The Gospel according to Denver Snuffer

[AGStacker]

Someone who claims to know Jesus personally and that he has been asked to deliver a series of messages and has been doing so for some time.

I personally think Denver is authentic. There were more discussions about Denver's message on this site when Brian believed Denver but then changed his mind. There was a Heavenly Gift forum with great discussions that was eliminated. Denver has a series of books that can be purchased or a number of lectures and blog posts that can be found on his website which is his name .com.

I don't trust offshoots of the main church though. I sustain Russell M. Nelson, The First Presidency, and the Quorum of 12 Apostles.

That's perfectly fine. President of the Church he is...prophet I do not believe.

Why don't you believe Russell M Nelson is a prophet?

Because scripturally (D&C), being called to lead the Church does not equate to being a prophet. The Church should collectively be wise and select a prophet to lead them but we depend on a seniority structure. Everyone just claims it is how the Lord would have it. Well, it isn't so in the scriptures. The presiding high priest (currently Nelson) should be selected by a majority vote among the membership. He should be chosen by common consent. We have just done seniority for a while now so everyone assumes it is God's way. The gap between Joseph and Brigham was because there was no seniority process and it took a while for the people to agree upon someone.

In fact, Hyrum was already chosen (by Joseph) to be his successor but Joseph died knowing his successor too had died as Joseph witnessed his brother being murdered. The saints where condemned because they did not build the Temple in time. God promised them blessings instead of cursings. He said the saints wouldn't be moved out of their place. Well, we all know they were.

[inquirringmind]

And Denver points such things out in his writings, which is what I mean by his having done a convincing job of discrediting the mainstream LDS church.

[Jonesy]

inquiringmind, there has always been and always will be spiritual leaders or prophet-types who claim they are God's One True Messenger with One True Message who draw a following of people who then believe they are spiritually more special/chosen/elect/elite than everyone else. They really believe in a God who plays favorites. And as the world population continues to grow, now 7.5B+, this sort of proposition becomes more and more ridiculous. God isn't choosing Denver and his less-than-3000 followers to be his Chosen Covenant People, out of everyone on the planet. It's a consciousness bubble. And eventually, they will create an expectation or a prophecy that they can't fulfill - like Jim Harmston & his TLC movement did - like a Second Coming event that won't occur, or something similar. The LDS Church has avoided doing that and survived all its contradictions. Now we have Apostles who don't claim to actually SEE (actually meaning of "WITNESS") Christ - but who veil their language in "as if" and "know" but won't say they've met Christ. It's very contrary to New Testament Apostles - that's ALL they did. Denver is doing THAT. But so did Jim Harmston and others who ended up being crackpots. We'll see what happens, but I don't see any real POWER (or signs) following Denver or his movement. All the experiences seem to be spiritual/ethereal (not real power in the physical world). Jesus said actual physical signs would follow/accompany those who Believe - well, I guess I haven't found anyone who truly meets that criteria. Maybe it was mistranslated. You'd think someone could actually perform miracles by now.

Here’s the charge to the twelve in our current administration of the gospel in the last days:

27 Therefore, see to it that ye trouble not yourselves concerning the affairs of my church in this place, saith the Lord.
28 But purify your hearts before me; and then go ye into all the world, and preach my gospel unto every creature who has not received it;(D&C 112)

The Twelve are supposed to teach and spread the gospel. And if you read the entire section, although the Lord becomes strongly displeased at some point, it is still His church. The Lord says “and upon my house shall it begin”. I don’t know how you would interpret that to mean anything other than the LDS church. So, until this end time servant comes will the church be set in order; which means any other broken-off sect or offshoot to the church is in error. Just as all the failures of every offshoot does and will.

We should stay in the Lord’s church and continue to allow the Lord to purify our heart. God will eventually take care of the affairs of His church.

