Observation on the Denver Snuffer’s appeal

[Anonymous]

No longer being content with remaining in limbo any longer I’ve been reading and pondering quite a bit over the last few months in an attempt to establish what I do believe. During that process I ran across the story of Denver Snuffer.

Full disclaimer, I have not read his book and I haven’t dedicated a lot of time on studying out his situation. Each case is individual and only the parties involved know all the specifics. The only reason I created this thread was to better understand a statement recorded in his appeal letter. A statement that hit me like a dagger in the heart.

Bolded section for added emphasis:

Quote:

When we met again he said it didn’t matter what anyone thought of the book because it was “faith destroying.” I responded that there were actual people whose faith had been rescued and whose activity in the church had revived because of reading it. He responded to me: “What makes you think the church is interested in having such people anyway?” I took that response to be coming (as everything else) from higher up.

I don’t necessarily agree on his interpretation that the bolded portion of the quote was coming from higher up (above the SP level in this instance). Given the lengthy interactions between Snuffer and his SP I’m willing to accept that the statement may have been made out of frustration. In other words the SP was tired of having to “deal” with this brother and was “shooting from the hip” with his statement.

Note that the bolded portion of the quote doesn’t refer to Snuffer, but refers to people whose faith had been rescued. Years ago my faith fell like a house of cards, I’ve only recently been trying to rebuild. I don’t think I can go back to believing things like I believed them before. My faith has to evolve to rationalize remaining active in the church. Will this evolution make me become something the church would not welcome? Something or someone that the church feels better off without?

I’m not out there trying to change people’s beliefs or to mold them to my way of thinking. If I ever started to feel like I was playing the role of wolf in sheep’s clothing I hope I’d have the presence of mind to remove myself from the situation. I’m really at a point in life where I want to help others meet their own spiritual goals regardless of creed. If someone is TBM then I’d want to help them to get as much enjoyment as possible out of being TBM.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

My faith has to evolve to rationalize remaining active in the church. Will this evolution make me become something the church would not welcome? Something or someone that the church feels better off without?

I admit, when this all went down, I was pretty upset inside. It seemed like the days of the september six were past. But alas, not every bishop and SP knows the history and therefore are doomed to repeat it.

nibbler wrote:

I’m really at a point in life where I want to help others meet their own spiritual goals regardless of creed. If someone is TBM then I’d want to help them to get as much enjoyment as possible out of being TBM.

That’s a great attitude nibbler! I really like this and follow a similar ideology.

[Anonymous]

Personal opinion, I know, but:

I have followed this situation with interest for a while and I have almost NO sympathy for the man – and I say that about almost nobody. I also have NO confidence that he is being honest in what he says.

I really liked his books up to and including “The Second Comforter”. I really dislike “Passing the Heavenly Gate”. I see a man who claims to have been visited by God, and I have no reason to believe or disbelieve him about that. Seriously, I am completely neutral on that question. However, I also see someone whose actions after writing “Passing the Heavenly Gate” have been diametrically opposite of his counsel in “The Second Comforter”. I see someone who preached one thing to others when he was “secure in the faith” (and AFTER his claimed visitation) and then rejected it completely when the time came when he faced it himself. In a sense, he encouraged others to put up, and then he refused to do so when it became personal.

I see someone who was fine when he was talking about spiritual matters, but, as a history teacher myself, I see someone whose historical interpretations are deeply flawed – and I believe his “downfall” is that he thinks he sees historical things clearly but is WAY out of his depth in that arena. I see someone who was insightful when he was focused on oratory and inspiration but who dove into the historical deep end without the ability to swim well enough to see clearly – and who is flailing around not accepting attempts to pull him out.

I see someone who is flat-out, no question about it, in blatant opposition to the Church. I think that is undeniable in light of “Passing the Heavenly Gate”, his blog over the last couple of years, how he handled the disciplinary council, his posting of everything online, his claims about his conversations (like the one in the post), etc. Again, I have zero confidence that he is being objective and honest – and the quote that concerns you simply is not consistent with the messages that have been coming from the top church leadership.

