Name Calling

[clarkkent14]

I have been called, among other choice words, "apostate" by some LDS folks in their indiscriminate, anonymous on-line rants. Name-calling by Latter-day Saints is a complete role reversal from where the Restoration began. When Joseph Smith was being abused by the religionists of his day, he observed “they treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil. That there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things [were confined to and the sole right of] the apostles.” (JS-H 1: 21.) The people who rejected Joseph’s beliefs were rejecting the Bible itself, which they pretended was the basis for their faith. Joseph did what James 1: 5 instructed him to do, and got an answer. That is the faith he restored: A living faith in which God will speak to all who, like me, lack wisdom, liberally. I lack wisdom. I go to God with questions. So long as any of us ask in faith, He will answer. I know. He has answered me. Now Latter-day Saints think it is their right to denounce others who have asked God, and have been answered. If Latter-day Saints do possess the truth, then for those they think in error should be met with kindness, not reviling. (See JS-H 1: 25.) “If they suppose me to be deluded they ought to endeavor in a proper and affectionate manner to reclaim me.” (JS-H 1: 28.) Instead I read the accusation I am “apostate” by these smug Latter-day Saints. It must put a smile on the faces of authority and the devil. These disciples pretend to follow Joseph's restored religion while acting the part of his persecutors. The saints have come full circle indeed.

Where exactly do you draw the line and begin to denounce others as “apostate?”

If we both believe in the Book of Mormon, are we of the same faith or is one of us “apostate?”

If we both believe Joseph Smith was called of God to restore the Gospel, are we of the same faith or is one of us “apostate?”

If we both accept the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price as scripture, are we of the same faith or is one of us “apostate?”

If we both believe in continuing revelation and that God has yet to reveal a great deal as part of the Restoration of all, are we of the same faith or is one of us “apostate?”

If we have all of the foregoing in common, is that enough to respect one another as fellow-believers? Or do you require much more of me than I can give in order to avoid being denounced by you? How much do you want to micromanage my beliefs? Do you ever feel any twinge of concern about not permitting others to worship “according to the dictates of their conscience, and allow others the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may?” (Paraphrase of 11th Article of Faith)

If I believe priesthood has no authority over me, and you believe as Elder Oaks declared from general conference that the “keys” are the right to exercise authority, are we of the same faith or is one of us “apostate?” What if my belief is based on the scripture “no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood” which I hold in higher regard than a declaration from a church official to the contrary? (See D&C121: 41)

If I believe the Lectures on Faith are still scripture, but you do not, are we of the same faith or is one of us “apostate?”

If I believe the LDS Church has changed dramatically in my lifetime, and even more since Joseph Smith died, are we of the same faith or is one of us “apostate?”

If I believe the scriptures were given to control and govern the faith, and you believe whatever comes from living church officials can contradict or disregard the words of scripture, are we of the same faith or is one of us “apostate?” If I can tolerate your view in this regard, even if I do not share it, are we of the same faith or is one of us “apostate?” If I use the scriptures and you use the scriptures, why are your views correct and mine incorrect? How did we arrive at the odd position that you get to call me “apostate” for believing the scriptures differently than you do? If you trust that “keys” are the thing that guarantees you salvation, what exactly are the “keys,” allowed by scripture, that bear that out?

If I will let you go in peace, why cannot you let me go likewise in peace. The LDS church is an institution of this world, not of the next. We should care less for the things of this world than we do. I am very content with my faith in God, and very much in harmony with everything He has asked of me. If you believe the same about yourself, then let that be your assurance and have the confidence to leave me to go my way in peace. Practice your beliefs in the way you think God wants, and I will do the same.

I will never again submit to another man’s priestly claim to dominion, control, judgment or oppression. It was denounced in scripture, and I reject such things. (D&C 121: 36-42.) If you think there is a priest who has the right to demand things of you in exchange for saving you using some “key,” I do not share your belief, but I am perfectly willing to respect you if that is yours. Happy is the man who serves his God in faith and conviction. Happier still is the man whose God is Christ and therefore respects his right to voluntarily act for himself, accepting full accountability for his beliefs, and not expecting man to save him using authority to do so.