[Jesef]

Denver has done a thorough job of showing that current Mormonism doesn't reflect Joseph-Smith-era Mormonism - that is true. The LDS Church has evolved over time. Denver has also done a pretty good job showing how it has evolved and shifted with surrounding culture/society. He did this to load the gun on why a New Restoration, "Preserving (or restarting) the Restoration", was necessary. He is trying to be very Joseph-Smith-esque but his self-righteousness is pretty visible if you can notice his language and self-comparisons & referrals. Says he won't repeat the same mistakes as JS, compares himself directly to Enoch & Melchizedek - he does a lot of subtle and not-so-subtle "bragging" about his bona fides. People in his bubble, under his spell, don't notice it though. They are literally mesmerized. His message has shifted though. I don't see very many people in the movement who have achieved/received an actual Second Comforter experience - and that was the initial message "everyone get to KNOW the Lord for yourselves", etc.

[Finrock]

I don't see very many people in the movement who have achieved/received an actual Second Comforter experience

This assumes that you have seen some, though?

-Finrock

[Jesef]

A few here, including Elizabeth Jensen (she used to be on LDSFF), Robert Smith, & Matt Crockett:
http://latterdaywitnesses.com

And Dan Rogers, who posted his two visitations here:
http://thesecondcomforter.com

I believe their experiences, I just don't think they mean what they necessarily think or believe they mean (such as validating Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon, or Denver Snuffer, etc.). I do believe these kinds of things can happen to anyone who seeks them. I've had my own dreams/visions/visitations. Dan's are interesting as he states both of his happened while fully awake. Denver also made a statement that his visitations have occurred while awake/conscious. I've had a couple visions while I was awake - but it was kind of like having a very lucid day-dream while feeling a massive amount of Spirit simultaneously - I still could tell I was in my body. Denver & Dan said "whether in or out of the body they could not tell". There was one gal whose testimony used to be on latterdaywitnesses but she had it removed because of all the flack she got. And I actually liked hers the most. I corresponded with her and she said she was awake and actually touched Christ physically - only one I've ever heard say that.

[inquirringmind]

There was one gal whose testimony used to be on latterdaywitnesses but she had it removed because of all the flack she got. And I actually liked hers the most. I corresponded with her and she said she was awake and actually touched Christ physically - only one I've ever heard say that.

So why don't you think her experience meant what she thought it did?

Why don't you believe it validated Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon, or Denver Snuffer?

And do you believe she actually touched Christ, and it was actually Christ she touched?

And why did she (in particular) get so much flack?

[inquirringmind]

Moved.

[Jesef]

There was one gal whose testimony used to be on latterdaywitnesses but she had it removed because of all the flack she got. And I actually liked hers the most. I corresponded with her and she said she was awake and actually touched Christ physically - only one I've ever heard say that.

So why don't you think her experience meant what she thought it did?

Why don't you believe it validated Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon, or Denver Snuffer?

And do you believe she actually touched Christ, and it was actually Christ she touched?

And why did she (in particular) get so much flack?

Well, one reason is that she doesn't follow LDS, Mormonism, JS, BoM, or Denver anymore.

I'm not her so I can't really say if she actually touched Christ. It's a unique account, though, that I've never heard anyone else describe being awake, in their body, and touching a resurrected person.

[inquirringmind]

Thank you Jesef.

Was there ever anything in her recorded experience that directly supported Mormonism, the book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, or Denver?

And does she still believe in Christ, and believe she touched Him?

And why did her testimony draw so much flack from the Mormon community (or remnant community) to begin with?

And were you aware that there are millions of Orthodox Christians who believe that God really is working to save every last soul He created, and that it's at least possible that in the end, He will (even if He can't tell us that now, because too many of us would just use that as an excuse to go on sinning and procrastinate the day of our repentance)?

And that one of their most revered saints, Gregory of Nyssa (who was declared father of fathers and a doctor of the church by an eccumenical council) said that in the fulness of time, after all the rest of creation was reconciled to God, the Great Healer would cure even the author of evil himself. But that just as a physician sometimes had to use iron and fire to cauterize a wound, so God had to deal with sin, and the deeper the sin, the longer and more painful the process?

This is what I believed before I started investigating Mormonism, and listening to log--and i was much happier then (and I tried telling log that on the remnant of Jacob forum one night--but my post was deleted and I was temporarily banned.)

Anyway, were you aware that Orthodox Christians had such thoughts, and that the ultimate salvation of every last soul God created (everyone here, and everyone in the remnant movement) is a viable hope for millions of them?