I don’t believe him – plain and simple, because the evidence I have seen from both sides (the top leadership and him personally) doesn’t support his conclusions. I have no idea if his Stake President said that, and I have no reason to believe he didn’t – and I certainly know there are local leaders who would say something like that. It just isn’t consistent with everything Bro. Snuffer said about that same man in every comment he made about him prior to that moment – so, if he did say it, I agree it probably was out of deep frustration and “in the spur of the moment” and not delivering a message from above.

More personal opinion, but I will be totally open here:

I see Bro. Snuffer, right now, as an agent of conservative, fundamentalist apostasy. He yearns for the days of Joseph, and he appears to want everything to go back to those days. He talks as if every change has been a result of rejecting God – and, by implication, that includes polygamy and, possibly, the Priesthood ban (since it appears he believes it started with Joseph). The active members I know who are the most strident supporters of Bro. Snuffer (and I know it’s a limited sample), seem to be almost exclusively conservative hardliners – with the others being ex-mormons and disaffected members who have latched onto him as part of their cause.

I don’t know the man personally, and I’ve heard he is a very compelling speaker, but every red flag possible has waved as I’ve studied him and his situation.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the insight. He’s not a topic of interest at all in this area, I just came upon bits and pieces of the story and thought I’d ask.

[Anonymous]

So, I’m a bit niave on this. Who or what is Denver Snuffer?

Sorry, I just have no idea. I searched on Google, but I find lots of references to “Denver Snuffer”.

[Anonymous]

is this him?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_C._Snuffer,_Jr.

[Anonymous]

Yes.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

No longer being content with remaining in limbo any longer I’ve been reading and pondering quite a bit over the last few months in an attempt to establish what I do believe. During that process I ran across the story of Denver Snuffer.

Full disclaimer, I have not read his book and I haven’t dedicated a lot of time on studying out his situation. Each case is individual and only the parties involved know all the specifics. The only reason I created this thread was to better understand a statement recorded in his appeal letter. A statement that hit me like a dagger in the heart.

Bolded section for added emphasis:

Quote:

When we met again he said it didn’t matter what anyone thought of the book because it was “faith destroying.” I responded that there were actual people whose faith had been rescued and whose activity in the church had revived because of reading it. He responded to me: “What makes you think the church is interested in having such people anyway?” I took that response to be coming (as everything else) from higher up.

I don’t necessarily agree on his interpretation that the bolded portion of the quote was coming from higher up (above the SP level in this instance). Given the lengthy interactions between Snuffer and his SP I’m willing to accept that the statement may have been made out of frustration. In other words the SP was tired of having to “deal” with this brother and was “shooting from the hip” with his statement.

Note that the bolded portion of the quote doesn’t refer to Snuffer, but refers to people whose faith had been rescued. Years ago my faith fell like a house of cards, I’ve only recently been trying to rebuild. I don’t think I can go back to believing things like I believed them before. My faith has to evolve to rationalize remaining active in the church. Will this evolution make me become something the church would not welcome? Something or someone that the church feels better off without?

I’m not out there trying to change people’s beliefs or to mold them to my way of thinking. If I ever started to feel like I was playing the role of wolf in sheep’s clothing I hope I’d have the presence of mind to remove myself from the situation. I’m really at a point in life where I want to help others meet their own spiritual goals regardless of creed. If someone is TBM then I’d want to help them to get as much enjoyment as possible out of being TBM.

I think I’d be more inclined to take Elder Uchtdorf and Elder Holland at their word. I’d never heard of Denver Snuffer until his discipline hit the boards. I don’t know enough to comment in detail, but it seemed like a bit of a drama that was blown up for publicity.

[Anonymous]

I had the same thought — I’d take the words of Uchdorft over Denver Snuffer. Uchdorft made it clear there’s room for non-traditional believers or doubters.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

My faith has to evolve to rationalize remaining active in the church. Will this evolution make me become something the church would not welcome? Something or someone that the church feels better off without?

