Snuffer & PTHG

[vaquero]

Following the discussions on this board on Snuffer reminds me of gnosticism.

I've not read any of his books nor do I intend to. Like most critics, his is a twisted interpretation of scripture and history. I have read a number of things on his website and would not waste my time on his books. Indeed, Joseph was and is the Prophet of the restoration; however, President Monson is his legal successor and does indeed hold all keys necessary to administer the ordinances of salvation and build the kingdom of God on earth.

For those wanting a review of PTHG by someone who has read the book:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/passin ... ne-of-two/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The above review does a thorough job of going through the book and demonstrating the fallacies inherent in Snuffer's theories.

I've not posted before on Snuffer but have been disappointed in this board, the attention he has garnered, and the constant carping on the Church and the Lord's anointed.

[Ides3Life]

It seems ironic to me the number of people who will judge the truthfulness of a book based solely on the opinion of someone else who reviews that book. I imagine there are a number of reviews a person could read about the Book of Mormon; but that, in my opinion, wouldn't be the best way to find out if it contains truth. It seems that prayerful consideration of the actual words of the book, prayerful pondering of its message, and examination of its references would be more reliable.

[wrsales]

I agree with Bret. It is very interesting that you will judge something before actually having read it. After reading your post I thought of something Denver wrote a few days ago.

"Isn't it curious how we adopt ideas like they are part of our anatomy and then refuse to give them up. It's like the ideas are more painful to change than cutting off a finger. That's quite strange when you think about it. Ideas should be welcome when they come and welcome when they are replaced by something better.
Imagine if nature didn't respond to changing demands. Imagine if after a forest fire the birds refused to look somewhere else for seeds. Everything adapts, except for the human mind in many people once we get past about 25 years old. Then we think we know enough to keep holding onto the same tired ideas, even when they fail us in life. We remain "devout" to the errors."

Best of luck to you, I hope in the future you will take the time to actually read the things you judge so harshly.

[keep the faith]

Following the discussions on this board on Snuffer reminds me of gnosticism.

I've not read any of his books nor do I intend to. Like most critics, his is a twisted interpretation of scripture and history. I have read a number of things on his website and would not waste my time on his books. Indeed, Joseph was and is the Prophet of the restoration; however, President Monson is his legal successor and does indeed hold all keys necessary to administer the ordinances of salvation and build the kingdom of God on earth.

For those wanting a review of PTHG by someone who has read the book:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/passin ... ne-of-two/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The above review does a thorough job of going through the book and demonstrating the fallacies inherent in Snuffer's theories.

I've not posted before on Snuffer but have been disappointed in this board, the attention he has garnered, and the constant carping on the Church and the Lord's anointed.

Listening to the conference sessions and the testimonies of the Brethren should give people a very clear distinction between the spirit those testimonies are accompanied by as opposed to the spirit that so often permeates this forum when discussions of the church and the Brethren are brought up in an often demeaning or attacking fashion. To me they are distinctively different spirits. One is filled with a sense of positive gospel love and good will for all of Gods children while the other often reeks of accusations and faultfinding and critical thought when it comes to TCOJCOLDS. I guess everyone here will have to come to the determination as to which of those spirits come from The Lord and which one comes from some other source. I have my answer.

[Franktalk]

I have read some of this review. I find it lacking. From what I have read it is Denver Snuffer who is seeking the truth of what Joseph Smith taught. I find that the church does not do a good job in teaching all of the doctrines that Joseph wanted for the church. The more I study the actual writings of Joseph Smith the more they match what is revealed to me by the Holy Spirit.

I think we need to prioritize our seeking of the truth. Here is my list in order of importance.

1. Direct voice communication with God.
2. Direct knowledge from the Holy Ghost.
3. Spiritual discernment of the scriptures using the Holy Ghost.
4. Spiritual discernment of the teachings of the prophets as verified by the Holy Ghost.

[marc]

What an ironic OP.

[jo1952]

Following the discussions on this board on Snuffer reminds me of gnosticism.

I've not read any of his books nor do I intend to. Like most critics, his is a twisted interpretation of scripture and history. I have read a number of things on his website and would not waste my time on his books. Indeed, Joseph was and is the Prophet of the restoration; however, President Monson is his legal successor and does indeed hold all keys necessary to administer the ordinances of salvation and build the kingdom of God on earth.

For those wanting a review of PTHG by someone who has read the book:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/passin ... ne-of-two/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The above review does a thorough job of going through the book and demonstrating the fallacies inherent in Snuffer's theories.

I've not posted before on Snuffer but have been disappointed in this board, the attention he has garnered, and the constant carping on the Church and the Lord's anointed.