[Jesef]

I don't know - to most of your questions. To the last stuff, I think that's a beautiful idea & it wouldn't surprise me one bit. I don't believe God is condemning people for struggling through life in the dark with incomplete and uncertain information. Log is a fanatic, btw - I've told you that before - and it will save you heartache and stress not to pay attention to him. I believe the "hard liners" are FULLY incorrect about so many things. Denver denied MMP and that's one reason I knew he didn't know what the hell he was talking about. Whatever though. Do good, Be good (as you can) & don't worry. God is actually impartial and GOOD, man!

[inquirringmind]

I try to live in charity with all men, and to pray for all my aquintances and their families, and those they hold dear, so I can say much the same thing about Jared and Denver, the rest of those in the remnaent movement, those in my local LDS ward, you, and the rest of you here.

But the remnant people believe that the words of the AC were given to Denver by God, and if that's true it would seem that Jared has a point (ie that mutual agreement means unanimous agreement), and that they (as a people) have failed God's assignment by not agreeing to what he calls the rock of Christ (ie the sermon on the mount, and the BOM sermon at Bountiful) as a guide and standard once it became apparent that he would agree to nothing else.

He also seems to have a point when he says that the AC leaves them no means to excomunicate him from their body, and it would seem to follow (as he says) that unless they repent and agree with him on the sermon on the mount/sermon at Bountiful as a guide and standard, they'll be rejected as a people and unable to accomplish anything.

All this is of course irrelevant if Denver isn't a prophet, but given their belief system, Jared does seem to have a point, and it would all seem to follow from the AC, his proposal, and subseqeunt developements--don't you think?

Couple thoughts:
It is a little unfair to Log to focus solely on his actions (antics). There are others who have, in my opinion, also acted poorly. That said, Log does make himself front and center in all the discussions.
Log presents an interesting conundrum. He admitted that he took the covenant under false pretenses (he got caught up in the moment but did not know the Answer was from God). So in his mind this means he must fulfill the covenant. And he has also stated he has felt cursed since he has taken it. So even though he does to his own mind try to fulfill it, the one thing he can't do is to actually act like he knows that the Answer was from God. He can work on the Guide and Standard, can teach his children to honor God, work to reclaim the lost sheep remnant of this land and of Israel, and so on, but at the root of it, knowing that the Answer came from God is not an action he can do like the others. And this then exudes into everything else that he does. His chief argument against the other Guide and Standards is that they contain the words of Denver, which he interprets the mere act of quoting them as trusting in the arm of flesh. I claim that if he believed the Answer came from God, he would realize how faulty that logic is and then his whole house comes tumbling down.
Lastly, do we know why the Lord asked for G&S? I speculate that it had nothing (or at least little) to do with creating a missionary tract. I think it had everything to do with bringing us together to do something (without Denver's unifying influence) and let people put their hearts on display. And for my part, if you were to tell me know that Log's actions were representative of what Zion will be like, I would say thanks, but I will pass. Now there are many others with whom I have disagreed with on the matter, but have great respect for the way they have acted. Yes this has been expensive tuition, but it has been a learning experience for a great many on how to act around other people when all seem to have equal input on the matter.

Thank you jdt.

I'm sorry I missed your post here, and would have replied to it sooner if I hadn't.

I found your comments here very interesting, but did you follow Jared's comments on the Guide and Standard Blogspot before they shut it down?

He seemed to imply that after he attended the conference in Boise he received some kind of revelation that the covenant offered was from God, but only as some kind of test that he and everyone else who entered it without knowing it was from God had failed.

And he pretty much accused (or warned) anyone who received any personal revelation supporting any guide and standard other that his "rock of Jesus" of being deceived by lying spirits because they weren't doing a good enough job of personally living the "rock of Jesus" (ie sermon on the mount/sermon at bountiful.)

And both Adrian Larsen and I took him to be implying that he had received some kind of personal visitation before entering into the covenant and losing whatever personal connection he had with God by failing the test (in a blog post he called "Arise and Awake," still readable on his "log's cabin," and Tim Malone's "latter-day commentary.")

Adrian directly asked him to tell us if that's what he was implying, but I don't believe he ever did.

Were you aware of that?

And would that alter your thoughts any?

