Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
caspianrex

What is the DEAL w/ Denver Snuffer?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

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. 

I would say it was repeated teaching of false doctrines (alleged revelations) after being instructed in his error multiple times.  The sins were the teaching of the false doctrines, correct?

He certainly could have just believed it and kept it to himself or possibly immediate family without issue.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

The sins were the teaching of the false doctrines, correct?

I don't have all the facts on the situation to make that conclusion.  I suppose it's right to say that it was false doctrine but there was obviously way way more to it. If anyone can get ex'd for teaching false doctrine (or at least what the church thinks is false doctrine) then there should have been a few general authorities cut off for teaching some pretty racist theories on the priesthood ban. Also I think I would probably get ex'd, or at least some kind of action, for some of my beliefs that don't perfectly jive with current church teachings. 

In the case of the Bishop I believe it was the repeated use of revelation to bash the church, set himself up as revelation in the church, and perhaps other things. While that is technically false doctrine I think it's different then perhaps believing in, say, the Adam-God theory or something. He was trying to usurp the leadership of the prophet, I'm not sure it was just teaching about his revelations. If all it had been was some false doctrine (like sons of perdition getting a second chance or something) then he probably would have been corrected and if he continued then a public announcement would have been made about it, not an excommunication.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

"Bar to communion" is imo minimum disfellowship (not able to take sacrament if that is what communion meant), possibly excommunicated if communion meant being counted as one of the Saints.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/26/2019 at 6:15 PM, SettingDogStar said:

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. 

And it wasn't just the false doctrine that got Denver Snuffer excommunicated either.  It was his refusal to take counsel.  He was told to cease the publication of his Book "Passing the Heavenly Gift" and to not go  through with his 10 lectures.  He ignored this admonishment so it's no surprise they went ahead and held a court.  His 'fruits' since that time have supported the decision to excommunicate him, IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

And it wasn't just the false doctrine that got Denver Snuffer excommunicated either.  It was his refusal to take counsel.  He was told to cease the publication of his Book "Passing the Heavenly Gift" and to not go  through with his 10 lectures.  He ignored this admonishment so it's no surprise they went ahead and held a court.  His 'fruits' since that time have supported the decision to excommunicate him, IMO.

While I have mixed feelings on this I think it’s interesting he was Exd becuase of the books and ten lectures. PTHG isn’t exactly the most correct history ever but teaching unqiuely interpreted history in a book shouldn’t get you ex’d, Skousen, Brigham, and Quinn (who was not exd for his books), would get kicked out really fast. The SP didn’t know the content of the lectures yet only that it centered on christ and his personal comments, again there is no direct sin in that. (Or course later his last lecture said that the church lost priesthood and that would have ended his membership quickly.)

Obviously I don’t agree with Denver, but I do think more was going on. Should defying counsel when you believe it to be bad counsel (or even unscriptural counsel) make you a candidate for a council? I don’t think so. 

As a side, The scripture committee has almost finished publication on their version of the Scriptures, should be done in a week. However Denver had little to no say in that project except to supposedly receive a revelation that the Lord was pleased with the work. He’s now off preaching lectures to the secretarian churches and is really disengaged for the most part from the movement. He barely makes blog posts now and actually mentioned he’s tired of preaching to “Mormons” and feels he’s done with that portion of his mission.

Edited by SettingDogStar

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SettingDogStar said:

now off preaching lectures to the secretarian churches

What churches?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SettingDogStar said:

While I have mixed feelings on this I think it’s interesting he was Exd becuase of the books and ten lectures. PTHG isn’t exactly the most correct history ever but teaching unqiuely interpreted history in a book shouldn’t get you ex’d, Skousen, Brigham, and Quinn (who was not exd for his books), would get kicked out really fast. The SP didn’t know the content of the lectures yet only that it centered on christ and his personal comments, again there is no direct sin in that. (Or course later his last lecture said that the church lost priesthood and that would have ended his membership quickly.)

Obviously I don’t agree with Denver, but I do think more was going on. Is defying counsel when you believe it to be bad counsel (or even unscriptural counsel) make you a candidate for a counsel? I don’t think so. 

As a side, The scripture committee has almost finished publication on their version of the Scriptures, should be done in a week. However Denver had little to no say in that project except to supposedly receive a revelation that the Lord was pleased with the work. He’s now off preaching lectures to the secretarian churches and is really disengaged for the most part from the movement. He barely makes blog posts now and actually mentioned he’s tired of preaching to “Mormons” and feels he’s done with that portion of his mission.

I wonder what kind of reception he will get from other sectarian groups when they find out that he still espouses The Book of Mormon. Or does he?

