Re: Who has jumped off the Denver Snuffer train?
Posted: October 1st, 2015, 11:42 am
J It is not my intention to hijack anything but rather than start a whole new thread I would ask for clarification of your views. I am perplexed by you views of both Joseph and Snuffer. From other items you have written you seem to say the Joseph was a fallen prophet as a result of his introduction of polygamy. My impression is that you would say the same of BY. Could you clarify your position for me ,ThanksJesef wrote:See if you can spot it...
http://denversnuffer.com/2013/10/i-will ... -a-church/And then this is from the transcript from a 1-on-1 interview with Tim Malone shortly before the Grand Mesa get together:I Will Not Start A Church
October 18, 2013 Denver Off Thoughts
Apparently the reason the church is now interviewing and discouraging some of those attending the talks I have given is driven by the false expectation that I intend to start a church. Let me be clear: I will not start a church. Period. Won’t. Not now. Not later. Never.
There is nothing about starting a church that appeals in the least to me. To the extent one is needed, we already have one.
Any organization formed in this world must comply with laws of man. Tax issues, regulatory issues, and potential legislative intrusions are always part of the life of an institution. Pressure from political and economic interests abound. Before long, no matter how noble in origin, this world erodes and later controls the institutions here.
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.
The break off movements led by the carnal and ambitious polygamists are even more repugnant to me. They oppress their women and have descended into child sexual exploitation with disappointing regularity. The idea I want to follow in that distasteful abomination is even more offensive than thinking I want to be an LDS leader.
Read what I’ve written. Listen to my talks. You needn’t think there is a hidden agenda. There isn’t and won’t be one. I am so transparent that even the church court information has been made public.
http://3tcm.net/a-visit-with-denver-snu ... script.pdf"Did" "Denver Snuffer" "start" "a" "church"? Did he lawyer this or what? I hope his followers don't respond, because they would no doubt say he, Denver, didn't technically "start" anything (exhibit A), rather the Lord started it or some such, and it is not "a church" technically, or rather a 501c3 or some such, or rather it is plural "churches" you see (exhibit B and possibly C). He didn't lawyer this - he just semantically manipulated it for spiritually superior people with "ears to hear" and "eyes to see". Or it's just quite simply a flat contradiction/lie now caught on historical record.Question Ten: I’d like to end this first section of questions with something near and dear to my heart and that is the pursuit of personal spiritual communication with the Lord. I have delighted in your focus and emphasis from your first book that we can and should seek [an] audience with the Lord. You have declared He is willing to come to us in a literal, physical sense and that we can come into His presence, embrace Him and be taught by Him personally. If there is anything that gives more power to your teachings than your declaration you have seen Him, I don’t know what it is.
In my own pursuit of an audience with the Savior I rely on a sacred dream received shortly after I read The Second Comforter for the first time. Without going into any detail, the dream satisfied my desire to know when I could expect to enter into the presence of the Lord. In interpreting my dream, which I prayed to understand, it is not soon. I have years of work ahead of me – years of faithful and diligent effort to do as the Lord asks. And He has asked things of me, some of them very difficult. I note some people looking to unusual sources for inspiration and help – Shamans, questionable scripture, etc. I know you’re asked this all the time, but if you don’t mind, what counsel would you give for my readers who are anxiously seeking an audience with the Lord, and have become weary with the length of the process?
ANSWER (Denver): The fact is that it requires patience, and patience is an absolute, necessary virtue that even Christ was required to accomplish. He thought He was ready at age 12, but it was 18 years later before He finally had the day come when He was allowed to begin His ministry. He wanted to be about His Father's business, and His mother told Him get back home.
There are those who, (including our Lord Himself), find the most difficult virtue of all is patience. It was 27 years in the coming for me. Godliness is a gradual thing. Even what is revealed is not necessarily going to be immediately understood, as that last talk I gave mentioned. It's one thing to receive, it's another thing to comprehend, and it still another order of magnitude difficult to teach. They are a gradual process, and to think that you can leap...that's remarkable because I don't see a precedent in scripture where that was the case. What did the apostle Paul take? 14 years from the encounter on the road to Damascus before he began to preach?
It took 40 years from the day Enoch was ordained at 25, before he walked with God at 65, and that was remarkably quick accomplishment.
Moses 40 years in the wilderness before he had his encounter with God at age 80. If you think you can rush it, you're probably going to be deceived.
Question Eleven: May I share something? This is from a fellowship community member in Arizona. It’s called “River Church.” I’d like to know your impressions after hearing it if this is what you had in mind when you talked about organizing:

“What a beautiful day. The water was so clear I could see the bottom. The sun was bright and warm. I arrived at the Waters of Mormon about 4pm. As I walked down the bluff, I could see many people going in the water. So many were gathered at the edge of the water cheering and clapping. It was a magnificent scene for sure.
“As I arrived, so many of you greeted me with warmth and kindness. It was like the first time walking through the veil into the celestial room with loved ones there to greet the newly endowed. Such a feeling of peace and acceptance. Thank you. I counted about 33 members of our community there.
“The most wonderful part of the afternoon was right after the bread and wine were blessed and passed. There was such a wonderful feeling in the group. It was so quiet, just children playing in the distance and toddlers cooing. The rest of the group sat earnestly as the waters rushed by.