[inho]

And don't you miss our old buddy Jared (log)?

Wouldn't it be nice if he were still posting here and we could see what he was saying?

I'd sure like to know what he said on the passing the heavenly gift forum here the night he was banned, and what context he said it in.

inquirringmind, you were here at the time he was banned. I don't remember what he said in HG to get banned from that subforum, but you might take a look at his posts, maybe he talked about it.

Here is a link to the thread where log posted just before he got banned completely from LDSFF. You participate in it.

[inquirringmind]

What got him banned was what he said in the HG sub forum, and my understanding is (and was) that it was off color (to say the least), but I never knew the context.

And I still don't.

I actually try to give him the benefit of the doubt most of the time, and I'd like to know if anyone who was there can remember the context, and of it's at all possible that it mitigated his remarks?

Could he have been trying to defend Joseph Smith Jr., the LDS church, or the practice of plural marriage from someone else's attacks as opposed to just being deliberately offensive and contentious?

That's all I want to know, if anyone remembers.

[inho]

I don't remember the details, but I don't think it had anything to do with defending LDS church or plural marriage. My understanding is that he was first kicked out of HG subforum and little later banned from the forum. I think the final banning must be approved by BrianM himself, and he wouldn't ban anyone because of defending JS, LDS church or plural marriage.

In the thread I linked above, marc (who was a moderator at the time) talks about an action against log and gives the impression that the action wasn't due to the content of log's words, but because of his manners and use of language which is unwelcome here.

I haven't read everything log has written, but my impression is that he is better at monologue than dialogue. He has strong opinions and won't listen to any other views. That is manifested also in the Guide and Standard issue.

[inquirringmind]

Now that I think about it, it wasn't just what he said in the subforum that got him banned from this site.

He was banned from the subforum first, and it was protestations and recriminations here in the open section that got him banned.

But it was certainly what he said the night he was banned from the HG subforum that led to the protestations and recriminations that got him banned from the larger forum, and all I know about what he said that night are to or three words that would certainly seem inappropriate in almost any crrcumstances.

But like I said, I like to give him the benefit of the doubt if I can.

Is it at all possible that the circumstances or context surrounding what he said in the closed section of the forum could have justified or mitigated his remarks?

I believe some of you are members of the remnant movement, Jared's friends, and share many of his views.

The HG subforum was here for those of you I'm thinking of then, and some of you must have been there.

And if any of you can say that their were some mitigating circumstances I'm unaware of I'd like to know it.

Thank you.

[Jesef]

He did a lot of cussing and use of crass language, if I remember right. He was begging for it.

[ajax]

inquirringmind, your obsession with this person is a bit concerning. I mean who gives a rats a$$.

[Jesef]

Yeah, just go read his blog (logscabin.blogspot.com) if you need a Log fix. He's gone quiet since May though. But he just repeats himself over and over anyway, so you can still get a good fix - if you like his stuff. I can't stand it. It's like teaching about "Love" while beating someone with big stick (with Love branded into the stick) or something like that, as unpleasant.

[marc]

I don't remember the details, but I don't think it had anything to do with defending LDS church or plural marriage. My understanding is that he was first kicked out of HG subforum and little later banned from the forum. I think the final banning must be approved by BrianM himself, and he wouldn't ban anyone because of defending JS, LDS church or plural marriage.

In the thread I linked above, marc (who was a moderator at the time) talks about an action against log and gives the impression that the action wasn't due to the content of log's words, but because of his manners and use of language which is unwelcome here.

I haven't read everything log has written, but my impression is that he is better at monologue than dialogue. He has strong opinions and won't listen to any other views. That is manifested also in the Guide and Standard issue.

Wow, that's a blast from the past. Since those days, I have gotten to know Jared quite well. We've had lunch together, have visited together, occasionally chat or text on the phone. I have had very lengthy, meaningful conversations with him. Jared's beliefs, explanations, blogs and understanding of the gospel have never made me feel threatened or insecure about my own journey or relationship with my Savior. On the contrary, because I took the time to get to know him and how his mind works and the way he analyzes and understands scripture, my own understanding has been tremendously edified.