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I wonder what kind of reception he will get from other sectarian groups when they find out that he still espouses The Book of Mormon. Or does he?

He does! Very much so! In fact he testifies of Joseph, the restoration, and fondly of the power the early church had in visitations and gifts. His talks usually uses that as a jumping off point for declaring that God is speaking again and will open the heavens to anyone that asks. They’re actually very good speeches and he usues the Bible and BoM to make his points. Somewhere in each talk he makes mention of the Fellowships, getting baptized anew, and claiming a covenant though not joining an organization. I haven’t read all of them but the first one was pretty good. Though, I’m not sure how much “success” he’s having. Not sure what he’ll do next.

I find these little “break offs” or “movements” very intriguing and enjoy watching them since nothing like this has happened in my lifetime, at least on my radar. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Calm said:

What churches?

Not any church specifically, just speeches directed toward those not of Mormon faith. It started as talks celebrating the 500 year reformation anniversary which he used as a jumping off point for talking about he restoration.

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

Not any church specifically, just speeches directed toward those not of Mormon faith. It started as talks celebrating the 500 year reformation anniversary which he used as a jumping off point for talking about he restoration.

Does he actually give them to an audience or just writes them up?

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Does he actually give them to an audience or just writes them up?

Give them to an audience, it was small at first but now I understand he has a decent amount of people there.

https://www.christianreformation500years.info/1st-address-to-christians.html

This is his first address, the actual address starts about 3 paragraphs down. He’s up to 8 now.

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/29/2019 at 7:32 PM, SettingDogStar said:

While I have mixed feelings on this I think it’s interesting he was Exd becuase of the books and ten lectures. PTHG isn’t exactly the most correct history ever but teaching unqiuely interpreted history in a book shouldn’t get you ex’d, Skousen, Brigham, and Quinn (who was not exd for his books), would get kicked out really fast. The SP didn’t know the content of the lectures yet only that it centered on christ and his personal comments, again there is no direct sin in that. (Or course later his last lecture said that the church lost priesthood and that would have ended his membership quickly.)

Obviously I don’t agree with Denver, but I do think more was going on. Should defying counsel when you believe it to be bad counsel (or even unscriptural counsel) make you a candidate for a council? I don’t think so. 

As a side, The scripture committee has almost finished publication on their version of the Scriptures, should be done in a week. However Denver had little to no say in that project except to supposedly receive a revelation that the Lord was pleased with the work. He’s now off preaching lectures to the secretarian churches and is really disengaged for the most part from the movement. He barely makes blog posts now and actually mentioned he’s tired of preaching to “Mormons” and feels he’s done with that portion of his mission.

It may seem harsh, but the fact is, if you are called in by leaders and given counsel to stop doing something, if you value your membership, you'd better stop what you're doing.  Even if you think it's 'bad' counsel, it doesn't matter.  If your leaders feel that what you are doing is not appropriate or poses a danger to other members, you need to listen.  His book, Passing the Heavenly Gift, was an indictment of the church and it's leaders and a big problem was in Denver's use of scriptures to support his claims.  As I said, to me, it clear misrepresentation of scriptures to make his claims, but his supporters believed him.  During his lectures etc, he told his followers that the church was performing baptisms wrong, we were administering the sacrament wrong, questioned the payment of tithes, and in essence, those who follow prophets, go to the telestial kingdom.  Denver Snuffer took his LDS faith and molded out of it his own faith.  He was brought in to be corrected in what he was doing and he rejected the correction.  A lot of people write books and give their own interpretations and opinions, and if they are called in (which never happened to Skousen or Brigham or Quinn for his books) then there's going to be a problem if they ignore counsel. I suspect that the Stake Pres. took some time to look at Denver's blog postings and found the same content that was reiterated in the lectures.  Then Denver went off the rails about the end of the lectures and some attendees recognized he was in apostasy. I believe it was his Las Vegas lecture where he said his held the keys of the kingdom. I believe he also claimed that the church had the lesser priesthood, naturally he had the higher priesthood.

