Disciplinary Council Unless Passing The Heavenly Gate Is Withdrawn From Publication

[SamIam]

I have just read this book.

It's not particularly well written in my view (in fact, the puncuation is all over the place!), and it seems to jump around a lot. Maybe it's just me but he seems to jump from phase1 to phase 4 etc all the time, often in the same sentence.

He has some very narrow understandings/interpretations of certain scriptural passages too, in my view.

 

It occurs to me that his book borders on priestcraft in a way. He is setting himself up to preach to the people (through his book) and charging them (they purchase the book). If this is his eleventh book he must have made a tidy sum by now.

Part of what makes Denver's claims so interesting relates precisely to your final observation concerning priestcraft.  I also think it is one of the most difficult elements to discern.  Denver claims, and I see little need to doubt him, that all of the proceeds for the publications of his books are donated to the missionary fund of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints.  This in it's way is his defense against claims of priestcraft...ie. he does not profit financially from his efforts.

 

However, according to 2 Nephi 26:29 Priestcraft can involve several aspirations that define priestcraft of which financial profiting is only a possibility of interpretation. The actual words are "that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion."  This is what makes the challenge of classing Denver's efforts as priestcraft or not priestcraft. The subtleties that remain are:

 

1.) Does he get gain other than financial?

2.) Does he seek and receive praise from the world.

3.) Does the world include the members of the church that praise him.

4.) Does he seek or not seek the welfare of Zion.

 

Denver has mechanisms in place that superficially refute every one of these claims. He comments often and vigorously discouraging any to be his followers, and states often he seeks no praise.  The world ostensibly has no interest in Denver and it appears to be a certain class of members that faun over him and accept him as their key teacher of how to come to Christ. Finally, he always admonishes people to stay in the church and sustain the leadership as it is the chosen vessel of the Lord to usher in his kingdom in the last days.    

 

Thus superficially by his words one could make a strong case against his practicing priestcraft. On all points those that are seeking his message of standing in the presence of Christ, have ample cause to discount any culpability that Denver is practicing priestcraft.

 

However, the great example that Denver provides is that what he says and attempts to promote may not seem to fit the definition of priestcraft on the surface but underneath all of his words and effort, more boldly the last few years, has been to undermine the leadership of the church and the weakness of the institution in achieving the goals of establishing Zion.

 

If we are swayed by words it is difficult to claim priestcraft.  If we are sensitive to the spirit of the law, in my mind priestcraft remains an exceptionally valid possibility.   

 

What this highlights more than anything else to me, is that if priestcraft is his actual crime against the church, it is so well played and so carefully woven as to genuinely be capable of deceiving the very elect. I know many that have swallowed his message hook line and sinker and you could not ask for better, more sincere, and diligent seekers after Christ who one would think would not be mislead. 

 

What this further means to me is it is imperative that as individuals we must cultivate the spirit with diligence. The deceptions are far too gracefully implemented and carefully contrived as to appear completely void of any obvious offense and yet may represent the most insidious and destructive detours off of the straight and narrow, that only those most sensitive to the guidance of the spirit will take note and avoid being sucked into the vortex that becomes apostasy.    

 

If, and I am not saying that it is, but if this is a legitimate plan of Satan to deceive it is perfectly contrived to take out some wonderful people.  It is tailored to appeal to those who are devoted to the task of making their calling and election sure.  While some of us may be immune to this particular effort, there will be others that are equally as perfectly contrived to appeal to whatever it is that we want so badly that we may be willingly drawn in for the good aspirations of our hearts by a false Messiah who preaches a message that appeals to our individual desires so precisely and with such cunning that we do not notice in time.   

 

This may be something to observe carefully as it may represent a type or shadow of a similar temptation to which anyone of us may become subject if we are not careful and diligently seeking the spirit.  Whatever weakness or area of influence that as an individual we retain is fair game for Satan to come up with a contrivance as brilliantly crafted as is this one to those to whom it appeals.

 

The very elect are always at risk and the plans to sway them, I suspect will be the most cleverly crafted that can be imagined. 

