Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
caspianrex

What is the DEAL w/ Denver Snuffer?

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

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.

No, I doubt he's saying that either.  But he does seem to be saying that someone who is not God's authorized prophet can lead and direct the church, call it to repentance, receive revelation for the body of Christ, etc.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/13/2019 at 4:10 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

 

I've always believed "God can talk to [me], too."  I probably differ with Mr. Snuffer on the necessity of having keys to lead and to receive revelation for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a whole, and/or on whether those purporting to have keys and to receive such revelation today went off the rails at some point.  But if the centerpoint of his argument is that "God can talk to [me], too," I'm not sure whether his argument was worth getting crossways with the Church of Jesus Christ or getting excommunicated.

Yeah it's always been a strange argument to me. The whole restoration was about teaching that God talks to man and we should seek revelation. So a guy coming along saying "God can talk to you too!" In an attempt to lead us astray from a Church that already teaches that didn't make much sense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/14/2019 at 4:01 PM, Exiled said:

He got Pres. Nelson to join the revelation fray. Without Mr. Snuffer, one wonders if the revelation pen, that writes down inspired words for the faithful, would be a thing.  Competition makes one do things that one might not do otherwise.

President Nelson has been talking about revelation since he was called as an Apostle. Was Mr. Snuffer talking about revelation before 1985?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

No, I doubt he's saying that either.  But he does seem to be saying that someone who is not God's authorized prophet can lead and direct the church, call it to repentance, receive revelation for the body of Christ, etc.

I suppose that completely depends on what you consider God's authorized prophet. If you believed (and I'm not saying it has, its a hypothetical) that God considers the church to have gone astray then the president/leader of that church would no longer be God's authorized prophet. It's kinda like Noah and his priests. The people believed they had the authority in the church and kingdom and just trusted them which made them go into all kinds of sin. They apparently trusted Noah so much that they rejected Gods actually authorized prophet who was apparently a nobody/outsider. Obviously I don't agree with Snuffer, but still. 

On another note, we get into a definition of a prophet (which is another discussion) and what they can or cannot do. I believe the scriptures specify that the President of the High Priesthood is the one that receives revelation for the church, which makes sense as to avoid confusion. However, He never says that the First Presidency and the Twelve are the only ones allowed to be Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. Any can be those things so long as God has endowed those people with those gifts. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Yeah it's always been a strange argument to me. The whole restoration was about teaching that God talks to man and we should seek revelation. So a guy coming along saying "God can talk to you too!" In an attempt to lead us astray from a Church that already teaches that didn't make much sense.

The main issue wasn't that message of "God can talk to me", which is rather harmless. It was the claim that the church didn't have the fullness of the priesthood, the implied rejection of church at Nauvoo (though he says it wasn't totally abandoned just cursed sort of like the Israelites), and rejection of polygamy by sort of dogging on Brigham Young and others. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours 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.  

Which is what Joseph taught us and am the prophets since.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/15/2019 at 11:07 AM, Tacenda said:

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

I hope not, but there was a reason the Lord told the Israelites to overlay the whole ark of the covenant with gold.... I don't know of anyone who treats the temple as a god to be worshiped. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I hope not, but there was a reason the Lord told the Israelites to overlay the whole ark of the covenant with gold.... I don't know of anyone who treats the temple as a god to be worshiped. 

I wonder how many temple vs. Jesus words, minus prayers, you get in a typical sacrament or conference meeting you get. Not trying to be combative though. But are LDS afraid of appearing to be Jesus lovers, like most that are evangelical? I've been pondering this for years. I've even been annoyed with all the Jesus stuff coming from people like that. Should I be though? And I wonder how they feel when they hear so many gushing about temples? Are we worshipping a fake "god", by being so excited about a temple, and forgetting Jesus is enough? 

I hope I don't take this on a tangent. It's honestly been a reason I don't rush back to the LDS church. 

The following conversation is interesting...https://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=30267

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I hope not, but there was a reason the Lord told the Israelites to overlay the whole ark of the covenant with gold.... I don't know of anyone who treats the temple as a god to be worshiped. 

I don't think anyone does either, at least not on purpose. Just like every member of the church would staunchly say that we don't worship Joseph Smith, sometimes it can happen without us knowing. The Devil has to be a little more sly now days and can't always just get us to make some idols and bow down to them, he has to get us to start traditions or do certain things that are essentially worship. While people don't bow down to the temple we sometimes attribute a power, holiness, awe, and reverence to the buildings that just isn't there. Obviously not everyone does this but it happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder how many temple vs. Jesus words, minus prayers, you get in a typical sacrament or conference meeting you get. Not trying to be combative though. But are LDS afraid of appearing to be Jesus lovers, like most that are evangelical? I've been pondering this for years. I've even been annoyed with all the Jesus stuff coming from people like that. Should I be though? And I wonder how they feel when they hear so many gushing about temples? Are we worshipping a fake "god", by being so excited about a temple, and forgetting Jesus is enough? 