After he did all this, and led a lot of people away from the church, imo, he cut them adrift by lessening his involvement with the Remnant (revelations he received that told him not to be involved helped) and deciding his message was meant for a larger audience and so he started to go after non-LDS christians.  I agree, he's disengaged himself from the movement he started, but I wouldn't be surprised if his message isn't well received, he comes back to them.  He told them they needed to build their own temple and so I suspect he'll have to be involved for that.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

It may seem harsh, but the fact is, if you are called in by leaders and given counsel to stop doing something, if you value your membership, you'd better stop what you're doing.  Even if you think it's 'bad' counsel, it doesn't matter.  If your leaders feel that what you are doing is not appropriate or poses a danger to other members, you need to listen.  His book, Passing the Heavenly Gift, was an indictment of the church and it's leaders and a big problem was in Denver's use of scriptures to support his claims.  As I said, to me, it clear misrepresentation of scriptures to make his claims, but his supporters believed him.  During his lectures etc, he told his followers that the church was performing baptisms wrong, we were administering the sacrament wrong, questioned the payment of tithes, and in essence, those who follow prophets, go to the telestial kingdom.  Denver Snuffer took his LDS faith and molded out of it his own faith.  He was brought in to be corrected in what he was doing and he rejected the correction.  A lot of people write books and give their own interpretations and opinions, and if they are called in (which never happened to Skousen or Brigham or Quinn for his books) then there's going to be a problem if they ignore counsel. I suspect that the Stake Pres. took some time to look at Denver's blog postings and found the same content that was reiterated in the lectures.  Then Denver went off the rails about the end of the lectures and some attendees recognized he was in apostasy. I believe it was his Las Vegas lecture where he said his held the keys of the kingdom. I believe he also claimed that the church had the lesser priesthood, naturally he had the higher priesthood.

After he did all this, and led a lot of people away from the church, imo, he cut them adrift by lessening his involvement with the Remnant (revelations he received that told him not to be involved helped) and deciding his message was meant for a larger audience and so he started to go after non-LDS christians.  I agree, he's disengaged himself from the movement he started, but I wouldn't be surprised if his message isn't well received, he comes back to them.  He told them they needed to build their own temple and so I suspect he'll have to be involved for that.

Fair enough I don't think it's worth a debate haha

At this point I'm just curious in watching the movement snowball or fizzle. Since I've been alive, a "breakoff" or "movement" hasn't occurred like this. So while it could be unfortunate for those who leave the church, it's a unique event to me. I think the most recent, prominent, schism occurred around 1994 when Harmston organized the TLC, which has since fizzled nearly completely. Denver claims that he will never start a church or organization of any kind and I think, at this point, if he tried ,it might backfire.

Without a hierarchy or some form of actually binding organization I'm guessing it will either quickly dissipate or he'll pop out a temple revelation here in the next year or so. They're already saving money in a crowdfund for that purpose. I'd be seriously impressed if they not only got the money but actually built a structure of some sort. While I don't think it would be approved by God, such a few amount of people accomplishing something like that would be pretty impressive. 

It's kinda like the temple the Community of Christ has, it's really cool looking and impressive but...not exactly what was intended. 

Edited by SettingDogStar
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/1/2019 at 11:34 AM, SettingDogStar said:

Fair enough I don't think it's worth a debate haha

At this point I'm just curious in watching the movement snowball or fizzle. Since I've been alive, a "breakoff" or "movement" hasn't occurred like this. So while it could be unfortunate for those who leave the church, it's a unique event to me. I think the most recent, prominent, schism occurred around 1994 when Harmston organized the TLC, which has since fizzled nearly completely. Denver claims that he will never start a church or organization of any kind and I think, at this point, if he tried ,it might backfire.

Without a hierarchy or some form of actually binding organization I'm guessing it will either quickly dissipate or he'll pop out a temple revelation here in the next year or so. They're already saving money in a crowdfund for that purpose. I'd be seriously impressed if they not only got the money but actually built a structure of some sort. While I don't think it would be approved by God, such a few amount of people accomplishing something like that would be pretty impressive. 

It's kinda like the temple the Community of Christ has, it's really cool looking and impressive but...not exactly what was intended. 

I've been watching the evolution of the group as well.  As far as I know, they aren't gaining many members, and likely losing some, but the pattern has been with other break off sects that they can continue on for decades, even with a small core group of believers.  I think if they start building a temple, it could be a source of strength, or could cause more to fall away, depending on how it's handled and what happens.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, alter idem said:

I've been watching the evolution of the group as well.  As far as I know, they aren't gaining many members, and likely losing some, but the pattern has been with other break off sects that they can continue on for decades, even with a small core group of believers.  I think if they start building a temple, it could be a source of strength, or could cause more to fall away, depending on how it's handled and what happens.

From what I’ve seen it’s stayed essentially consistent. Not gaining an exponential amount of “members” but also not losing any. There isn’t any way to tell becuase there is no real “creed” by which a person can be judged that defines them as part of this movement other then their own voice. 

You also couldn’t count the number of rebaprisms (if that was your criteria) because the recorders clearinghouse keeps the that hidden. It’s apparently not for others to know whether you’ve been baptized again, but it is required to record it for the Lord, in their opinion. 