Edited September 2, 2013 by SamIam

[Stone holm]

Part of what makes Denver's claims so interesting relates precisely to your final observation concerning priestcraft.  I also think it is one of the most difficult elements to discern.  Denver claims, and I see little need to doubt him, that all of the proceeds for the publications of his books are donated to the missionary fund of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints.  This in it's way is his defense against claims of priestcraft...ie. he does not profit financially from his efforts.

 

However, according to 2 Nephi 26:29 Priestcraft can involve several aspirations that define priestcraft of which financial profiting is only a possibility of interpretation. The actual words are "that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion."  This is what makes the challenge of classing Denver's efforts as priestcraft or not priestcraft. The subtleties that remain are:

 

1.) Does he get gain other than financial?

2.) Does he seek and receive praise from the world.

3.) Does the world include the members of the church that praise him.

4.) Does he seek or not seek the welfare of Zion.

 

Denver has mechanisms in place that superficially refute every one of these claims. He comments often and vigorously discouraging any to be his followers, and states often he seeks no praise.  The world ostensibly has no interest in Denver and it appears to be a certain class of members that faun over him and accept him as their key teacher of how to come to Christ. Finally, he always admonishes people to stay in the church and sustain the leadership as it is the chosen vessel of the Lord to usher in his kingdom in the last days.    

 

Thus superficially by his words one could make a strong case against his practicing priestcraft. On all points those that are seeking his message of standing in the presence of Christ, have ample cause to discount any culpability that Denver is practicing priestcraft.

 

However, the great example that Denver provides is that what he says and attempts to promote may not seem to fit the definition of priestcraft on the surface but underneath all of his words and effort, more boldly the last few years, has been to undermine the leadership of the church and the weakness of the institution in achieving the goals of establishing Zion.

 

If we are swayed by words it is difficult to claim priestcraft.  If we are sensitive to the spirit of the law, in my mind priestcraft remains an exceptionally valid possibility.   

 

What this highlights more than anything else to me, is that if priestcraft is his actual crime against the church, it is so well played and so carefully woven as to genuinely be capable of deceiving the very elect. I know many that have swallowed his message hook line and sinker and you could not ask for better, more sincere, and diligent seekers after Christ who one would think would not be mislead. 

 

What this further means to me is it is imperative that as individuals we must cultivate the spirit with diligence. The deceptions are far too gracefully implemented and carefully contrived as to appear completely void of any obvious offense and yet may represent the most insidious and destructive detours off of the straight and narrow, that only those most sensitive to the guidance of the spirit will take note and avoid being sucked into the vortex that becomes apostasy.    

 

If, and I am not saying that it is, but if this is a legitimate plan of Satan to deceive it is perfectly contrived to take out some wonderful people.  It is tailored to appeal to those who are devoted to the task of making their calling and election sure.  While some of us may be immune to this particular effort, there will be others that are equally as perfectly contrived to appeal to whatever it is that we want so badly that we may be willingly drawn in for the good aspirations of our hearts by a false Messiah who preaches a message that appeals to our individual desires so precisely and with such cunning that we do not notice in time.   

 

This may be something to observe carefully as it may represent a type or shadow of a similar temptation to which anyone of us may become subject if we are not careful and diligently seeking the spirit.  Whatever weakness or area of influence that as an individual we retain is fair game for Satan to come up with a contrivance as brilliantly crafted as is this one to those to whom it appeals.

 

The very elect are always at risk and the plans to sway them, I suspect will be the most cleverly crafted that can be imagined. 

If he is of Satan nothing will come of it, if he is of God then....

[Duncan]

LOL.  You are right.  Controversy sparks sales.  I had not heard of Mr. Snuffer prior to this kerfuffle.  I was tempted to buy his book just to see what all the hubub is about.  On balance, I probably won't.  There are too many other books I should buy first.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

 

you can buy my book!!! it's called, "if God loves me why can't I get my locker open?"

[cinepro]

It occurs to me that his book borders on priestcraft in a way. He is setting himself up to preach to the people (through his book) and charging them (they purchase the book). If this is his eleventh book he must have made a tidy sum by now.

