Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
caspianrex

What is the DEAL w/ Denver Snuffer?

Recommended Posts

I bought Snuffer's book 13 verses a few years ago and thought it was good.  After reading this book I gave a gift to my dad for Christmas The Second Comforter.  A few months later Snuffer got in trouble, and my dad complained that I gave him an apostate book.  I had no idea, having never read the Passing the Heavenly Gift book.  

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I bought Snuffer's book 13 verses a few years ago and thought it was good.  After reading this book I gave a gift to my dad for Christmas The Second Comforter.  A few months later Snuffer got in trouble, and my dad complained that I gave him an apostate book.  I had no idea, having never read the Passing the Heavenly Gift book.  

I really liked the Second Comforter. I thought it was well written and while I understood most of the information it was plainly written. Just because someone gets tossed out of the church doesn’t immediately invalidate previous good works/writings, which is unfortunately what most members that i know might think. However if that was the case we’d have to toss out the testimony of the three witnesses and “The Vision”! 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/13/2019 at 2:42 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

He's some dude who began receiving revelation about how and when the church started going wrong, and got himself excommunicated.  I hear he's got a small following somewhere.  The most remarkable thing about him, is that's his real name, and no, it doesn't really mean anything in particular, or have anything to do with anything.  

Not nearly as nutty as the nutters who have visions of the last days and tent cities, and go buy winnebagoes and pick the place for Temporary New Zion in the rocky mountains.  Just sort of nutty.

Actually, Snuffer's name is exceedingly rich and symbolic in meaning. The following info should send chills up and down your spine.

https://biblehub.com/topical/s/snuffers.htm

The word "snuffer" appears six times in the old testament and actually the Bible Hub website has done quite a bit of research on the meaning.

It's a tool (like a tong) used by priests in the temple or tabernacle. Made of pure gold. There was a requirement to keep the lights brilliantly burning throughout each night of the year and because of this requirement there was a need for snuffers. Snuffers were used to remove the burnt portions of the wick.

In the time of Solomon's temple the word used for snuffer meant "to prune."

There is a treasure of quotes regarding snuffers in the library section of the link. 

What a sign! God chose literally a Snuffer to prune out the old wick which was losing or lost its light. 

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, blueglass said:

I bought Snuffer's book 13 verses a few years ago and thought it was good.  After reading this book I gave a gift to my dad for Christmas The Second Comforter.  A few months later Snuffer got in trouble, and my dad complained that I gave him an apostate book.  I had no idea, having never read the Passing the Heavenly Gift book.  

What teaching from the book would your dad say is apostate?

 

Perhaps those persecuting the saints and kicking against the pricks are apostate?

 

What defines an apostate?

 

If we let Christ do the defining, who is guilty?

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Teancum said:

It is fairly humerous to me that a Latter-day Saint calls someone nutty who claims revelation regarding how a religion is in apostasy.  I imagine that is how many viewed Joseph Smith.

With continuing revelation anything goes, anything can be "revealed" as truth. Pray about it, get a feeling and there you go, truth revealed.  And that's how groups end up with a Suffner, Christopher Namelka, or Joseph Smith Jr. 

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

It might be true that God is pruning it, but Snuffer is not the vessel chosen to do it, even if some of his observations are true. He is leading people away from their covenants. Another sad tale. He is certainly not the first, and I am sure will not be the last.

I think that it's very difficult if not extremely foolish to casually dismiss this sign. Is there a greater OT sign that identifies the name Jesus Christ? Think about it. The actual word is "snuffer"! 

If God isn't signaling a huge clue, then what an odd coincidence! I mean, what are the chances that God would call a prophet named Snuffer, a name which refers to extinguishing the final smoking wick and lighting up a new one, a job done by a priest, and done with a tool made of purified gold! How silly die hard LDS will feel at the last day when all things will be revealed and "clues" like this one (there are more!) are paraded forth to show God's effort to warn the Gentiles. Will God's effort be mostly in vain? After all, the Jews mostly rejected Jesus and John the Baptist. Will the proud descendants of Nauvoo follow the path the faithless Jews took?

Parallels anybody?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

It might be true that God is pruning it, but Snuffer is not the vessel chosen to do it, even if some of his observations are true. He is leading people away from their covenants. Another sad tale. He is certainly not the first, and I am sure will not be the last.

Sometimes I wonder if the temple has become a golden idol to some. 

Share this post


Link to post

OK, I checked out Snuffer's YouTube channel, and I discovered the video below. (It was addressed to all Christians, so I felt like fit into that category...)

He may be persona non grata in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I thought it was funny that he uses the LDS edition of the King James Bible in the video. So he doesn't mind using Church publications when it suits his purposes, does he?

 

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, caspianrex said:

OK, I checked out Snuffer's YouTube channel, and I discovered the video below. (It was addressed to all Christians, so I felt like fit into that category...)

He may be persona non grata in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I thought it was funny that he uses the LDS edition of the King James Bible in the video. So he doesn't mind using Church publications when it suits his purposes, does he?