I considered myself apart of the movement for awhile. In a certain sense I still do, though I don’t believe in Snuffers calling, claims, or certain teachings. Hard to say how big or small it is becuase there really isn’t a definition for it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SettingDogStar said:

From what I’ve seen it’s stayed essentially consistent. Not gaining an exponential amount of “members” but also not losing any. There isn’t any way to tell becuase there is no real “creed” by which a person can be judged that defines them as part of this movement other then their own voice. 

You also couldn’t count the number of rebaprisms (if that was your criteria) because the recorders clearinghouse keeps the that hidden. It’s apparently not for others to know whether you’ve been baptized again, but it is required to record it for the Lord, in their opinion. 

I considered myself apart of the movement for awhile. In a certain sense I still do, though I don’t believe in Snuffers calling, claims, or certain teachings. Hard to say how big or small it is becuase there really isn’t a definition for it. 

I see the movement as very loosely based.  I know they ask people to record their re-baptisms, but as you said, they don't share the information so there's no way for anyone to know how many have done so.  I do remember reading on someone's blog (can't remember now) of rough estimates of Remnant supporters, but don't remember the particulars.  I think one way to get an idea would be their six month conferences.  If they are better attended now than they were in years past, that would show, imo, that the movement is growing.  If the numbers are getting smaller, I'd assume that interest and affiliation with the movement is getting smaller. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I see the movement as very loosely based.  I know they ask people to record their re-baptisms, but as you said, they don't share the information so there's no way for anyone to know how many have done so.  I do remember reading on someone's blog (can't remember now) of rough estimates of Remnant supporters, but don't remember the particulars.  I think one way to get an idea would be their six month conferences.  If they are better attended now than they were in years past, that would show, imo, that the movement is growing.  If the numbers are getting smaller, I'd assume that interest and affiliation with the movement is getting smaller. 

They look about the same. But one of us would have to attend haha almost recordings aren’t live feed but just audio recordings. Though the “covenant” that was offered a coupe years ago was well attended it appears!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I have 2 brief comments. He was not excommunicated for teaching false doctrine or "leading people astray". He was never accused of this until after he was excommunicated . Deseret Books use to carry his books .He was excommunicated because his SP through Elder Nelson demanded that he withdraw the book that he had under a publishing contract ( ie breach his contract with his publisher ) and cancel hid proposed series of talks ( which hadn't happened ). He told them he couldn't breach his book publishing deal and he refuse to recognize their right to control what he said and when. In particular since he says Christ had directed him to offer the 10 talks series which he characterized as a celebration of his 40 years in Mormonism. This wasn't about doctrine it was about control and the risk of exercising unrighteous dominion. May be you are ok with your ecclesiastical authority telling you when you can talk  ( even before he knows what you are going to say ) and commanding you to breach your legal contracts upon pain of excommunication but i am deeply troubled by the very idea of someone using his priesthood authority to control my thoughts and actions. So was Joseph . See D and C 122,122

0

Share this post


Link to post

 Ok 3 comments. Finally what difference doe it make how big any movement is? Does the fact that Noah only had 8 people who were converted  by his preaching mean he was a failure or what he taught wasn't important ?. Or was the significance of the house of Israel entering into Egypt diminished by the fact there were only 70 of them ? How many were in Lehis household when they left Jerusalem ? We use the wrong metric.  We confuse numbers with importance and miss out on understanding what God is doing

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, boo said:

 Ok 3 comments. Finally what difference doe it make how big any movement is? Does the fact that Noah only had 8 people who were converted  by his preaching mean he was a failure or what he taught wasn't important ?. Or was the significance of the house of Israel entering into Egypt diminished by the fact there were only 70 of them ? How many were in Lehis household when they left Jerusalem ? We use the wrong metric.  We confuse numbers with importance and miss out on understanding what God is doing

I dont think either of us discussing it thought that numbers mattered, it was more a matter of curiosity then anything else. 

