Book : Passing The Heavenly Gift By Denver Snuffer

[cinepro]

 However, with his last book the discomfort I felt in his subtle attitudes was uncloaked and it became apparent he has become apostate and deceived. 

 

 

Here's what he has to say about being "apostate":

 

I have been called, among other choice words, "apostate" by some LDS folks in their indiscriminate, anonymous on-line rants. Name-calling by Latter-day Saints is a complete role reversal from where the Restoration began. When Joseph Smith was being abused by the religionists of his day, he observed “they treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil. That there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things [were confined to and the sole right of] the apostles.” (JS-H 1: 21.) The people who rejected Joseph’s beliefs were rejecting the Bible itself, which they pretended was the basis for their faith. Joseph did what James 1: 5 instructed him to do, and got an answer. That is the faith he restored: A living faith in which God will speak to all who, like me, lack wisdom, liberally. I lack wisdom. I go to God with questions. So long as any of us ask in faith, He will answer. I know. He has answered me. Now Latter-day Saints think it is their right to denounce others who have asked God, and have been answered. If Latter-day Saints do possess the truth, then for those they think in error should be met with kindness, not reviling. (See JS-H 1: 25.) “If they suppose me to be deluded they ought to endeavor in a proper and affectionate manner to reclaim me.” (JS-H 1: 28.) Instead I read the accusation I am “apostate” by these smug Latter-day Saints. It must put a smile on the faces of authority and the devil. These disciples pretend to follow Joseph's restored religion while acting the part of his persecutors. The saints have come full circle indeed.

 

Where exactly do you draw the line and begin to denounce others as “apostate?”

 

If we both believe in the Book of Mormon, are we of the same faith or is one of us “apostate?”

 

If we both believe Joseph Smith was called of God to restore the Gospel, are we of the same faith or is one of us “apostate?”

 

If we both accept the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price as scripture, are we of the same faith or is one of us “apostate?”

 

If we both believe in continuing revelation and that God has yet to reveal a great deal as part of the Restoration of all, are we of the same faith or is one of us “apostate?”

 

If we have all of the foregoing in common, is that enough to respect one another as fellow-believers? Or do you require much more of me than I can give in order to avoid being denounced by you? How much do you want to micromanage my beliefs? Do you ever feel any twinge of concern about not permitting others to worship “according to the dictates of their conscience, and allow others the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may?” (Paraphrase of 11^th Article of Faith)

 

If I believe priesthood has no authority over me, and you believe as Elder Oaks declared from general conference that the “keys” are the right to exercise authority, are we of the same faith or is one of us “apostate?” What if my belief is based on the scripture “no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood” which I hold in higher regard than a declaration from a church official to the contrary? (See D&C121: 41)

 

If I believe the Lectures on Faith are still scripture, but you do not, are we of the same faith or is one of us “apostate?”

 

If I believe the LDS Church has changed dramatically in my lifetime, and even more since Joseph Smith died, are we of the same faith or is one of us “apostate?”

 

If I believe the scriptures were given to control and govern the faith, and you believe whatever comes from living church officials can contradict or disregard the words of scripture, are we of the same faith or is one of us “apostate?” If I can tolerate your view in this regard, even if I do not share it, are we of the same faith or is one of us “apostate?” If I use the scriptures and you use the scriptures, why are your views correct and mine incorrect? How did we arrive at the odd position that you get to call me “apostate” for believing the scriptures differently than you do? If you trust that “keys” are the thing that guarantees you salvation, what exactly are the “keys,” allowed by scripture, that bear that out?

 

If I will let you go in peace, why cannot you let me go likewise in peace. The LDS church is an institution of this world, not of the next. We should care less for the things of this world than we do. I am very content with my faith in God, and very much in harmony with everything He has asked of me. If you believe the same about yourself, then let that be your assurance and have the confidence to leave me to go my way in peace. Practice your beliefs in the way you think God wants, and I will do the same.