There are many who say the same thing about the Book of Mormon. Rather than actually reading the Book of Mormon, they will read other books about it and gain a preconception about it. Based on that preconception and the interpretation about the BoM given by another, they refuse to read it. Or, if they DO decide to read it, they have the preconception stuck in their head. Now, I am NOT--in any way, shape, or form--comparing PTHG with the Book of Mormon. I haven't read PTHG. I am commenting on the methodology being used. I face this type of reasoning and thinking ALL of the time in apologetics when I am defending the Book of Mormon against anti-LDS. It always prevents the open-mindedness needed for the Holy Spirit to be able to give a witness because the close-minded person simply is not ready to receive.

[kathyn]

Vaquero, that was actually a pretty good article and answers some questions I've had. Thank you for posting it. It's very unpopular here if you're not a Snuffer acolyte, so just be warned.

[vaquero]

One need not read books by one who speaks ill of the Lord's anointed in order to be able to discern whether Snuffer speaks the truth or no any more than one need read other Church critics to determine whether Brigham Young and the Twelve are Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. The Church is true and President Monson is Joseph's legal successor. I need not, therefore, read Snuffer.

That there are so many Snuffer disciples who continue to carp against the Church on an "LDS" forum is troubling. I don't spend much time here anymore and will likely spend less in the future for this reason.

[jo1952]

One need not read books by one who speaks ill of the Lord's anointed in order to be able to discern whether Snuffer speaks the truth or no any more than one need read other Church critics to determine whether Brigham Young and the Twelve are Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. The Church is true and President Monson is Joseph's legal successor. I need not, therefore, read Snuffer.

That there are so many Snuffer disciples who continue to carp against the Church on an "LDS" forum is troubling. I don't spend much time here anymore and will likely spend less in the future for this reason.

It appears that those who enjoy listening to Snuffer are brought closer to Christ by the things Snuffer speaks. This is precious fruit. It is the fruit of any true disciple of Christ. The Church has excommunicated one of their own who has been able to help bring others among us closer to Christ. This is precious fruit....bringing others closer to Christ! The Church should be pleased; not puffed up and/or jealous or even fearful of trying to maintain their own importance over the importance of bringing us to Christ. FIRST we must be one with Christ before we can become one with others (including our leaders).

The methodology of thinking which you are manifesting is the same methodology which prevailed when Christ walked the earth. The Jews were troubled by their brethren who became disciples of Jesus Christ. Jesus' own religious leaders killed Him when he dared to question and rebuke them. Are we able to see the similarities and recognize the patterns and learn the lesson which these patterns can teach us?

[Thomas]

I had a co-worker tell me the Book of Mormon was a made up lie, just yesterday. I asked this person if she had ever read the book. She replied that she hadn't but did not need to read it to know it was bunk. She had been told by enough people and knew enough about Joseph Smith that she didn't need to waste time reading the book.

Vaquero wrote: One need not read books by one who speaks ill of the Lord's anointed in order to be able to discern whether Snuffer speaks the truth or no any more than one need read other Church critics to determine whether Brigham Young and the Twelve are Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. The Church is true and President Monson is Joseph's legal successor. I need not, therefore, read Snuffer.

When has he spoken evil of the Lord's anointed? He says Monson has the right to preside and he sustains him and his local leaders.

[liberty]

H. Verlan Anderson
HISTORY WARNS THAT APOSTASY MUST BE EXPECTED
"Religious history testifies that, with the single exception of the inhabitants of the City of
Enoch, no people to whom the gospel has been given have remained faithful to their covenants for
more than a few generations. Time after time the Lord has established His Church among a group
who have lived His commandments for a few years and then fallen away, thus bringing upon
themselves His judgments. This cycle of human folly which so many prophets have noted, has
repeated itself with such consistent regularity that any group which finds itself to be the favored
recipients of the gospel would do well to assume that their apostasy is certain, and the only
question about it is how long it will take."

[AnthonyR]

Liberty, where is that quote found? HVA is one of my faves!

[liberty]

The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil, pg. 161

[ebenezerarise]

I can say I've read Snuffer now and the fruit of his efforts is, in my opinion, utter darkness.

That there are those here who claim to be members of the Church and support an individual who speaks continually against the Lord's prophets disappoints me.

No doubt there will be those who want me to quote page and paragraph where my disagreements are with Snuffer. I will not waste the time.

As Latter-day Saints we afford Snuffer that which we afford all men -- that he can believe as he feels God reveals to him.

But when he takes, as a member of the Church, the responsibility to speak out against the Church, its present and past leadership, he crosses a line.

