Denver Snuffer vs. Grant Palmer

[Anonymous]

So, I have been caught in a whirlwind of confusing and contradictory ideas lately. When I had my faith crisis, it was due to the new perspective as told by mainstream mormon studies authors like Bushman, Palmer, Brodie, etc. Basically I learned that there is an alternative version to the history of the church that has been hidden and cleaned up. This lead me to view the church as maybe possibly being some sort of restoration or inspired movement with imperfect leaders and has made me cynical about things I hear in the church.

More recently, however, as I have tried to stay active and look for the good in the church, I have slowly been lead to a series of ideas that are mostly critical about the current corporate governance of the church, which has brought the church away from its mostly pure beginnings. These ideas seem to be from Denver Snuffer. It’s a nice idea: that there is a pure form of mormonism that can be followed while taking the church less seriously. That’s what I want. But when I reflect on that I’m thinking, wait a minute, the early church wasn’t pure, it was rife with magic, polygamy, violence.

Can anyone shed some light? I like the ideas put forth by Snuffer (thought I’ve read very little of his), but I worry they are simply taking the good and ignoring the bad.

[Anonymous]

One analogy about the institutional church vs. going it on your own is living in a house you hate vs. being homeless (or conversely, camping out in the open). A good friend on By Common Consent is going to put out an OP this week about the problems with organizational churches that have existed basically since Jesus’ death. Very quickly, the Christian church started to become more and more like a corporation. That’s the nature of human communities. Whenever people at church say Jesus founded a church, I always think “Not really. Paul seems to have done that. Jesus was an itinerant preacher.” But still, a community of believers is in many ways better than eating locusts and honey in the desert wearing a hair shirt. There is power in community.

For my own experience, I like to be in the community but not OF the community. Still my own person. Unconcerned with being a “good Mormon” or being perceived as great within the borders of the community and all their limits, but rather with being a “good person” or a “good Christian,” even when that means I am not defending the borders against infidels or being too willing to let free riders hang on. That’s my preference.

The other complaints about institutional churches have to do with the administrative decisions that are made. I tend to see these as 100% human, exposing (usually) our leaders’ political views and financial assumptions to view. I try very hard to see what they are trying to do in these endeavors without assuming it’s literally under the direction of Jesus Christ. The church has investments. Jesus wasn’t a day trader.

[Anonymous]

There is an older thread here about Denver Snuffer. The consensus here is not positive or supportive of him, frankly.

“Observation about Denver Snuffer’s Appeal” (http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4910&hilit=snuffer)

If you want to comment on that thread and bump it up for more discussion, go ahead.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think it is fair to compare Palmer to Snuffer.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I don’t think it is fair to compare Palmer to Snuffer.

I agree.

[Anonymous]

Mr. Richard,

One of my favorite non-LDS Christian speakers/theologians said “The church is a whore – but she’s our mother.” The scriptures bear this out. Time and again the bride goes a-whoring with idols and false gods. Time and again, the Bridegroom promises restoration and reconciliation.

Hosea is one of my favorite books of scripture in this regard.

[Anonymous]

This is a great example of why I have a friend crush on mercyngrace.

That’s all.

[Anonymous]

I grew up in a household where it was believed the early church was good and the current church was going astray. I fought that idea so I could fit in my ward. Then on my mission I came to believe my parents were idiots for the things they believed. Then latter in life I realized the current church is full of less than honest dealings. Point being there was no grand time in Mormonism that everything was perfect. If you go searching for Pure Mormonism you may be disappointed.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

If you go searching for Pure Mormonism you may be disappointed.

I agree if you go searching for a pure time period in Mormon history you will be disappointed. If however you go searching for the “pure” principles that have been expressed in Mormonism through the ages you may just find a few nuggets of gold.

[Anonymous]

Thanks Curtis The friend crush is mutual. LOL.