If, by your definition, I am “apostate,” then let me assure you I am content to be so. I am fully willing to accept whatever Christ’s judgment is for being so. More importantly, I am entirely satisfied I remain in harmony with what God expects of me, and I wish the same for you.

Name Calling | Denver Snuffer

[clarkkent14]

[FoxMammaWisdom]

THIS!! ^^^^^^^ AWESOME post.

*EDIT - Denver's, not Chad's Jimminy Cricket face :p

[aigerim]

Excellent post from Denver, as always!

However, I don't think he really cares too much if others call him apostate.

So I was wondering if the post was for the rest of us as we struggle to move forward but find we are receiving criticism and ridicule from others.

I don't know, just a random thought.

[clarkkent14]

[DrJay]

I too am considered an apostate by many on the forum. Yes I was a member of the LDS Church. Yes I believed the doctrine as taught. I had a number of spiritual experiences that led me to leave the Church. Many of my beliefs have changed. That alone would be reason for many to use the label apostate. I understand it.

But while I may disagree with some current LDS doctrines I still love that church and the members within it. I cherish the memories I have around it. I will always be grateful for the teachings and training that prepared me to find Zion. I seek the Lord's direction and council.

It would appear that some on the forum are choosing another path. But I sense that they very sincere and are seeking the will of the Lord and direction in their lives. Name calling has never built a bridge, but only love. If you wish to somehow bless their lives, love them. Isn't that the sign of being a disciple of Christ? Contention doesn't accomplish the Lord's work in any way shape or form.

[shadow]

I'm not sure if my previous post was deleted or if I simply forgot to hit the submit button. Probably the latter. This is a public letter so I suspect it would be OK to give my opinion on it since differing opinions are encouraged, right? I think differing opinions can be healthy so long is there's no name calling.

So Denver starts out with this- "I have been called, among other choice words, "apostate" by some LDS folks in their indiscriminate, anonymous on-line rants. Name-calling by Latter-day Saints is a complete role reversal from where the Restoration began."
Didn't Denver call the leaders of the church "proud decendants"? Is that name calling? What about his many heavily insinuated comments about the church and the Prophet and Apostles being apostate? Isn't that what Snuffer supporters think as well, that the church doesn't have the authority the leaders claim it has and that the church has fallen into apostasy? Didn't Denver start the name calling? (honest questions). What about this gem from Denvers letter?-
"Instead I read the accusation I am “apostate” by these SMUG Latter-day Saints. It must put a smile on the faces of authority and the devil. These disciples pretend to follow Joseph's restored religion while acting the part of his persecutors. The saints have come full circle indeed." Well that's not nice! ;)

K, so he claims the church is apostate (a theme of PTHG) but gets upset and NAME CALLS those that suggest he's the apostate one? Really? Why can't I believe differently than he does? Why is it that he can call others beliefs apostate but nobody dare call his beliefs apostate or else they are pleasing the devil and are smug? Why accuse others of being a "pretender" for doing nothing less than what he does? He thinks others are pretenders and comes out and says it. Should others be allowed to call HIM a pretender?

"If I will let you go in peace, why cannot you let me go likewise in peace."
Um, so is that something that he is going to do from now on, leave the church in peace? Because up til now, and including now, he hasn't left the church alone. Once he does let the church go in peace I suspect after a short period people will indeed leave him in peace. I mean come on, you go out and YOU pick a fight, YOU name call then pretend you're the victim? Reminds me of Brer Rabbit.

As far as I'm concerned Denver can believe whatever he wants to, doesn't hurt my feelings at all, but come on- mirror mirror on the wall Denver. You jab at someone long enough and they tell you to knock it off then you pretend you're the victim and the guy you've been poking is a big meanie because you kept jabbing? I'm scratching my head on this one

I think this is a fair post. Hopefully it won't be deleted.

[ajax]

Amen shadow-fax.

I'm disappointed with Denver on this one.

He needs to accept the heritage of the name calling prophets before him (Isaiah, Ezekiel, John the Bapt...) and get on with the show.

Fireworks baby.

Pass me a beer brlenox.