 

I will never again submit to another man’s priestly claim to dominion, control, judgment or oppression. It was denounced in scripture, and I reject such things. (D&C 121: 36-42.) If you think there is a priest who has the right to demand things of you in exchange for saving you using some “key,”  I do not share your belief, but I am perfectly willing to respect you if that is yours. Happy is the man who serves his God in faith and conviction. Happier still is the man whose God is Christ and therefore respects his right to voluntarily act for himself, accepting full accountability for his beliefs, and not expecting man to save him using authority to do so.

If, by your definition, I am “apostate,” then let me assure you I am content to be so. I am fully willing to accept whatever Christ’s judgment is for being so. More importantly, I am entirely satisfied I remain in harmony with what God expects of me, and I wish the same for you.

 

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/

 

[sethpayne]

Snuffer is either a nut or a liar and probably both.

 

Just like others say about Joseph Smith, right?  

 

What evidence do you have to support him being a liar or a nut?

 

I certainly don't agree with the man on many things but one thing that comes across pretty clearly to me -- in both his writing and speaking -- is sincerity.

[sethpayne]

No, it's being nuts that makes him nuts.

 

Didn't you complain when a certain person wrote about your claimed personal experiences with angels and the Spirit?  I think he probably things you are a nutter.

 

Of course, those of us who have interacted with you over the years know this absolutely.  

[The Nehor]

Just like others say about Joseph Smith, right?  

 

What evidence do you have to support him being a liar or a nut?

 

I certainly don't agree with the man on many things but one thing that comes across pretty clearly to me -- in both his writing and speaking -- is sincerity.

 

My evidence is reading what he wrote and listening to what he said.

 

 

Didn't you complain when a certain person wrote about your claimed personal experiences with angels and the Spirit?  I think he probably things you are a nutter.

 

Of course, those of us who have interacted with you over the years know this absolutely.  

 

I have never had an interaction with a visible angel. I have been mocked occasionally for spiritual experiences but I am usually pretty "meh" about it.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Do those of you that disagree with him think he is a fraud?

Nope.  I think he's as transparently honestly forthright about his opinions as the next guy over.   Just the sky in his world is a different color than mine.

[Calm]

"I will never again submit to another man’s priestly claim to dominion, control, judgment or oppression"

If apostasy in the LDS faith means rejecting the current teachings and doctrine of the LDS faith as determined by its ultimate leadership and the sustaining of such by the general membership, include the role of bishops as judges of Israel, I think he qualifies for apostasy by his own words.

He may want to rewrite what apostasy means, but that doesn't change what it is anymore than if someone tries to apply their own inaccurate definition to him.

[rpn]

I've been following his blog for about six months since shortly before his excommunication.   My take is that he has simply decided that the current church is not the Restored Church and that church members should go back to doing what Joseph Smith said before later prophets changed it.    He says he is not trying to start another church (though those who "follow him" seem to have created one in thought) and doing so would be wicked.  He says that he can be true to his beliefs and be a church member in good standing because all he is doing is living the gospel better more precise more fervently (when I say says, I'm interpreting, not quoting) and he hopes to be rebaptized some day.  

 

I do not think it fair to decide that he is a fraud.  I have difficulty with the idea of excommunicating for writing and publishing books.  II don't see what he did as his excommunication as stupid or weird, though it is clear that the leaders interpreted his actions as less than humble and repentant.   Seems likely that it didn't matter because the decision was a foregone conclusion (which BTW, is NOT the way church discipline is supposed to be).

 

I also don't think that he acknowledges fully the current prophet as speaking for God.  

 

And I do not think it useful to review the book, even as an apologist.   I was curious but decided not to enrich him or his backers (he claims not to have accepted any proceeds from the book personally) by buying it.

[USU78]

is Denver Snuffer even his real name?

 

Yup.  I've had cases with him.

[Calm]

"  Seems likely that it didn't matter because the decision was a foregone conclusion (which BTW, is NOT the way church discipline is supposed to be)."

If it was, seems to me the year plus his leaders had been working with him plus being able to access all that writing might have had something to do with it.

[Anakin7]

Thank you all for your thought and links.