I hope I don't take this on a tangent. It's honestly been a reason I don't rush back to the LDS church. 

One of the things I most like about the Church is that it encouraged me to keep trying to understand God. Now to a certain extent the Church has come to believe ____ is what the scriptures mean, and shows the way God is, which I feel is somewhat unfortunate. It is usually heard as such and such a person said_____, and that is taken to be the end of it. I try to be open minded. Here I have to ask what do you mean by Jesus is enough? Does that mean that we know all we need, and only need to throw ourselves on the mercy of Christ? Or does it mean that if we have faith in Him, that He may show us what has not been realized before? I believe in the latter, and I don't feel other churches lead us there.  They are already limited by creeds and orthodoxy in their ideas about the nature of God. I think the ordinances of the Temple do speak to this, and for this reason are quite important. When members say I want to learn in the temple, I think this is what they are talking about, and that it is an appropriate emphasis on the temple. It is not a matter of worshiping some building. It is about obeying Christ and trying to understand the things of heaven. Members see the temple as being important in that. If I instead said I want to go experience the ordinances, I think it would be saying the same thing, but is just kind of awkward - it is much easier to just say "I love the temple." To say that is some type of inappropriate emphasis on the temple is just not really understanding what is really going on or is meant.... I understand your concern, but I just think it is really just a matter of semantics. 

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

One of the things I most like about the Church is that it encouraged me to keep trying to understand God. Now to a certain extent the Church has come to believe ____ is what the scriptures mean, and shows the way God is, which I feel is somewhat unfortunate. It is usually heard as such and such a person said_____, and that is taken to be the end of it. I try to be open minded. Here I have to ask what do you mean by Jesus is enough? Does that mean that we know all we need, and only need to throw ourselves on the mercy of Christ? Or does it mean that if we have faith in Him, that He may show us what has not been realized before? I believe in the latter, and I don't feel other churches lead us there.  They are already limited by creeds and orthodoxy in their ideas about the nature of God. I think the ordinances of the Temple do speak to this, and for this reason are quite important. When members say I want to learn in the temple, I think this is what they are talking about, and that it is an appropriate emphasis on the temple. It is not a matter of worshiping some building. It is about obeying Christ and trying to understand the things of heaven. Members see the temple as being important in that. If I instead said I want to go experience the ordinances, I think it would be saying the same thing, but is just kind of awkward - it is much easier to just say "I love the temple." To say that is some type of inappropriate emphasis on the temple is just not really understanding what is really going on or is meant.... I understand your concern, but I just think it is really just a matter of semantics. 

It sometimes reminds me of the quote (don't know where it came from honestly) "When the leaders have spoken the thinking has been done." I tend to get weird looks in class if I offer different interpretations or theology then what everyone else believes that specific verse/quote is talking about. Inevitably someone will pull up a quote from a general authority who interprets the verse the way they want, and that puts an end to the discussion. The funny thing is, with a little digging I could find another general authority saying the total opposite! Always referencing a church leader isn't always the best source because they're learning just like us!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

sometimes reminds me of the quote (don't know where it came from honestly) "When the leaders have spoken the thinking has been done."

I bet the magazine writer who came up with this writhes in his grave or gets a pained look on his face in paradise or wherever he is every time this gets brought up, thinking “why did I ever go there?!”

https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/when-the-prophet-speaks-is-the-thinking-done

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Calm said:

I bet the magazine writer who came up with this writhes in his grave or gets a pained look on his face in paradise or wherever he is every time this gets brought up, thinking “why did I ever go there?!”

https://www.fairmormon.org/archive/publications/when-the-prophet-speaks-is-the-thinking-done

Fair enough, I’ll be sure to toss that out of my quote boom 😂

However would you agree some members do think that way though? I know I did and I felt it is sometimes a common mindset, but maybe I’m wrong.

Edited by SettingDogStar

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

Fair enough, I’ll be sure to toss that out of my quote boom 😂

However would you agree some members do think that way though? I know I did and I felt it is sometimes a common mindset, but maybe I’m wrong.

There is a reason why the writer went there.  I assume a significant number of members do have that mindset.  It is not an uncommon human method of approaching life, taking a time and effort saving practice (relying on experts to do the research for us that we are not trained to do nor have the time to engage in) to an extreme as in avoiding having to examine in depth one's options of choice.  I have seen people doing it with doctors, teachers, parents, the politicians they admire....even celebrities or friends that are idolized.