[Ratbag]

Where exactly do you draw the line and begin to denounce others as “apostate?”

I would say the line is when a person is excommunicated for apostacy. Then they are apostate. And when another person identifies with and upholds that same apostate's teachings as the "truth", then that person also is an apostate.

[A Random Phrase]

I don't know, just a random thought.

[FoxMammaWisdom]

Where exactly do you draw the line and begin to denounce others as “apostate?”

I would say the line is when a person is excommunicated for apostacy. Then they are apostate. And when another person identifies with and upholds that same apostate's teachings as the "truth", then that person also is an apostate.

So we should base it upon decisions made by the arm of the flesh - even though they have been so utterly wrong in so many circumstances?

I know a man (MP holder) who was raping his wife, cheating on her, making her do horrible things he video taped and photographed to satisfy his sex and porn addiction, trying to solicit her for sex on the internet, embezzling money from the military and committing fraud with his resources, etc. This man sweet talked his way through his disciplinary counsel, and out of being exed while he continued this behavior toward his wife.

On the flip side, there is this:

Helmuth Hübener - excommunicated for attempting to expose Hitler against church counsel - "apostasy":
http://bycommonconsent.com/2008/01/09/c ... o-disobey/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Avraham Giliadi - excommunicated for his understanding of Isaiah's writings - "apostasy":
http://avrahamgileaditestimony.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

3 others I know or have met personally who were exed simply because they have a different understanding of some of the scriptures than their particular leaders - also formally charged with "apostasy".

There are too many examples of wrongful excommunications to continue in this post.

I'm certain that the common understanding among LDS - of the word "apostasy", is utterly incorrect. With regard to a specific religion, this is the definition:

Apostasy (/əˈpɒstəsi/; Greek: ἀποστασία (apostasia), 'a defection or revolt') is the formal disaffiliation from or abandonment or renunciation of a religion by a person.

[/i]

Apostasy from Christ would be to formally disaffiliate oneself from, abandon, or renounce Him entirely (deny the Holy Ghost - embrace perdition).

Clearly, none of these people have disaffiliated themselves, abandoned, or renounced their membership in the LDS church - and they are certainly not sons of perdition. Yet church membership was taken from them because their opinions did not match those of the others who happened to be in leadership callings at the time.

I'm still baffled by the abusive man I listed first - who clearly had no business remaining a member of the church IMHO. Yet he is allowed to remain - and others who merely have a different opinion but are still seeking the Lord, studying the Book of Mormon, sustaining the leaders, and acting as righteous, faithful members, are excommunicated.

In other words, we have completely disregarded the words of the dispensational prophet Joseph Smith - who founded our very religion, and we are now excommunicating members for (in their opinion) "erring in doctrine":

"I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." (History of the Church 5:340)

So THIS - a mere difference in opinion (the very reason Denver Snuffer was excommunicated), should be the "standard" as to what constitutes "apostasy"??

[shadow]

Ah, the "old man" quote. I think joseph smith said that right before or right after he ordered the Nauvoo expositor destroyed??

Maybe what he said means something different than what you think. It seems he supported excommunicating people too. In fact in the late 1830's close to 20 or 30 people were exed, including 1 or 2 of the 3 witnesses. I believe joseph smith called them "dissenters". I suppose many in the lds church, including some leaders have applied that title to Denver Snuffer. If so I certainly can't argue with it.
I'll have to double check my facts when I get home. Correct me if I'm wrong. My memory isn't as good as it once was, but I think I got this one right.

[Thomas]

I'm not sure if my previous post was deleted or if I simply forgot to hit the submit button. Probably the latter. This is a public letter so I suspect it would be OK to give my opinion on it since differing opinions are encouraged, right? I think differing opinions can be healthy so long is there's no name calling.