 

Oh man.  If that's the case, we are totally screwed. 

Edited September 2, 2013 by cinepro

[K-2]

I noticed that he wrote this on one of his blog posts: "The Lord was with me in the Draper Temple recently, and no one present had any idea what transpired nor beheld a thing of what happened there. An interloper does not behold glory, nor participate in such things." The blog post was critical of Lorin Woolley for claiming that he had seen light or glory on the occasion when he claimed that the Savior appeared to John Taylor at his father's house. From what I understand, the Savior could either appear and withhold his glory, or appear in glory, so I don't think it is either/or. Ironically, Snuffer now finds himself in the same boat as Woolley. Although I don't know for sure if the Lord appeared to Snuffer in the Draper Temple, I very much doubt it. I would think that when the Lord appears in person rather than send representatives, it is for a specific and necessary purpose. I can only imagine how busy someone who saved a world or worlds must be, yet Snuffer claims he shows up to visit him personally in the temple. Doesn't sit right with me.

[Stone holm]

I noticed that he wrote this on one of his blog posts: "The Lord was with me in the Draper Temple recently, and no one present had any idea what transpired nor beheld a thing of what happened there. An interloper does not behold glory, nor participate in such things." The blog post was critical of Lorin Woolley for claiming that he had seen light or glory on the occasion when he claimed that the Savior appeared to John Taylor at his father's house. From what I understand, the Savior could either appear and withhold his glory, or appear in glory, so I don't think it is either/or. Ironically, Snuffer now finds himself in the same boat as Woolley. Although I don't know for sure if the Lord appeared to Snuffer in the Draper Temple, I very much doubt it. I would think that when the Lord appears in person rather than send representatives, it is for a specific and necessary purpose. I can only imagine how busy someone who saved a world or worlds must be, yet Snuffer claims he shows up to visit him personally in the temple. Doesn't sit right with me.

I had always understood that it was the teaching that if supranatural visitations occurred other than to a Prophet for a specific purpose, that if the person talked about them, then they didn't occur.

[SamIam]

I had always understood that it was the teaching that if supranatural visitations occurred other than to a Prophet for a specific purpose, that if the person talked about them, then they didn't occur.

I would be interested in a source for this observation.  

[Stone holm]

I would be interested in a source for this observation.

So would I could you please search for it and find it for me. Thanks ever so much.

[SamIam]

So would I could you please search for it and find it for me. Thanks ever so much.

 

Formal CFR requested.

[cdowis]

I had always understood that it was the teaching that if supranatural visitations occurred other than to a Prophet for a specific purpose, that if the person talked about them, then they didn't occur.

 

You are talking about the hierarchy of authority.  A bishop cannot receive a revelation (vision) regarding the general church, for example. (or, at the least, he should not talk about it)

Edited September 3, 2013 by cdowis

[Scott Lloyd]

you can buy my book!!! it's called, "if God loves me why can't I get my locker open?"

I love that title. If it's not a real book it ought to be.

[David T]

I had always understood that it was the teaching that if supranatural visitations occurred other than to a Prophet for a specific purpose, that if the person talked about them, then they didn't occur.

 

Would that go along with the corollary that since the Apostles and Prophets we have today are not talking about such visions, therefore they must be occurring?

[Nemesis]

So would I could you please search for it and find it for me. Thanks ever so much.

It doesn't work like that. Answer the car please.

[Stone holm]

Formal CFR requested.

 

Okay, here are a few quickies -- I am away from my library:

 

http://reallywanttoknow.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/what-do-mormons-believe-about-angels/

 

http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=29001

 

http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&p=404668#p404230

[SamIam]

Okay, here are a few quickies -- I am away from my library:

 

http://reallywanttoknow.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/what-do-mormons-believe-about-angels/

 

http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=29001

 

http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&p=404668#p404230

 

The first link does not appear to have anything

and on the second two, I tried to do my part and read through pages of gibberish and nonsense but I couldn't find even a close maybe what you meant.