It is probably as easy or easier to rationalize doing so with admired religious leaders as any other as there is an inherent morality assumed (and in most cases rightly so I suspect as most religious leaders probably don't get into such leadership out of a desire for power or fame or whatever, but because they want to help people live better lives).  Plus the community usually teaches that leaders' words should be given additional weight even if not intending to suggest members of their faith community turn off their brains or switch to autopilot as can happen when this gets taken to extremes.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I suppose that completely depends on what you consider God's authorized prophet. If you believed (and I'm not saying it has, its a hypothetical) that God considers the church to have gone astray then the president/leader of that church would no longer be God's authorized prophet. It's kinda like Noah and his priests. The people believed they had the authority in the church and kingdom and just trusted them which made them go into all kinds of sin. They apparently trusted Noah so much that they rejected Gods actually authorized prophet who was apparently a nobody/outsider. Obviously I don't agree with Snuffer, but still. 

On another note, we get into a definition of a prophet (which is another discussion) and what they can or cannot do. I believe the scriptures specify that the President of the High Priesthood is the one that receives revelation for the church, which makes sense as to avoid confusion. However, He never says that the First Presidency and the Twelve are the only ones allowed to be Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. Any can be those things so long as God has endowed those people with those gifts. 

I think there's a difference between rejecting someone because a person sincerely believes that the someone is wrong, and rejecting someone because they don't like what the person is saying about them.  For that reason, I think that Snuffer is off base with his 'I'm just like Abinadi' ideas.

Rejection, on it's own, does not make someone similar to a prophet.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think there's a difference between rejecting someone because a person sincerely believes that the someone is wrong, and rejecting someone because they don't like what the person is saying about them.  For that reason, I think that Snuffer is off base with his 'I'm just like Abinadi' ideas.

Rejection, on it's own, does not make someone similar to a prophet.  

Fair enough, but he also has never compared himself to Abinadi or anyone of that nature. The most he's done is made mention the he's received messages from the Lord that he was supposed to deliver. He's said that he is a servant and revealed that he felt the Lord has called him David (not the davidic servant). There was a brief and off cuff mention during one talk where he said something about having a "dispensation", whatever he meant by that. It's his followers that make up names, analogies, and try to make something out of his last name. He could do better probably at trying to quell the rumors or attempted comparisons but it's not really his job to do that. He's said dozens of times that he has zero respect for anyone that calls themselves a snufferite.

I also think he sincerely believes in what he is doing and sincerely believes in the church is wrong, not because hes upset. However, for all his sincerity there are a number of missteps I think he's taken that have shown his error. The biggest is PTHG's historical errors which sort of bungle his conclusions. 

I apologize if I come off as sympathizing with him. I enjoyed his books and some of his talks which sort of turned me to open my eyes. I don't believe in him as a prophet but some of his writings helped trigger my desire to get closer to Christ, so there is a little respect there. Mostly I just like the debate back and forth and I like playing the other side sometimes. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

It has been awhile since I looked into him.  Iirc, he dated the time the Church went completely apostate to when they excommunicated him.  Is this accurate recall, do you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Calm said:

It has been awhile since I looked into him.  Iirc, he dated the time the Church went completely apostate to when they excommunicated him.  Is this accurate recall, do you know?

It was conference just previous to his tenth lecture. It was at the end of the lecture that he claimed the Church had been totally abandoned by the Lord as “His organization” during the sustaining portion of the previous general conference. It was becuase they all raised their hands and sustained leaders who had rejected him for supposedly doing nothing more then sharing his testimony and message the Lord had given him. 

Or so he says. 

Edited by SettingDogStar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 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..

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, boo said:

Now you tell me do the scriptures mean what they say or not?

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.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

That of course depends upon who he is. There were lots of Jews who were crucified before the Savior but it was his crucifixion that caused earth quakes and cities to be destroyed and the veil of the temple to be wrought asunder.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour 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.

I wondered that too. I suppose IF (and big IF) he was an actual prophet with a real message then I think that might make a difference. I don’t know how this works really haha

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

I wondered that too. I suppose IF (and big IF) he was an actual prophet with a real message then I think that might make a difference. I don’t know how this works really haha

My problem with him is he sets at naught scriptures.

Like:

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.
 21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;
 22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live

Snuffer begs to differ.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

My problem with him is he sets at naught scriptures.

Like:

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.
 21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;
 22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live

Snuffer begs to differ.

Does he? I’m positive he agrees that the ordinances of the gospel manifest the power of God unto men. 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

My problem with him is he sets at naught scriptures.

Like:

20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.
 21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;
 22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live

Snuffer begs to differ.

I agree that the problem I've observed with Denver Snuffer is his interpretation of scripture.  Before he was excommunicated, among some members he was perceived as this holy man who'd seen Christ and had great insight into the Gospel;  I was often troubled by the twist he would put on certain passages and what he told his readers.  And of course, he's gone way past that now, he now creates 'scripture' himself.

And I agree with Boo, the choice of excommunicating him on his baptismal date was not good.  He's used that angle of 40 years in the church, as in, 40 years in the wilderness, imo.

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...