“Right then I was in the moment. I pushed myself to take mental note. A wonderful experience to hold in my memory. For all my life I will remember that wonderful moment. This morning a word came to me to describe the feeling of that moment: ‘solemn’. I hope many more of you will join us in the future. I love river church.”
ANSWER (Denver): To me the description sounds heavenly. It's in nature, it is worshipping God, it describes fellowship and worship both of which are godly.
It is necessary to allow creative solutions to be independently functioning among different groups. There was not a single "New Testament Church." There wasn't one. There were Churches. Each of the 12 and Paul, established different Churches with markedly different emphasis.
-Petrine Churches emphasized authority and order.
-Johannine Churches emphasized love.
-Pauline Churches emphasized both evangelical fervor and Gentile participation.
-Jacobian Churches emphasized charity.
They were all adapted to teach of Christ. There wasn't a central, hierarchical, command and control in the New Testament era.
In fact there's a book, and the title of the book really says it all: The Churches the Apostles Left Behind, by S.S. Raymond E. Brown. The idea of a universal or a "Catholic" Church was imposed some centuries later. When it was founded it adopted the title "Catholic" or "universal" in order to try and achieve a missing ingredient of uniformity in the early Christian diversity. The fellowships ought to have diversity.
We should not think it is impossible to have godliness with diversity, nor should we assume that a one- size-fits-all solution is going to work among different groups. There are some groups in which there are a lot of children, and the emphasis needs to be directed toward the needs of the children. There are some groups that are primarily childless adults. They need to emphasize what suits them. Every one of them needs to adapt to whatever the local conditions are, and have the freedom to do that as was once the case with the early Christian and Restoration Churches.
At the beginning of the Restoration they were called Churches, plural, they were not called a Church, singular. They were "societies of believers" in different locations and they governed themselves differently and locally.
Question Twelve: Daryl’s group is just one of dozens of communities organized in a tithing and fellowship group. However, as far as I can tell, most of these fellowships are only along the Mormon Corridor, specifically in the areas where you presented the lectures. I know some have created webpages
to help interested people connect to one another in a specific geographic region. In my case in Southern California, our fellowship is very, very loose with participants ranging from Alaska to San Diego.
I see the movement growing. I imagine you get a lot of emails from people asking about organizing and fellowshipping. You gave good counsel in the Mesa lecture when you suggested our time would be well spent if we did nothing more than read the scriptures – printed version – to one another and pray together. Will you share a little more about why fellowships are so important in bringing unity to our churches?
ANSWER (Denver): We cannot bear one another's burdens without fellowship with one another. And bearing one another's burdens presumes that you know what the burdens are that someone else carries. Which means that I have been patient enough, I have been attentive enough, I have been friendly enough, and I have been trusted enough that I can find out what the burden is that they carry.
I have a very good friend who I went to elementary, junior high, and high school with, and have kept in touch with him for many years. He has recently contracted a terminal form of cancer. He called me to talk about that, without telling his family, without telling his neighbors, without telling his friends, because he and I have a friendship that is built upon the kind of trust that allows me to share that burden with him, because of the relationship. There was nothing odd to me about him confiding in me. He has been a lifelong friend.
We are supposed to help one another get through this ordeal of mortality. Mortality is an ordeal for every one of us. It is not easy. Even the people you envy, if you were living inside their world, you would find that they have burdens that they are carrying as well. Fellowshipping allows us to bears one another's burdens, and bearing one another's burdens implies a whole universe of connectivity, trust, confidence, friendship and affection between one another, before you get to the point where you even know what their burdens are.
But that is supposed to be a blessing and part of what it means to worship together. Worshiping together by assisting one another, allows all of us to feel a great part of what it is that Christ is and does. It allows us to know who we worship, and allows us to know how to worship Him, and it allows us to know what makes us one with one another. (See D&C 93:19.)
Now it's really hard to accomplish that across state lines, but it still can be done. The example I use of my friend, he lives in Idaho and I live in Utah. He and I have spent a lot of time on the phone since I've learned of the illness about a month ago. That is because I care, and because he needs to talk to someone, and he finds it a relief to be able to do so with me. It can be done across state lines. It can be done across any barriers.
All of us are victims of institutional abuse. Many of us can sense it when the slightest hint of abuse appears. One recent writer on your blog has identified it as "paternalism." and that's not an inappropriate designation for it. We should learn how to be loving and equal with one another.
The idea of equality is resisted by a lot of skeptics who accuse me of wanting authority and control, when I despise control. But I absolutely welcome fellowship, equality and worship with one another. This isn't easy. But it is godly to pursue.
We are going to make mistakes. There are going to be a lot of institutional habits holding over. We will want to control others to "whip this into shape." The idea of a whip...when Christ resorted to the scourge it was to drive them out. He didn't drive them in, nor did He send them out to organize them. He drove them out to keep them away. If we are going to whip anything, we are going to drive people away.
We would be better off practicing the kind of patience and kindness that persuades people gently. We should all realize that, in terms of Mormonism, almost everyone is a refugee suffering post-religious trauma syndrome. People are going to think you are also abusive. They are going to think you want to use them as a tool for another powerbase. They will think someone wants to use them, and it is a reasonable thought.
The idea that there's someone who doesn't want to use them or abuse them, but who wants to fellowship with them and help them bear a burden is a foreign idea for most Mormons. But that's the idea of Christianity at its core, and that's what really alien in this world. We need to bring that back again.