[Stone holm]

I had always understood that it was the teaching that if supranatural visitations occurred other than to a Prophet for a specific purpose, that if the person talked about them, then they didn't occur.

Discourses of Brigham young, p. 338. "If they have received from the proper source, the same power that revealed to them would have shown them that they must keep the things revealed in their own bosoms, and they seldom would have a desire to disclose them to the second person." Thus Pres. Young taught that if you have an Elder claiming direct or Angelic revelation which has not yet been declared by the Prophet on general matters and is disclosing such revelation, it would be contrary to the Will of The Lord, and therefore untrue.

[Duncan]

Discourses of Brigham young, p. 338. "If they have received from the proper source, the same power that revealed to them would have shown them that they must keep the things revealed in their own bosoms, and they seldom would have a desire to disclose them to the second person." Thus Pres. Young taught that if you have an Elder claiming direct or Angelic revelation which has not yet been declared by the Prophet on general matters and is disclosing such revelation, it would be contrary to the Will of The Lord, and therefore untrue.

 I agree with what Pres. Young but I don't think what you are saying is what he is saying, I think Pres. Young is saying that  if something is revealed to you then keep it to yourself. IIRC that's what happened to Lorenzo Snow when he had that couplet that he is famous for but Joseph Smith taught it and then after that Pres. Snow starting teaching it.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have been on many "Church Courts" and I assure Ex is a last resort, and painful to the member and the poor soul that has to a Judge in Israel. Also if a Bishop or Stake President makes a mistake, God will not.

See 2 Nephi 9: 41

[SamIam]

Discourses of Brigham young, p. 338. "If they have received from the proper source, the same power that revealed to them would have shown them that they must keep the things revealed in their own bosoms, and they seldom would have a desire to disclose them to the second person." Thus Pres. Young taught that if you have an Elder claiming direct or Angelic revelation which has not yet been declared by the Prophet on general matters and is disclosing such revelation, it would be contrary to the Will of The Lord, and therefore untrue.

 

Thank you.  This is a useful one, and more to the point that this one I found that is similar by Joseph:

 

“Let us be faithful and silent, brethren, and if God gives you a manifestation, keep it to yourselves.”(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, edited by Joseph Fielding Smith (

[smac97]

Mr. Snuffer has a new blog post.  It ain't pretty: http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013/09/compliance-so-far-as-possible.html

[Alan]

I have spent some time this week re-reading some of the most contentious claims from Bro. Snuffer's book.

On second reading the weaknesses of his arguments are a little more obvious and I found myself asking why I hadn't noticed them so easily the first time I read it.

I believe he is a good example of Pres. Hinckley's railway signal points illustration. Just a small movement in the tracks, merely a couple of inches, can result in the train eventually going to an entirely different place than it was originally headed. Bro Snffer has gone a long way down that track, so far that he can no longer see the signal points or the original track.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Alan

[iamse7en]

As with you on the subject of Joseph and Polygamy.

[smac97]

Okay, here's a fisking of Mr. Snuffer's most recent blog post:

 

> Compliance (So Far As Possible)

 

==This is the title of the blog post.  I find it somewhat misleading, as if Mr. Snuffer would like to comply with his stake president, but golly, it's just not possible.  His hands are tied.

 

> The problem with Passing the Heavenly Gift has not been its accuracy. The issue raised in the notice I received from the stake president does not say the book is false, contains errors or makes mistakes in history. Rather, it "contains content which must be withdrawn." That is not an indictment of the book's accuracy. 

 

==I disagree with this assessment.  The SP's letter does not address the book's accuracy one way or another.  There is no concession as to its accuracy, nor is there a condemnation of it because of its inaccuracy.

 

> It is considered subversive by those who want to control history to perpetuate a view of events that do not follow the pattern described by the Book of Mormon prophets, Joseph Smith's prophecies, and Christ's description of the conduct of the latter-day gentiles to whom the Book of Mormon would be given.

 

==Hmm.  "By those" refers to ... his SP, I think.  So he's now publicly accusing his SP of perpetuating "a view of events that do not follow the pattern described by {Christ}," which seems like a slick way of saying "a lie."