 

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[SamIam]

Here's what he has to say about being "apostate":

 

 

I had read this some while ago.  In those days I used to say he was only on the the road to apostasy as he had begun the slide into the Brethren are not as righteous as I mentality that Joseph describes as being on the road.  When he was excommunicated for apostasy was when I determined he was an apostate.  He published the letter of his excommunication at this link. http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013/09/no-title.html

[Tiki]

"The LDS church is an institution of this world, not of the next."

He's obviously incorrect about that, among other things.

But sounds like he's caused himself a lot of problems by looking beyond the mark.

I wish him the best.

[jwhitlock]

Just like others say about Joseph Smith, right?  

 

What evidence do you have to support him being a liar or a nut?

 

I certainly don't agree with the man on many things but one thing that comes across pretty clearly to me -- in both his writing and speaking -- is sincerity.

 

Sincerity is not mutually exclusive with nuttiness.

[rameumptom]

That he has written against the living prophets and Church is a sign of apostasy.  That he interprets D&C 121 very differently than most members is also apparent: it does not mean that priesthood authority cannot be used, but only that it must be done on the basis of righteousness.  While giving lip service to the scriptures, he apparently picks and chooses which ones he wishes to use, as he feels he can freely go against the living prophets and apostles, even when D&C 1 tells us otherwise.  Church history shows several people tried usurping Joseph Smith's power and authority, and the Lord frequently had to correct such people, or excommunicate them.  Sounds like Denver sits with the best of those apostates who considered Joseph Smith a fallen prophet (David Whitmer, William Law, John C Bennett, etc).  BTW, David Whitmer also had a testimony of the scriptures and even a sure witness of the BoM - did Joseph Smith have the right to excommunicate him?

 

Denver isn't necessarily nutty.  He definitely believes in the things he believes, so is not a fraud.  However, he definitely also is apostate from the teachings of the scriptures and Church.  He is free to determine what things will be scripture and truth for him, but that does not mean anything to the Church, whose leaders have the responsibility to decide what is scripture for the Church.

 

When it comes to understanding scripture, he is obviously a lightweight.  He clearly allowed his interpretation of scripture and his pride to get in the way of his fellowship with the Saints, to the point that he was attacking doctrine and Church leaders.  I hope some day he can awaken to his sad state, repent of his sins, publicly (and privately) acknowledge the living prophets and apostles, and be rebaptized.

[Vookman]

I have known Denver for about 17 years.  He is not crazy or a fraud.  I do believe he is in error.  I have read his most recent book, and there are many places where you can see the leap in logic as he asserts various positions.  I believe his pride keeps him from acknowledging that he could be wrong, and therefore he refuses to take direction from priesthood leaders. Thus he has a contorted view of D&C 121:41, because otherwise they would have authority, and he would be an apostate for failing to follow the inspired leadership of the Church.  Sadly, his approach leaves him outside of fellowship with the Spirit, so he cannot "think" his way back into the Church.

 

That many things have changed in the Church is a given.  The issue is who has the right and authority to institute change?  Like David Whitmer of old, it is not the one firing off missives and exhorting the membership to follow other leaders.  Denver is a great guy, he is just wrong.

[ERayR]

I have known Denver for about 17 years.  He is not crazy or a fraud.  I do believe he is in error.  I have read his most recent book, and there are many places where you can see the leap in logic as he asserts various positions.  I believe his pride keeps him from acknowledging that he could be wrong, and therefore he refuses to take direction from priesthood leaders. Thus he has a contorted view of D&C 121:41, because otherwise they would have authority, and he would be an apostate for failing to follow the inspired leadership of the Church.  Sadly, his approach leaves him outside of fellowship with the Spirit, so he cannot "think" his way back into the Church.

 

That many things have changed in the Church is a given.  The issue is who has the right and authority to institute change?  Like David Whitmer of old, it is not the one firing off missives and exhorting the membership to follow other leaders.  Denver is a great guy, he is just wrong.

 

So sad when good people go off the rails.