I suppose there are some (I'm not accusing anyone specific, but simply generalizing) people who feel the need to keep investigating Jared or Denver or whoever because they still have questions to which they are not able to find the answers themselves or have not found that "rest" spoken of in scripture, even with all the resources available in the church. In truth, the only resource we really need is the Book of Mormon. The Bible suffices, but truly does not measure up to the care given by the writers of the Book of Mormon in expounding the principles and mysteries of obtaining that rest.

I have also had lunch with Denver and his wife. I think I shared that on this forum years ago. And it was Jared who invited me. I had not planned on participating, but at the last minute, I decided it was an opportunity worth exploring and one I didn't want to pass up after all. Denver is a regular guy like anybody else. He's had some unique experiences, which all of us should experience and what the Book of Mormon tells us we should experience. After all, this is the "true church." It is the church of power and authority and miracles and visions and healings. But that's beside the point. I do seem to recall something Denver once said and it had to do with what he termed "voyeurism." I suppose that is as close and good a term as any. Rather than members going out and getting their own experiences, they spend all that energy and focus quietly watching him and making him the object of their attention. Whatever. It's the same as it's ever been since the days of Adam. There are those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who wonder what happened. I've been pondering the first few chapters of the book of Proverbs since a dear friend on this board sent them to me. And every time I read it, I read it as if it is the Lord who is addressing me personally, as it should be. Here's just a snippet. Hopefully it inspires someone to go and get their own experiences and find that rest, which is most desirable.

1 My son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee;

2 So that thou incline thine ear unto wisdom, and apply thine heart to understanding;

3 Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;

4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;

5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God.

In any case, this discussion has nothing to do with the gospel as the title suggests. Weird.

[inquirringmind]

Hi marc,

The title of the discussion here is "the gospel according to Denver Snuffer," and (as I'm sure you know) whether that has anything to do with "the gospel" is precisely the point.

The mainstream LDS church accepts D&C 132 as scripture, believes that it was written in Joseph's lifetime, and believes and teaches that God approved of polygamy at the time.

But according to Mr. Snuffer Brigham Young and his co-conspirators introduced the practice of polygamy into the Mormon community after Joseph's death, falsely implicated Joseph, and perverted LDS scripture.

Is that not true?

So the subject of polygamy, and/or plural marriage is very relevant to the topic heading here ("the gospel according to Denver Snuffer," as opposed to the gospel according to Thomas Monson or Elder Nelson), is it not?

And given the precise nature of the crase words used ("passive/aggressive something or other," and "polygamous whatever"), this was the subject under discussion the night Jared was banned from the closed HG forum, was it not?

I'm told you were a mod at the time, and I believe this was before Mr. Snuffer had a clear teaching on the subject, and there was a lot of fall out.

Jared claimed to be provoked.

To be a victim (even a messenger, using crase words only because they were somehow necessary to call all the rest of you to repentance.)

And he accused all of you of unrighteously persecuting him and casting him out.

Do you remember?

He was very vocal (not only here, but on Tim Malone's forum.)

But the context was never clear to me, and repentance from "what" was never clear.

If you were there, and you were a mod, do you remember?

What did it have to do with polygamy (or plural marriage)?

And what side of the issue was Jared on when he made his remarks?

Was he defending Joseph or Denver somehow?

It's something I never understood, and I'm sure others don't understand, and (as you point out) it was a long time ago now.

Could you possibly fill us in?

[creator]

Log got banned for being contentious, derogatory, manipulative, condescending, etc. He doesn't play well with others (nothing to do with any specific topic he was discussing). He comes onto a forum like this to force his views and allows no room for disagreement.

[inquirringmind]

Log got banned for being contentious, derogatory, manipulative, condescending, etc. He doesn't play well with others (nothing to do with any specific topic he was discussing). He comes onto a forum like this to force his views and allows no room for disagreement.

Thank you Brian.

If he was provoked, defending someone, or if his remarks were somehow mitigated by the context of the discussion that night you would know it, and fill us in, wouldn't you?

[creator]

See my previous comment. Log's banning had nothing to do with the context or topic of a discussion, it was entirely about his behavior and how he treated others on the forum. And it wasn't just because of something that happened "that night" it was an ongoing issue.

[inquirringmind]

Thank you.