 

==So Mr. Snuffer is purveying "the pattern" set forth by the prophets and Jesus Christ, and his SP is not.  To be frank, I cannot categorically reject this as a possibility.  It is, after all, possible for a stake president to be wrong and an individual church member under his stewardship to be right.  However, what I can categorically reject is the way Mr. Snuffer is approaching his dispute with his SP.

 

> The first demand is that I cease publication; a task that would involve violation of agreements between me and others. To compensate me for that potential liability and permit me to violate the agreement, I was offered money to cease publication. 

 

==Huh?  Who offered him money?

 

> Offering money to help me violate agreements is not a satisfactory course of conduct. Therefore, I declined; but not before asking those with whom I have contracts if I could be let out of the publishing agreement.

 

==This is neither here nor there.  I don't think Mr. Snuffer would be under disciplinary review if his publication deal left him with his hands tied.

 

==Moreover, it was my understanding that Passing the Heavenly Gift was self-published.  Is that incorrect?  "Mill Creek Press" is referenced in the book, but I has assumed it was a vanity imprint.  So with whom does he have these "contracts?"  What is this "publishing agreement" which compels him to continue publishing the book?

 

> The second demand is that I tell blog readers that the book "contains content that needs to be withdrawn." I will say this: The church believes very much the content of the book needs to be withdrawn. They think this because the book brings to light the babylonian methods church leadership uses to make rapid and dramatic changes. 

 

==Well, there it is (again).  He's accusing the Church - not just his SP - of acting like "Babylon."  The antithesis of Christ's Church.

 

==If it acts like a duck, walks like a duck ...

 

> We are not now the same church restored by Joseph Smith. 

 

==Yes, we are.  It is interesting, though, to see Mr. Snuffer publicly deny this.

 

> Passing the Heavenly Gift shows how that happened. There are social, political and legal forces pulling on the church which the leadership intends to accommodate.

 

==As long as such accommodation is pursuant to God's will, I'm fine with it.  "Render unto Caesar" and the Twelfth Article of Faith teach us that.  Surely there are limits to this concept (the proverbial "Jews in the attic" scenario), but is that what Mr. Snuffer is talking about?  I'm curious as to what "accommodations" he finds objectionable.  

 

> They've already made a step in that direction with the renewed support for the Boy Scouts of America.

 

==Huh.  If anything, the current "social, political and legal forces pulling on the church" would result in the Church abandoning the BSA, not renewing its support for it.  But that doesn't fit Mr. Snuffer's narrative.

 

==Social forces have been against the Church proclaiming The Book of Mormon to be scripture, its leaders to be prophets, etc. since day one.  I don't see the Church buckling to such pressure.  To the contrary, I think the Church has increased the visibility of its singular attributes (the Book of Mormon, missionaries, temples, etc.).  But again, none of this fits Mr. Snuffer's narrative.

 

==This line of thought usually devolves to the Two Biggies: abandonment of polygamy and removal of the priesthood ban in 1978.  As to the first, I am satisfied that this course of action was ordered by God, notwithstanding the "social, political and legal forces pulling on the church" at the time.  Mr. Snuffer and his ilk could dispute this, I suppose, but then he'd have to reject even more scripture which doesn't fit his narrative (the Official Declaration).

 

==Regarding the priesthood ban, I am not persuaded it was implemented by God.  I am however, persuaded that it was removed by God.  Again, I believe this notwithstanding the "social, political and legal forces pulling on the church" at the time.

 

> The church introduced a web page on same sex attraction. Two of the twelve contributed to the page. One of them asserted that same sex attraction is not a sin, but only acting on the impulse would be. This is an interesting accommodation which contradicts the Lord's statement that "whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery in his heart." Or, adds to it: "but if you burn in lust for the same sex that isn't adultery in your heart."

 

==First, note that Mr. Snuffer's accusation here is against the LDS Church proper, not just his local leadership.

 

==Second, it is absurd to equate same-sex attraction with "lust."  Does Mr. Snuffer likewise accuse everyone who has opposite-sex attraction of indulging in "lust" just by having that attraction?  I doubt it.  