Orson – you said exactly what I was thinking. The most beautiful principles (to me) in Mormonism are also in early Christianity and Eastern Orthodoxy. Others are in nearly every faith. I have such holy envy for many other faith traditions but find myself drawn time and again to the same core principles that fill my life with light and hope. That these principles are a part of Mormonism is a primary reason I stay.

[Anonymous]

Are you asking “what’s the difference between Snuffer and Palmer”? I’m not clear exactly what your question is.

[Anonymous]

mercyngrace wrote:

The most beautiful principles (to me) in Mormonism are also in early Christianity and Eastern Orthodoxy. Others are in nearly every faith. I have such holy envy for many other faith traditions but find myself drawn time and again to the same core principles that fill my life with light and hope. That these principles are a part of Mormonism is a primary reason I stay.

Which principles do you find most endearing?

And, I also like the long-standing traditions of other religions and sometimes wish we had hard and fast traditions as well.

[Anonymous]

QuestionAbound wrote:

mercyngrace wrote:

The most beautiful principles (to me) in Mormonism are also in early Christianity and Eastern Orthodoxy. Others are in nearly every faith. I have such holy envy for many other faith traditions but find myself drawn time and again to the same core principles that fill my life with light and hope. That these principles are a part of Mormonism is a primary reason I stay.

Which principles do you find most endearing?

And, I also like the long-standing traditions of other religions and sometimes wish we had hard and fast traditions as well.

Eternal progression

Redemption beyond the grave – infinite and eternal atonement

universalism

that the same sociality will exist after death – loved ones bound together by the relationships they develop

Lately, I’ve been considering the three stage process of katharsis-theoria-theosis in Eastern Orthodoxy as a parallel to the LDS three stage process of telestial-terrestrial-celestial development through which we must pass before unification with God.

[Anonymous]

mormonheretic wrote:

Are you asking “what’s the difference between Snuffer and Palmer”? I’m not clear exactly what your question is.

What I’m saying is that Grant Palmer (along with many others of course) conveys the message that the foundation that the church is built upon, ie its claims to divine authority, are full of obvious holes. So, if one believes that, and continues on in that line of thought, the church seems like a superficial organization because of what happened in the past.

However, there seems to be another way of looking at the church, that there was a form of pure mormonism that existed during Joseph Smith’s time, before the church became too organized, or began collecting monetary tithes, where freedom of worship and community were embraced. There were no policies, it was a happy time But the church has since gone into a sort of apostasy, where it serves mammon, embraces policy, and worships its leaders. If you accept this line of thought, you will be disgusted with the church because of what is going on in the present.

I like this idea of pure mormonism. I have been discovering much of it on the blog “pure mormonism” which is a great blog in its own right. A lot of it turns the teachings the church embraces now on their heads and points to the original intent of the teachings. However, taken to it’s extreme, it basically requires one to believe that JS never practiced polygamy. Which I would love to believe, but which is total bs. I think this line of thought came from Denver Snuffer, who is talked about quite a bit on the Pure Mormonism blog. For a while I was loving what I was reading, it put me in a happy place with the gospel. So I was just wondering if anyone had thought of these two views of mormonism as being mutually exclusive. It’s like the church can’t possibly do right.

It seems schizophrenic to argue that JS was a fallen prophet, or no prophet at all to make one point, and then to argue that the current leaders have strayed too far from JS’s teachings to make another.

[Anonymous]

Curtis wrote:

There is an older thread here about Denver Snuffer. The consensus here is not positive or supportive of him, frankly.

“Observation about Denver Snuffer’s Appeal” (http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4910&hilit=snuffer)

If you want to comment on that thread and bump it up for more discussion, go ahead.

Thanks Curtis, I just read through that post. I admit I wasn’t up on my Denver Snuffer knowledge, but what you said about the history having to be severely distorted to support what he teaches was spot on. Some of the interpretations used to justify the teachings being presented required more knowledge about the history than can possibly be gleaned from the reported texts and verses used.

[Author]

Posts