he was wrong?

Somehow I don’t think boo is going to answer the above as they have visited the board since posted, but gone away silent. 

[boo]

Sorry to disappoint but the press of substantial things has delayed my response. I doubt that my response will prove satisfactory to many of you. The problem is we all have our carefully constructed paradigms and asKuhn pointed out in Structure of Scientific Revolutions  shifting a carefully and painfully constructed paradigm is very difficult. See 2 Nephi 28. You assume Christ directs the prophet today as he clearly did at times in the past .but look at the evidence. How many times since Joseph has a president of the church publicly proclaimed that he while in the presence of the Savior he received direction from the Savior about the church should be run.The answer is NONE. Since the Savior said that the Church had lost the fullness of the Priesthood  D C 124 has it been restored ? Do you believe the Savior  when he said the church would be rejected Section 124 3Nephi16.Do you believe that that the church and the members were blessed or cursed after Joseph death D C 124. Were they removed out of their place or did they stay unmolesteded in Nauvoo. That is why I said your comment about Christ being the head is assuming the very issue in controversy is a logical error.. Secondly ask how many people were excommunicated for teaching false doctrine by Joseph . The answer is NONE. Teaching false doctrine is heresy leaving the church is apostasy.But knowing that Joseph taught you should not excommunicate for heresy the church has reworked the definition to suit ther own purpose ? Incidentally I am an active member.Been in multiple bishoprics been a temple worker for years and have a Stake callingtgat requirements49 hours a month. I add this because I fully expect to be attacked. It happens I have a testimony of the Savior and the Bool ofMormon and hold aTR but I love the scriptures and the truth more than the philosophies of men 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, boo said:

. Secondly ask how many people were excommunicated for teaching false doctrine by Joseph . The answer is NONE.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.  I know that some posters are very busy and reading posts takes less time when not responding.  

Could you please explain how Joseph was not advocating for excommunication for teaching false doctrine is appropriate in the below cases (provided by a friend who has a fantastic database btw)?:

Quote

Say to the brothers Hulet and to all others, that the Lord never authorized them to say that the devil, his angels, or the sons of perdition, should ever be restored; for their state of destiny was not revealed to man, is not revealed, nor ever shall be revealed, save to those who are made partakers thereof: consequently those who teach this doctrine have not received it of the Spirit of the Lord. Truly Brother Oliver declared it to be the doctrine of devils. We, therefore, command that this doctrine be taught no more in Zion. We sanction the decision of the Bishop and his council, in relation to this doctrine being a bar to communion.     

(Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and arranged by Joseph Fielding Smith, p.24)

 

Quote

We have also had brethren and sisters who have written revelations, and who have started forward to lead this Church. Such was a young boy in Kirtland, Isaac Russell, of Missouri, and Gladden Bishop, and Oliver Olney of Nauvoo. The boy is now living with his parents who have submitted to the laws of the Church. Mr. Russell stayed in Far West, from whence he was to go to the Rocky Mountains, led by three Nephites; but the Nephites never came, and his friends forsook him, all but some of the blood relations, who have since been nearly destroyed by the mob. Mr. Bishop was tried by the High Council, his papers examined, condemned and burned, and he cut off the Church. He acknowledged the justice of the decision, and said "that he now saw his error, for if he had been governed by the revelations given before, he might have known that no man was to write revelations for the Church, but Joseph Smith," and begged to be prayed for, and forgiven by the brethren. Mr. Olney has also been tried by the High Council and disfellowshiped, because he would not have his writings tested by the word of God; evidently proving that he loves darkness rather than light, because his deeds are evil. (April 1, 1842.)    

(Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and arranged by Joseph Fielding Smith, p.215)

 

 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, boo said:

Sorry to disappoint but the press of substantial things has delayed my response. I doubt that my response will prove satisfactory to many of you. The problem is we all have our carefully constructed paradigms and asKuhn pointed out in Structure of Scientific Revolutions  shifting a carefully and painfully constructed paradigm is very difficult. See 2 Nephi 28. You assume Christ directs the prophet today as he clearly did at times in the past .but look at the evidence. How many times since Joseph has a president of the church publicly proclaimed that he while in the presence of the Savior he received direction from the Savior about the church should be run.The answer is NONE. Since the Savior said that the Church had lost the fullness of the Priesthood  D C 124 has it been restored ? Do you believe the Savior  when he said the church would be rejected Section 124 3Nephi16.Do you believe that that the church and the members were blessed or cursed after Joseph death D C 124. Were they removed out of their place or did they stay unmolesteded in Nauvoo. That is why I said your comment about Christ being the head is assuming the very issue in controversy is a logical error.. Secondly ask how many people were excommunicated for teaching false doctrine by Joseph . The answer is NONE. Teaching false doctrine is heresy leaving the church is apostasy.But knowing that Joseph taught you should not excommunicate for heresy the church has reworked the definition to suit ther own purpose ? Incidentally I am an active member.Been in multiple bishoprics been a temple worker for years and have a Stake callingtgat requirements49 hours a month. I add this because I fully expect to be attacked. It happens I have a testimony of the Savior and the Bool ofMormon and hold aTR but I love the scriptures and the truth more than the philosophies of men 

Section 124 told them they lost the fullness of the Priesthood due to the loss of the temple. They built another one. So yes, it was restored.

49 hours is an oddly specific number.

The only attack I would offer is on your horrible use of spacing in your post.

[Calm]

Here is some moredocumentation on Gladden Bishop (provided by FM friends):

Quote

“After the business of the day was closed, I attend the trial of Elder Gladden F. Bishop at President Joseph Smith House, & it was an interesting time. Gladden had set himself up as some great thing for 8 or 9 years & the church had been so much troubled with him by his foolish conduct that he had been cut off a number of times from the Church & restored, & he had now set himself up as a prophet & Revelator to the church & a number of his revelations were brought forward & red before the congregations & it was the greatest Bundle of Nonsens ever put together. It would have taken Gladden Bishop ten thousand Years to have accomplished the work which he said in his pretended revelations he should perform. He took the name of God in vain & his crime was so great in his Blaspheming God in his pretended revelations that Joseph the Seer said that nothing would excuse him in the sight of God & angels in commiting the unpardonable sin ownly because he was a fool & had not sens sufficient for the Holy Ghost to enlighten him. After his Revelations were read condemned & commited to the flames he was cut off from the Church & given over to the buffetings of Satan untill the day of the Lord Jesus.”

 

Wilford Woodruff Journal, 11 March, 1842.

boo, this seems to me a clear case of Joseph Smith being a party to excommunicating a man for teaching false doctrine.  What is your opinion/interpretation of it? (Serious question, I am very interested in people's different understandings...I will try and be more patient in waiting for an answer when you have enough free time.)

Edited July 26, 2019 by Calm

[SettingDogStar]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Here is some moredocumentation on Gladden Bishop (provided by FM friends):

boo, this seems to me a clear case of Joseph Smith being a party to excommunicating a man for teaching false doctrine.  What is your opinion/interpretation of it? (Serious question, I am very interested in people's different understandings...I will try and be more patient in waiting for an answer when you have enough free time.)

This is a really interesting case to be sure. Reading the case though makes it sound like he was cut off 1)for repeatedly getting cut off, fake repenting, and then doing his sins again and 2) creating repeated revelations that were against the church and Joseph and setting himself up as "some great thing." It wasn't so much the false doctrine alone that got him cut off.