So Denver starts out with this- "I have been called, among other choice words, "apostate" by some LDS folks in their indiscriminate, anonymous on-line rants. Name-calling by Latter-day Saints is a complete role reversal from where the Restoration began."
Didn't Denver call the leaders of the church "proud decendants"? Is that name calling? What about his many heavily insinuated comments about the church and the Prophet and Apostles being apostate? Isn't that what Snuffer supporters think as well, that the church doesn't have the authority the leaders claim it has and that the church has fallen into apostasy? Didn't Denver start the name calling? (honest questions). What about this gem from Denvers letter?-
"Instead I read the accusation I am “apostate” by these SMUG Latter-day Saints. It must put a smile on the faces of authority and the devil. These disciples pretend to follow Joseph's restored religion while acting the part of his persecutors. The saints have come full circle indeed." Well that's not nice! ;)

K, so he claims the church is apostate (a theme of PTHG) but gets upset and NAME CALLS those that suggest he's the apostate one? Really? Why can't I believe differently than he does? Why is it that he can call others beliefs apostate but nobody dare call his beliefs apostate or else they are pleasing the devil and are smug? Why accuse others of being a "pretender" for doing nothing less than what he does? He thinks others are pretenders and comes out and says it. Should others be allowed to call HIM a pretender?

"If I will let you go in peace, why cannot you let me go likewise in peace."
Um, so is that something that he is going to do from now on, leave the church in peace? Because up til now, and including now, he hasn't left the church alone. Once he does let the church go in peace I suspect after a short period people will indeed leave him in peace. I mean come on, you go out and YOU pick a fight, YOU name call then pretend you're the victim? Reminds me of Brer Rabbit.

As far as I'm concerned Denver can believe whatever he wants to, doesn't hurt my feelings at all, but come on- mirror mirror on the wall Denver. You jab at someone long enough and they tell you to knock it off then you pretend you're the victim and the guy you've been poking is a big meanie because you kept jabbing? I'm scratching my head on this one

I think this is a fair post. Hopefully it won't be deleted.

Actually, I think you are 100 percent wrong on this one. Snuffer has never launched a personal attack against anyone, Can you show my any examples? Proud descendants of Nauvoo covers hundreds of thousands of people. No more a personal attack than Nephi, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Micah and others have said about us. In fact, Snuffers words are tame in comparison.

[Ruth]

I haven't been on the forum for awhile, but I read a few of the threads on the recent talks and Sheesh!

The animosity all directed at Denver Snuffer is just astonishing. I keep thinking it must get dull after a while and there are so many better things to do than focus on some guy who you really don't like. Who is this random guy who gets so many angry? Who people are being ex'ed for believing his words are commissioned of Christ? If you don't like the guy, why spend so much time ranting about him? I don't like Harry Reid. I think his words are junk. I really don't pay attention to the junk he says. And those who think he is awesome just because he is Mormon.... I try hard not to spend too much time with them either.


It's funny that I was looking up equality for a completely different purpose and his blog came up on the first search page and it was perfect for what I needed to read.

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2010/ ... rsons.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All those who dislike him or adore him should read it. He is his worst critic. It goes along with this "Name Calling" one.

[quote]I am absolutely convinced that any one of you is a better candidate than I was to receive an audience with the Lord. The wonder of this process is not that someone has done it, but that so few have. Given that I am probably the least qualified, the point should not be lost on you. If it has happened to me, then it absolutely can and should happen to you.[/quote]

THIS is his message. He is very obvious about his faults and has never tried to hide them or build himself up in anyway. All he is saying is it happened to me, it CAN and SHOULD happen for you too. He's not going to deny his experiences and can only tell what he knows, so what's wrong with that?

He hasn't asked for followers, but when someone has knowledge that you are seeking, you listen to their words. I know many good teachers with great knowledge that I intently listen to hoping to glean one more golden tid bit. If you don't like the teacher or the subject, walk away. His experiences and knowledge are valuable only to those who see it. If you don't see it, that's fine. There are LOTS of other places to get the same info too. He keeps saying go get it yourself anyway. For me, I have learned a ton from him, and not as much as others have learned from the same talk, but not everyone will learn the same way.

I wouldn't want to be him. To have every mistake made perfectly public and to be adored and hated despite doing nothing worthy to merit either. Yikes! I have enough problems to deal with!

All those who are critical, just remember you will be measured with that same judgement you use against him and others here. If you really think me and others apostate, what would be your regret when you've reached the other side and realized you could've helped your brother or sister? Do you really think you would be patting yourself on the back for casting me out? Or sorrowful for not opening your arms?