For his own good he was excommunicated and his local leadership was wise to do so.

[liberty]

While I don't necessarily follow everything that DS says, just like anything you have to decide what is and is not truth. My anchor for doctrine is the Old Testament - it needs to be consistent with the Old Testament.

[AnthonyR]

Vaquero,
I understand completely where you stand. I went through this with a very close friend. He was reading Max Skousen's A Blessing Hitherto Unknown. His thought processes changed while mine stayed the same. I thought he was heading for apostacy. I went through this with him for 5 years trying to persuade him he was going the wrong direction. The Lord then opened my eyes to show me that Max Skousen taught many truths that are delicious. Point is, I understand where your coming from.
I have personally read 5 of Snuffer's books, and the fruit as Alma 32 states has grown and is delicious. I have nurtured(fasted prayed, given the waiting season) the seeds which have taken root, and they are growing. I haven't personally heard him speak ill of the Lord's annointed. If you are getting this from what other people post, I am sorry that's what is being portrayed though I understand how you are coming to that conclusion. I personally can with more assurance sustain the PSR's now then I could before. My testimony of Christ's gospel and his church have grown through reading Snuffer's materials and books. I now read the Book of Mormon, D&C, The Bible with more vigor than ever before. My faith in Christ has gone from a 12 inch arm to a 16 inch arm (I used to pump iron *used to :-s )
I am sorry some have pre-conceived ideas about what he teaches then do not really hear the whisperings of the spirit speak truth to their soul. Maybe those people are really not ready yet to accept the great truths being taught. Or maybe being introduced to Snuff on this forum is more of a hindrance than a help.
I personally prayed, fasted, sought deep whether God has truth's to teach me through Snuff. I received a resounding YES! The only way to receive a true answer is to go to Father without judgement about the man or his teachings. Cast off judgement and pre-conceived ideas, become an empty 3 year old who is really looking for an answer cuz he really does want not know, and wait for the answer.
The fruits are tasty.

[Sariel]

Listening to the conference sessions and the testimonies of the Brethren should give people a very clear distinction between the spirit those testimonies are accompanied by as opposed to the spirit that so often permeates this forum when discussions of the church and the Brethren are brought up in an often demeaning or attacking fashion. To me they are distinctively different spirits. One is filled with a sense of positive gospel love and good will for all of Gods children while the other often reeks of accusations and faultfinding and critical thought when it comes to TCOJCOLDS. I guess everyone here will have to come to the determination as to which of those spirits come from The Lord and which one comes from some other source. I have my answer.

I suppose it could go both ways. Your accusations of apostasy are of a distinctly different spirit than that of General Conference. (I will admit that declaring apostasy is the knee jerk reaction of the general membership in the church when someone states the truth simply and candidly) But for the sake of this argument I will pretend that the spirit of General Conference is the spirit of those in supposed harmony with it.

In this conference President Uchtdorf said:

In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly, that was restored by a young man who asked questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth.

But maybe it's just better to ignore the truth and remain in blissful ignorance pretending that there are no problems because someone in higher authority says all is well in Zion.

Some may agree with this statement by Boyd Packer:

There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church
history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or
faith promoting or not.
Some things that are true are not very useful.

What happens when someone does find out the hard truth? Many people leave the church feeling they have been lied to. And in many cases, maybe unwittingly because of ignorance, they have been. This is no excuse to remain in ignorance. Everyone should know the full history of the religion they dedicate their lives to, including the blemishes. If some leave, it is partially the fault of those who thought they could hide the truth and treated us like children who couldn't handle the truth. The Holy Ghost, whose effect is nothing other than pure intelligence entering our body, will tell us what is true, whether is feels good or grieves us.

God Himself condemned this church and never removed the condemnation. Am I overly critical for quoting God's own word to our church? If I see that Isaiah and the Book of Mormon prophets are critical of us and our leaders, am I not allowed to quote them and apply it as I honestly believe it should be? I guess it is a contrast to the warm fuzzies we get praising God for choosing us to be saved and set up a system that could never become corrupted, sending the rest of human history to hell because they did not receive such a blessing.

Maybe it hurts that our false idols are not as perfect as we were raised to think. Maybe we will shed a few tears. But the end result is trusting in Jesus Christ Himself as the author of our salvation, no longer trusting in the arm of the flesh waiting for permission from man to be saved.

But I digress...

[brlenox]

It seems ironic to me the number of people who will judge the truthfulness of a book based solely on the opinion of someone else who reviews that book. I imagine there are a number of reviews a person could read about the Book of Mormon; but that, in my opinion, wouldn't be the best way to find out if it contains truth. It seems that prayerful consideration of the actual words of the book, prayerful pondering of its message, and examination of its references would be more reliable.