 

I mean the LDS apostles use occasionally the NIV in conference talks. Plus we still use the KJV even though there are better translations in existence. I’m not sure using certain bibles immediately disqualifies someone.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, caspianrex said:

OK, I checked out Snuffer's YouTube channel, and I discovered the video below. (It was addressed to all Christians, so I felt like fit into that category...)

He may be persona non grata in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I thought it was funny that he uses the LDS edition of the King James Bible in the video. So he doesn't mind using Church publications when it suits his purposes, does he?

 

Snuffer hasn't rejected the Mormon faith completely, just the version as he perceives it today, so yes, he uses the LDS KJV version and wouldn't see a problem with this.  He's trying to appeal to non-LDS, but I don't know how much success he's having with that.  So far I don't think he's made any changes to the Book of Mormon.  I don't remember if the Remnant accepts the Pearl of Great Price, but wouldn't be surprised if they've rejected it.  They have their own version of the Doctrine and Covenants and they accept the Bible--probably most traditional versions of it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Underdog said:

What a sign! God chose literally a Snuffer to prune out the old wick which was losing or lost its light. 

If names were sure signs, my husband should be the prophet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, alter idem said:

Snuffer hasn't rejected the Mormon faith completely, just the version as he perceives it today, so yes, he uses the LDS KJV version and wouldn't see a problem with this.  He's trying to appeal to non-LDS, but I don't know how much success he's having with that.  So far I don't think he's made any changes to the Book of Mormon.  I don't remember if the Remnant accepts the Pearl of Great Price, but wouldn't be surprised if they've rejected it.  They have their own version of the Doctrine and Covenants and they accept the Bible--probably most traditional versions of it.

The new cannon of scripture that they're publishing is the bible but with all the JST within it. They even went through many of the speeches made by Joseph where he made off-cuff edits to scriptures and inserted those where they felt it merited best. They removed most chapters and versing, only labeling the occasional paragraph break and only ending chapters by story. 

The Book of Mormon was edited using a number of different resources, though I'm not sure everything that was used. I know Royal Skousens work was highly influential in the research and "restoration" of the text. I believe Royal Skousens name is even mentioned in one of the revelations given to Denver. Other then that there really isn't much difference at all except dropping most versing and chapters like the original printing. 

They do accept the Pearl of Great price and actually replaced the opening of genesis with Moses, after all it was the inspired restoration of that text. The Book of Abraham was not included in the biblical text but it was inserted into what I believe they call the "Pearls of Great Price", emphasizing future expansions and additions.

The Doctrine and Covenants are called Teachings and Commandments and is probably the most heavily edited book from the LDS perspective, if I understand it right. They've rearranged the sections by teaching instead of chronology or location. For example the first section is called "Restoration" and has a lot of sections dealing with restoration of the church and various ordinances. They removed section 20 completely citing it as inspired but not needed as essential to God's plan. In it's stead they have a sort-of replacement that they believe the Lord commanded them to write called "Statements and Principles." It outlines some more basic doctrines and other beliefs and interpretations of scripture. It covers shortly things like what fellowships are, how the sacrament is taken, baptism, and a little blurb on tithing. 

They also were going to remove section 110 citing it as not having any real witness to the vision (from their point of view). However Denver then received a revelation from the Lord giving him, supposedly, the more correct version of the vision. It reveals the Lord appeared and accepted the Kirtland temple and sent angels but leaves out at least Elijah and others because it is the movements belief that Elijah has not come yet. There is also a pretty decently edited version of section 132. Denver said that he believed the text to consist of three separate revelations that were compiled together over time. So they erased most of the polygamy sections and claimed revelation was given that defines better what they believe God's standard for marriage is. 

There are other revelations left out and some added in xthat were never published. Near the end there are a couple revelations from Denver like the "Prayer and Answer for Covenant"  which was about the Book of Mormon being given as a covenant. There is also a section refereed to as proverbs of Joseph and Denver and consist of..well proverbs, not revelation but inspired "blurbs." I can't remember what else has been changed but this is what I got from reading it. Also they are publishing a glossary, which is essentially a bible dictionary slightly expanded and explained.

Edit: they also added what they believe to be a better restoration of the "Testimony of Saint John" which was given through. They also canonized the Lectures on Faith (which I actually really agree with) and other little revelations from Joseph Smith. They also put in a letter or two from Hyrum, citing the idea that he was momentarily president of church/patriarch.

Edited by SettingDogStar
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Calm said:

If names were sure signs, my husband should be the prophet.

Signs are for an adulterous generation if you need them or base your willingness to believe in them. But for take for instance the blood moons and solar eclipse....these are immutable signs in the heavens. Ignore them at your own peril.

I say again, at the last day, stubborn LDS will feel real silly when God looks at them and kindly says, "You can't say I didn't try to give you a clue."

Obviously the real evidence for and against a "prophet" is his fruits. Judge Denver by his fruits. Judge Pres. Nelson by his fruits. Judge Joseph by his.