Also, while I believe Denver to a certain extent about what happened in his court, it shouldn’t be immediately believed in its totality. It’s only one side of the coin and we don’t have the Stake Presidents, Bishops, or high councilors voices to see the otherside. I don’t think he’s blatantly lying, but everyone’s biased.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/1/2019 at 10:26 AM, alter idem said:

It may seem harsh, but the fact is, if you are called in by leaders and given counsel to stop doing something, if you value your membership, you'd better stop what you're doing.  Even if you think it's 'bad' counsel, it doesn't matter.  If your leaders feel that what you are doing is not appropriate or poses a danger to other members, you need to listen.  His book, Passing the Heavenly Gift, was an indictment of the church and it's leaders and a big problem was in Denver's use of scriptures to support his claims.  As I said, to me, it clear misrepresentation of scriptures to make his claims, but his supporters believed him.  During his lectures etc, he told his followers that the church was performing baptisms wrong, we were administering the sacrament wrong, questioned the payment of tithes, and in essence, those who follow prophets, go to the telestial kingdom.  Denver Snuffer took his LDS faith and molded out of it his own faith.  He was brought in to be corrected in what he was doing and he rejected the correction.  A lot of people write books and give their own interpretations and opinions, and if they are called in (which never happened to Skousen or Brigham or Quinn for his books) then there's going to be a problem if they ignore counsel. I suspect that the Stake Pres. took some time to look at Denver's blog postings and found the same content that was reiterated in the lectures.  Then Denver went off the rails about the end of the lectures and some attendees recognized he was in apostasy. I believe it was his Las Vegas lecture where he said his held the keys of the kingdom. I believe he also claimed that the church had the lesser priesthood, naturally he had the higher priesthood.

After he did all this, and led a lot of people away from the church, imo, he cut them adrift by lessening his involvement with the Remnant (revelations he received that told him not to be involved helped) and deciding his message was meant for a larger audience and so he started to go after non-LDS christians.  I agree, he's disengaged himself from the movement he started, but I wouldn't be surprised if his message isn't well received, he comes back to them.  He told them they needed to build their own temple and so I suspect he'll have to be involved for that.

One correction but I believe Skousen was called in to speak with some of the Brethren over something he was teaching. Not sure what. He stopped teaching that particular thing and no problem. Feel free to treat this as hearsay. I got it from his grandson who was a companion on my mission. He also told me some of the stuff Skousen told family members that he did not share publicly. Some were a little wacky. I would share but I am going off of old memories and do not want to misrepresent him and I am too lazy to search my journals and see if I wrote it down.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, boo said:

I have 2 brief comments. He was not excommunicated for teaching false doctrine or "leading people astray". He was never accused of this until after he was excommunicated . Deseret Books use to carry his books .He was excommunicated because his SP through Elder Nelson demanded that he withdraw the book that he had under a publishing contract ( ie breach his contract with his publisher ) and cancel hid proposed series of talks ( which hadn't happened ). He told them he couldn't breach his book publishing deal and he refuse to recognize their right to control what he said and when. In particular since he says Christ had directed him to offer the 10 talks series which he characterized as a celebration of his 40 years in Mormonism. This wasn't about doctrine it was about control and the risk of exercising unrighteous dominion. May be you are ok with your ecclesiastical authority telling you when you can talk  ( even before he knows what you are going to say ) and commanding you to breach your legal contracts upon pain of excommunication but i am deeply troubled by the very idea of someone using his priesthood authority to control my thoughts and actions. So was Joseph . See D and C 122,122

0

I do find it amazing that in its 200 year history, this was the event the Lord used to withdraw the priesthood authority from the church.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Judd said:

I do find it amazing that in its 200 year history, this was the event the Lord used to withdraw the priesthood authority from the church.

Yes that’s interesting to me as well. Of ALL the things in church history, all the mistakes, odd doctrines, or historical hiccups, this excommunication was the one thing that did it. 

Not saying it’s technically not possible, since this GOD were talking about (He has done weirder things), but it does seem rather out of character.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, boo said:

I have 2 brief comments. He was not excommunicated for teaching false doctrine or "leading people astray". He was never accused of this until after he was excommunicated . Deseret Books use to carry his books .He was excommunicated because his SP through Elder Nelson demanded that he withdraw the book that he had under a publishing contract ( ie breach his contract with his publisher ) and cancel hid proposed series of talks ( which hadn't happened ). He told them he couldn't breach his book publishing deal and he refuse to recognize their right to control what he said and when. In particular since he says Christ had directed him to offer the 10 talks series which he characterized as a celebration of his 40 years in Mormonism. This wasn't about doctrine it was about control and the risk of exercising unrighteous dominion. May be you are ok with your ecclesiastical authority telling you when you can talk  ( even before he knows what you are going to say ) and commanding you to breach your legal contracts upon pain of excommunication but i am deeply troubled by the very idea of someone using his priesthood authority to control my thoughts and actions. So was Joseph . See D and C 122,122

0

He was told to stop publishing the book because it taught false doctrine. If it didnt no one would have cared. You cant claim false doctrine had nothing to do with it when that was the central issue with the book. 

  • 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...