This is a straw man after a fashion. I have read Snuffers books until PTHG, which revealed itself soon enough that it was not necessary to complete the read. However, it is not the books that we are considering, You can sense Denver's spirit and those who have adopted his critical demeanor from any number of sources. Even in his Second Comforter book years ago had very subtle seeds of condescension that, while not near what has become perfectly evident now in a multitude of his other public exposures, was still enough to catch my attention.

The mistake in this line of reasoning, that one needs to read his books to make a proper judgement, I think is identified in the temple. When Satan inquires of Adam concerning the fruit, Adam only seeks enough information to determine Satan's intent. Then without any further research into Satan's further explanations he simply shuts him down and will not engage in further conversation.

When Eve is approached, she is engaged in conversation. She entertains Satan's point of view. She considers upon his offerings and finally she is convinced Satan is a not a bad dude after all. Thus Satan takes advantage of the argument, Hey you haven't even listened to what I have to say...and it has nothing to do with Father. Of course in Denver's case it is, "I'm not saying you should leave Christ's church, even though it is a screwed up mess, has no authority, the temple ordinances are invalid and no one has any priesthood, I'm not saying anything about God's church..." The arguments are the same and the result in some instances is the same.

If you let Denver present his wonderful and desirable positive message of coming into the presence of the Lord as is 90 % of his message, there is great risk as you will have to read through a 100% of the book to get there. That 10% difference of Satan's message of "I said nothing about father" was all it took for the first fall...is Denver's 10% of "I'm not saying don't support the brethren" all that it will take for yours?

[Sariel]

Of course in Denver's case it is, "I'm not saying you should leave Christ's church, even though it is a screwed up mess, has no authority, the temple ordinances are invalid and no one has any priesthood, I'm not saying anything about God's church..."

False.

[keep the faith]

Vaquero,
I understand completely where you stand. I went through this with a very close friend. He was reading Max Skousen's A Blessing Hitherto Unknown. His thought processes changed while mine stayed the same. I thought he was heading for apostacy. I went through this with him for 5 years trying to persuade him he was going the wrong direction. The Lord then opened my eyes to show me that Max Skousen taught many truths that are delicious. Point is, I understand where your coming from.
I have personally read 5 of Snuffer's books, and the fruit as Alma 32 states has grown and is delicious. I have nurtured(fasted prayed, given the waiting season) the seeds which have taken root, and they are growing. I haven't personally heard him speak ill of the Lord's annointed. If you are getting this from what other people post, I am sorry that's what is being portrayed though I understand how you are coming to that conclusion. I personally can with more assurance sustain the PSR's now then I could before. My testimony of Christ's gospel and his church have grown through reading Snuffer's materials and books. I now read the Book of Mormon, D&C, The Bible with more vigor than ever before. My faith in Christ has gone from a 12 inch arm to a 16 inch arm (I used to pump iron *used to :-s )
I am sorry some have pre-conceived ideas about what he teaches then do not really hear the whisperings of the spirit speak truth to their soul. Maybe those people are really not ready yet to accept the great truths being taught. Or maybe being introduced to Snuff on this forum is more of a hindrance than a help.
I personally prayed, fasted, sought deep whether God has truth's to teach me through Snuff. I received a resounding YES! The only way to receive a true answer is to go to Father without judgement about the man or his teachings. Cast off judgement and pre-conceived ideas, become an empty 3 year old who is really looking for an answer cuz he really does want not know, and wait for the answer.
The fruits are tasty.

Tell me how tasty these fruits are from this portion of Bro. Snuffer's most recent blog about throwing out any idea of him starting his own church. No feelings of an ill nature from him right? Wake up people. The guy drips with disdain and contempt for the church and its leadership. He clearly has a chip on his shoulder. Good luck with that kind of attitude. Not my idea of good fruits of the spirit but thats just me..

"A "strong man" model is the opposite of Zion. A controlling hierarchy where some are over, and others under control perverts the essential equality that must prevail in order for Zion to exist with one heart, one mind, and all things in common. From the moment Brigham Young began to envision the church as a platform to support his kingly ambitions until today, the church has been a temptation to practice priestcraft.

The church can dismiss any thought I have that ambition. I don't.

When religion is reduced to a market and business interests drive programs, I find it repugnant. The idea that you identify under served areas and build temples to drive larger temple recommend participation to produce a cash stream may excite business leaders, but it repels me. That the church now recaptures the cost of building a new temple in two to three years after building one is little more than priestcraft. The Jews used their temple as a place of commerce. The Latter-day Saints have turned the temples themselves into merchandise. That is NOT my ambition. It causes me to mourn, not to become excited that I might join in the feeding frenzy upon the sheep.