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/15/2019 at 11:18 AM, snowflake said:

With continuing revelation anything goes, anything can be "revealed" as truth. Pray about it, get a feeling and there you go, truth revealed.  And that's how groups end up with a Suffner, Christopher Namelka, or Joseph Smith Jr. 

Taking away continuing revelation will prevent being misguided?  That’s how groups end up with a John Calvin or a Charles Russel/Joseph Rutherford, etc.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, pogi said:

Taking away continuing revelation will prevent being misguided?  That’s how groups end up with a John Calvin or a Charles Russel/Joseph Rutherford, etc.

I think you are correct with Charles Russel, Joseph Rutheford, Joseph Smith Jr., Suffner, Namelka, there is a term that is used to describe the groups that follow these men. 

John Calvin not so much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, snowflake said:

I think you are correct with Charles Russel, Joseph Rutheford, Joseph Smith Jr., Suffner, Namelka, there is a term that is used to describe the groups that follow these men. 

John Calvin not so much. 

I am not certain what you are insinuating I am correct at.  We are talking about those who believe in continuing revelation and those who do not.  Russel and Rutherford do not belong in the same group as Joseph Smith - no, they agree with you on this one.  No we are not talking about cults.  No we are not a cult if that is what you are insinuating.

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

I am not certain what you are insinuating I am correct at.  We are talking about those who believe in continuing revelation and those who do not.  Russel and Rutherford do not belong in the same group as Joseph Smith - no, they agree with you on this one.  No we are not talking about cults.  No we are not a cult if that is what you are insinuating.

I suppose in the general definition of a cult ALL religions would qualify.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, pogi said:

I am not certain what you are insinuating I am correct at.  We are talking about those who believe in continuing revelation and those who do not.  Russel and Rutherford do not belong in the same group as Joseph Smith - no, they agree with you on this one.  No we are not talking about cults.  No we are not a cult if that is what you are insinuating.

The Witnesses absolutely believe in continuing revelation, they say that "spiritual light is still increasing"....this way like the LDS, any outdated, taboo, or erroneous prophecies can be corrected or amended without losing face.  It's really quite clever.  

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I suppose in the general definition of a cult ALL religions would qualify.

I think that is probably a pretty fair statement. If you are going to worship a Man/God, I do think you should worship one who predicted his own death and then rose from the grave.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, snowflake said:

The Witnesses absolutely believe in continuing revelation, they say that "spiritual light is still increasing"....this way like the LDS, any outdated, taboo, or erroneous prophecies can be corrected or amended without losing face.  It's really quite clever.  

My interactions with JW missionaries in my home led me to believe that they are bible literalists who completely reject spiritual promptings and personal revelation.  They assured me that I “can’t trust my feelings because the heart is corrupt...”.  They claim that there is no variance of belief or interpretation of scripture among them.  If they do believe in personal revelation (which it appears they do upon further research) it is unrecognizable to me.

Either way, it doesn’t alter my point.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I read something today, that struck me, never thought of it before! Don't have a link to it, but in a nutshell it said we could all be prophets and so I guess, Denver can too! To the bold:

proph·et

/ˈpräfət/

Learn to pronounce

noun

1.

a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God.

"the Old Testament prophet, Jeremiah"

synonyms:seer, soothsayer, forecaster of the future, fortune teller, clairvoyant, prognosticator, prophesier, diviner; More

2.

(in Christian use) the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve minor prophets.

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I read something today, that struck me, never thought of it before! Don't have a link to it, but in a nutshell it said we could all be prophets and so I guess, Denver can too! To the bold:

proph·et

/ˈpräfət/

Learn to pronounce

noun

1.

a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God.

"the Old Testament prophet, Jeremiah"

synonyms:seer, soothsayer, forecaster of the future, fortune teller, clairvoyant, prognosticator, prophesier, diviner; More

2.

(in Christian use) the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the twelve minor prophets.

Moses teaches the same thing in Numbers 29:11 where he says that he wishes that all of the Lord's people were prophets.  The difference between what Moses was saying and Denver is that though we can all be prophets, we cannot all have authority to lead God's church.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Moses teaches the same thing in Numbers 29:11 where he says that he wishes that all of the Lord's people were prophets.  The difference between what Moses was saying and Denver is that though we can all be prophets, we cannot all have authority to lead God's church.  

I’m not sure that’s what Denver is saying either. I’m decent friends with a few of those who have become involved in this movement and I’ve read nearly every blog that is devoted to it. I don’t claim to read his mind, but I’m not sure he is saying that all have the power to lead Christ’s church.

Edit: I believe the teaching is that all can have the power of the priesthood bestowed upon them through faith in Christ. The same power Enoch, Melchizedek, and Moses all had to behold God, visions, angels, and mountains is within the grasp of everyone. This power is not to be confused with ecclesiastical jurisdiction (sometimes reffered to as "keys") which the president of the church has over the whole church. You can have jurisdiction with no power, just like you can be ordained to the priesthood but have no power.  

Edited by SettingDogStar
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...