I just wanted to answer this question directly. The church does not care about specific details of your personal faith, the church only cares about how you influence, direct, or lead others. If you start trying to steer other members to be in direct opposition to what the church teaches “then we will have a conversation” is how I think Elder Holland put it.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

nibbler wrote:

My faith has to evolve to rationalize remaining active in the church. Will this evolution make me become something the church would not welcome? Something or someone that the church feels better off without?

I just wanted to answer this question directly. The church does not care about specific details of your personal faith, the church only cares about how you influence, direct, or lead others. If you start trying to steer other members to be in direct opposition to what the church teaches “then we will have a conversation” is how I think Elder Holland put it.

In every ward I have been in there have been inter-religious couples. In two of those wards, the non-member spouse attended Sacrament Meeting and activities with their spouse. I do know that members loved to encourage the non-member spouse to join the church, but the leaders never asked them to leave or pushed them out. I would have to agree with Orson – I think it crosses the line when ward members or Ward leaders feel the person is proselyting against the church. I think Mr. Snuffer had probably done so. He seems to feel emboldened enough to do so.

Also – we don’t know how often this SP had tried to extend a hand of inclusion to Mr. Snuffer. I know when my feelings get hurt, I tend to be blind to kindnesses that may have been offered.

[Anonymous]

Orson wrote:

nibbler wrote:

My faith has to evolve to rationalize remaining active in the church. Will this evolution make me become something the church would not welcome? Something or someone that the church feels better off without?

I just wanted to answer this question directly. The church does not care about specific details of your personal faith, the church only cares about how you influence, direct, or lead others. If you start trying to steer other members to be in direct opposition to what the church teaches “then we will have a conversation” is how I think Elder Holland put it.

I would agree with this, and that’s certainly part of my own “do no harm” policy. I really don’t see the point in trying to pull others down or destroy their faith, I don’t find joy where I’m at and I don’t wish it on others (even those I dislike). I actually feel bad when I accidentally say something that I didn’t intend to be harmful to the testimony of another and I realize it may have been (an example of this is when I mentioned the “signature machine” on missionary call letters to my son). I hold no ill will toward the church (resentment, yes) and believe the church and its members are good and do good, and I wouldn’t want my actions or words cause anyone to think differently.

I think the problem with Snuffer (other than his name – really, who names their kid like that?) is that if you Google him you only get his point of view, and don’t really know any other sides of the story.

[Anonymous]

It’s so sad to see this guy go away like this.. His book “the second comforter” is one of THE most spiritual enlightening books I have ever read – it’s simply amazing and is a constant motivation for me. So sad..

[Anonymous]

Thanks all for the input. Elders Holland and Uchtdorf did directly address the issue in the last two conferences, and yes I agree with them.

IMO it’s a good start. The rubber meets the road at the local level, and the juxtaposition of this thread with another recent thread (where someone is being barred from blessing their child because they do not believe that the BoM is a historical record) indicates to me that the culture hasn’t quite caught up with the direction the leaders are providing. Like all things I suspect it will take time.

It’s been mentioned in the last two conferences, perhaps this topic will become a staple in conferences going forward.

[Anonymous]

The saddest part for me is to see the stark difference between his last two books. I don’t place “The Second Comforter” as highly as you do, but I thought it was a very good, insightful book in multiple ways. It’s as if they were written by two different people, and that is intriguing in a purely speculative way.

By the way, “The Second Comforter” still is sold at Deseret Book. The only condition relative to his writing that was part of the discussion about not excommunicating him was that he cease publication of “Passing the Heavenly Gate” (which, seriously, read in parts like classic anti-Mormon tracts I have read from the 1800’s) and his speaking tour, which was geared partly to promote it. He wouldn’t back down from his claim that the Church leadership had lost all of its authority in Nauvoo (justified by a really bad reading of one verse in the D&C, primarily), and he doubled down on this harsh statements about pretty much the entire top leadership.

It really is sad, and there really isn’t anything in his writings that explains with any clarity why he made such a 180 turn. It’s surprising, since he wrote so voluminously about everything else. “Passing the Heavenly Gate” simply came out of the blue – and he indicated absolutely no negative experiences with the top leadership until after it was published.

“Sad” sums it up very well for me.

[Author]

Posts