 

> The church advocated, and obtained from the Salt Lake City Council, an ordinance prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals in housing and employment. This ordinance was considered a great breakthrough by the gay community in Utah. The Utah Legislature has been influenced by the church to consider a statewide ban on discrimination against homosexuals in housing and employment.

 

==Does the Church encourage housing/employment discrimination against heterosexual fornicators?  Does fornication, regardless of the plumbing of those involved, justify housing/employment discrimination?

 

==I respect divergent viewpoints on this issue, including politically unpopular ones.  However, I would voice my concerns about the LDS Church's position in some venue other than a public one, and in a way other than and adversarial and accusatory one.

 

More in the next post.

 

-Smac

Edited September 5, 2013 by smac97

[smac97]

Continued from the previous post:

 

> In saying this I'm only focusing on the trends within the church. Nothing else. The trend is toward open acceptance of socially progressive mormonism. This is the product of social, political and legal pressure.

 

==So what is happening to socially conservative Mormonism?  There are lots of folks in the Church which fit this label.  And yet we aren't seeing pogroms against social conservatives in the Church.  But that doesn't fit Mr. Snuffer's narrative, so...

 

> This accounts for the difference between the reaction of the church to socially progressive Mormons (who are tolerated) and me. 

 

==Uh, no, it doesn't.  See above-stated observation regarding the absence of pogroms against socially conservative Mormons.

 

> Those who advocate for the place the church has already decided to go are not a threat to their plans. What I write can create a good deal of difficultly in arriving there.

 

==The "place" referenced here is ... what?  Note the subtle accusation against the Church here.  In reading this, the reader appears to be left to the conclusion that the "place" referenced by Mr. Snuffer is "apostasy."

 

> The issue is therefore how the church is to accomplish these changes in its doctrine and teaching. 

 

=="Changes in its doctrine and teaching" = "The Church is in a state of apostasy."

 

> To get from one position to another 

 

=="From one position to another" = "The Church is in a state of apostasy."

 

> without destroying the believers is a challenge that can only be accomplished by having a foundation which includes the absolute confidence that the church leadership cannot be led astray. Church leadership inerrancy is necessary.

 

==I disagree with this in several ways.  I disagree that the Church's leaders are in apostasy, or that they are employing deceit to hide this from the general membership, or that "inerrancy" is equivalent to the believe that "the church leadership cannot be led astray," or that such a thing is taught in the Church.  I believe any member of the Church can be led astray, including leaders (witness the many who apostasized in the early days of the Church).  I also reject the notion of inerrancy (though I note that it is quite possible for a church leader to make a mistake, or even many mistakes, and yet not be "astray").  However, I subscribe to the position that the Church and its leaders, collectively, will not be led astray.  I believe in the prophecy found in Daniel 2 and in how it has been interpreted.  I agree with Wilford Woodruff that "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God."

 

> When I pointed out to the stake president in one meeting that there are dozens, even hundreds of readers whose faith was restored and whose activity in the church was renewed or resumed from reading Passing the Heavenly Gift the stake president had no response. 

 

==Lots of people found Richard Dutcher's movies spiritually uplifting, but that is a separate question of the specific actions of Mr. Dutcher.

 

==In any event, there are apparently many people who have read his book and concluded that Mr. Snuffer is declaring the Church to be in a state of apostasy (note the many reviews to that effect on Amazon).  Did Mr. Snuffer bring that up with his stake president?  Probably not, as it doesn't fit his narrative.  Isn't this a bit misleading?  To make claims of having uplifted "dozens, even hundreds of readers" and their faith while simultaneously ignoring the effect of his writing on people who read it and find in it an accusation that the Church is in apostasy?

 

> Therefore, to make what concessions I can, I will state for all you blog readers: Passing the Heavenly Gift contains content that will make your appreciation and acceptance of the efforts of the institution now and in the future to bend its teachings to conform to social, political and legal trends much more difficult to achieve. You will be happier if you don't read the book. You will be more inclined to sleepwalk along with what is progressively distant from the original restoration. 