I am just not like you. Not at all. I will not become like you. You keep the Mormon religion as your product line and never give another thought to me trying to "poach" your paying members. I WILL NOT lead another church. Ever. Period."

[ajax]

Thank the Lord for Eve.

[brlenox]

I personally prayed, fasted, sought deep whether God has truth's to teach me through Snuff. I received a resounding YES! The only way to receive a true answer is to go to Father without judgement about the man or his teachings. Cast off judgement and pre-conceived ideas, become an empty 3 year old who is really looking for an answer cuz he really does want not know, and wait for the answer.
The fruits are tasty.

Again the interesting nature of this debate is that we all use the same logic to defend our point of view. If I had stated that I have prayed and fasted and sought deep to know that Thomas S. Monson was the true prophet of God and that as such he had the keys to assist me in coming unto Christ there would be a resounding rebuttal from the "Snuff" team that I don't need to put a man or an organization between me and the Lord. Thus when you state that you prayed and fasted and sought deep to know if you could be led to Christ through the teachings of "Snuff", I have to wonder upon what credentials "Snuff" was your chosen subject of prayer and not Thomas S. Monson. What criteria did you use to exclude one individual but cling to the other. The subjective nature of choosing between two men who both claim a prophetic status implies that something about one message was already appealing to you on a level that the others message did not. You made a choice the moment you wondered if the prophet needed an assistant in Denver Snuffer. Some of us decided it was clear he did not based on the criteria of Christ's determining who would lead his church according to a consistent pattern.

[Thomas]

It seems ironic to me the number of people who will judge the truthfulness of a book based solely on the opinion of someone else who reviews that book. I imagine there are a number of reviews a person could read about the Book of Mormon; but that, in my opinion, wouldn't be the best way to find out if it contains truth. It seems that prayerful consideration of the actual words of the book, prayerful pondering of its message, and examination of its references would be more reliable.

This is a straw man after a fashion. I have read Snuffers books until PTHG, which revealed itself soon enough that it was not necessary to complete the read. However, it is not the books that we are considering, You can sense Denver's spirit and those who have adopted his critical demeanor from any number of sources. Even in his Second Comforter book years ago had very subtle seeds of condescension that, while not near what has become perfectly evident now in a multitude of his other public exposures, was still enough to catch my attention.

The mistake in this line of reasoning, that one needs to read his books to make a proper judgement, I think is identified in the temple. When Satan inquires of Adam concerning the fruit, Adam only seeks enough information to determine Satan's intent. Then without any further research into Satan's further explanations he simply shuts him down and will not engage in further conversation.

When Eve is approached, she is engaged in conversation. She entertains Satan's point of view. She considers upon his offerings and finally she is convinced Satan is a not a bad dude after all. Thus Satan takes advantage of the argument, Hey you haven't even listened to what I have to say...and it has nothing to do with Father. Of course in Denver's case it is, "I'm not saying you should leave Christ's church, even though it is a screwed up mess, has no authority, the temple ordinances are invalid and no one has any priesthood, I'm not saying anything about God's church..." The arguments are the same and the result in some instances is the same.

If you let Denver present his wonderful and desirable positive message of coming into the presence of the Lord as is 90 % of his message, there is great risk as you will have to read through a 100% of the book to get there. That 10% difference of Satan's message of "I said nothing about father" was all it took for the first fall...is Denver's 10% of "I'm not saying don't support the brethren" all that it will take for yours?

Would you mind elaborating? What part is Satan's message. Can you give me a quote, reference?

[marc]

I've read his latest blog and I see nothing of the kind. For too long people are fixed on a paradigm that it's difficult to expand it or to see it from a different light. Look at the animation below. Is the figure spinning clockwise or counterclockwise? I see it moving clockwise. And when I study it long enough, I can see it moving counter clockwise. Then I can see it moving clockwise again.



We may have people argue that it can only move clockwise and others that swear counter clockwise. And both remain stubborn and unbending. Then there are the few who choose to study it out further and are able to see a different perspective. I understand why Denver was excommunicated. I also see that he has been obedient in the tasks given him by the Lord. I just don't see the disdain in his words the way others do. I see a man who has expounded on scripture. He has no more disdain than Nephi or Moroni or Joseph Smith who clearly wrote about the condemnation that we would fall under and how we can escape it. Furthermore, I do see that he is temple worthy, sustains his leaders, he still attends church and does what he can under his current restrictions.