 

=="Bend its teachings" = "The Church is in a state of apostasy."

 

=="What is progressively distant from the original restoration" = "The Church is in a state of apostasy."

 

> You will not detect that these changes mark the downfall predicted in the prophecies of the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants. While I cannot withdraw the content, you should not read it if it will upset your worldview.

 

=="The downfall predicted" = "The Church is in a state of apostasy."

 

=="I cannot withdraw the content" = "I refuse to withdraw the content."

 

> Which then leads to the final demand: I never intended to speak or promote Passing the Heavenly Gift. The stake president knows that. I don't promote books. Don't do book signings, have never advertised any book I've written and don't make appearances to push sales. Never have and never will. The upcoming tour has nothing to do with that, or any other book. 

 

==Mr. Snuffer has told us that "Over the next year the idea of Zion will become more clear than it has since the restoration ended," that "Zion, as an idea whose time will only come when her ideas are understood, must be plainly taught again," and that "This next year I will be trying to discuss as much of this idea as can be tolerated."  These are the things he will be doing on his speaking tours.  He will be doing the clarifying and plain teaching and discussing of new light and knowledge.  It will come from him.  Not from the LDS Church.  Not from Pres. Monson, the Presiding High Priest.  This new information will come from Mr. Snuffer.  On his upcoming speaking tours.

 

==And his stake president should be okay with that?  

 

> Well, it has to do with the scriptures and promoting them. But since the church publishes them and Deseret Book profits from their sales, I'm actually promoting Deseret Book, owned by Deseret Management Corporation, owned by The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which consists of one person, the senior member of the twelve. Therefore, I am promoting the interests of the church president. But not my own.

 

==Right.  Accusing the Church of being in apostasy promotes its interests.  Usurping its role promotes its interests.  Maligning its leaders promotes its interests.

 

==This is sophistry.  That's all.  I am embarrassed for him.

 

> I'm not sure if that meets the requirement for "repentance" in this current predicament, but that's what I can do. If the church wants to make me another offer, then let the stake president know and I'm sure he'll pass it along. 

 

==Yet another slur against both the Church and his stake president.  This is not going well.

 

> Given how little time remains I thought I'd skip the middleman and put this up here because you guys downtown read this blog (as we can tell from the blogmeter).

 

==And with that, Mr. Snuffer just surrendered any sense of seriousness.  He's now just another crank to me.  Too bad.

 

> Finally, I want to be clear I am not addressing homosexuality in this post. I am merely using the subject to make an illustration. 

 

=="An illustration" = "An indicator that the Church is in apostasy."

 

> I need to add that the advocates of socially progressive Mormonism have been far more tolerate of my views than the church has. They (social progressives) are willing to be tolerant precisely because they've had their own view so marginalized in the past. For their kindness toward me I am appreciative. Disagreement does not require warfare, and sometimes makes for very healthy and interesting conversation between those holding different views. We all need to push beyond rhetoric into the substance of the disagreements. Once we do that we can find the ability to love one another even as we disagree.

 

==I like the sentiment of "find{ing} the ability to love one another even as we disagree," except that it's coming from person who has publicly slurred his stake president, the Brethren, and the LDS Church on a number of occasions and in a number of ways.  He has done this while simultaneously claiming to sustain the Church and its leaders.

 

==Comparing the Church to "Babylon" is not an expression of love.  Describing his stake president as a "Pharoah in Egypt" is not an expression of love.  Publicly declaring the Church to be in a state of apostasy (while elsewhere denying this) is not an expression of love.  Figuratively flipping the bird at his stake president by publishing private correspondence about his disciplinary status, and otherwise publicizing this issue, is not an expression of love.  Publicly accusing his stake president of improper motives ("getting ahead" in the Church) is not an expression of love.  Usurping the role of the Brethren is not an expression of love.  And on and on.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited September 5, 2013 by smac97

[bluebell]

Mr. Duffer comes across in his latest post like someone who (figuratively) would stab you in the back, all while smiling to your face and telling you how sorry he is about it.

 

He seems to be either delusional or very two faced.