[shadow]

Thomas, it's all perspective. I think you're wrong and you think I'm wrong. No hurt feelings.
Ruth, the thread is all about Denver's rant. Sheesh.

Maybe take a step back and see how it can cut both ways.

[Ruth]

I'm not sure if my previous post was deleted or if I simply forgot to hit the submit button. Probably the latter. This is a public letter so I suspect it would be OK to give my opinion on it since differing opinions are encouraged, right? I think differing opinions can be healthy so long is there's no name calling.

So Denver starts out with this- "I have been called, among other choice words, "apostate" by some LDS folks in their indiscriminate, anonymous on-line rants. Name-calling by Latter-day Saints is a complete role reversal from where the Restoration began."
Didn't Denver call the leaders of the church "proud decendants"? Is that name calling? What about his many heavily insinuated comments about the church and the Prophet and Apostles being apostate? Isn't that what Snuffer supporters think as well, that the church doesn't have the authority the leaders claim it has and that the church has fallen into apostasy? Didn't Denver start the name calling? (honest questions). What about this gem from Denvers letter?-
"Instead I read the accusation I am “apostate” by these SMUG Latter-day Saints. It must put a smile on the faces of authority and the devil. These disciples pretend to follow Joseph's restored religion while acting the part of his persecutors. The saints have come full circle indeed." Well that's not nice! ;)

K, so he claims the church is apostate (a theme of PTHG) but gets upset and NAME CALLS those that suggest he's the apostate one? Really? Why can't I believe differently than he does? Why is it that he can call others beliefs apostate but nobody dare call his beliefs apostate or else they are pleasing the devil and are smug? Why accuse others of being a "pretender" for doing nothing less than what he does? He thinks others are pretenders and comes out and says it. Should others be allowed to call HIM a pretender?

"If I will let you go in peace, why cannot you let me go likewise in peace."
Um, so is that something that he is going to do from now on, leave the church in peace? Because up til now, and including now, he hasn't left the church alone. Once he does let the church go in peace I suspect after a short period people will indeed leave him in peace. I mean come on, you go out and YOU pick a fight, YOU name call then pretend you're the victim? Reminds me of Brer Rabbit.

As far as I'm concerned Denver can believe whatever he wants to, doesn't hurt my feelings at all, but come on- mirror mirror on the wall Denver. You jab at someone long enough and they tell you to knock it off then you pretend you're the victim and the guy you've been poking is a big meanie because you kept jabbing? I'm scratching my head on this one

I think this is a fair post. Hopefully it won't be deleted.

Shadow, you have followers! B-) Someone felt your words matched their voice and posted a comment on Denver's thread to ask this exact question. (Unless it was you.... )
Either way, Even though they don't allow comments anymore, Snuffer also felt you had some valid questions and responded.

First, I've never said the church was "apostate" nor engaged in name-calling. I've quoted journals, talks, diaries, and discussed scripture. I've explained how my views differ from historic conclusions, and then explained why I reach a different conclusion. I've also explained the church's position to contrast with mine. I try to give information to permit the reader to reach their own conclusion, whether they agree or disagree with me.

Is the phrase "proud descendants of Nauvoo" untrue? Is it insulting? How so? How it is more insulting than "Blessed, Honored Pioneers" (the title to an LDS hymn)? Are not the descendants of Nauvoo proud of that heritage? Since when did the descendants of Nauvoo cease to be proud of that heritage? Aren't their ancestors constantly extolled in church? And is it not a fact that the leadership (1st Presidency, Quorum of 12) chosen almost exclusively from Nauvoo descendants?

I'll address this further later, because I've got to go.

[Ruth]

Thomas, it's all perspective. I think you're wrong and you think I'm wrong. No hurt feelings.
Ruth, the thread is all about Denver's rant. Sheesh.

Maybe take a step back and see how it can cut both ways.

I came on to read about his recent talks and there was so much animosity and anger that thread was locked. I had a hard time reading through it at all. If his recent blog post is a rant, he's a better man than most as it sounded more like a plea to the intelligences of all involved for understanding. To put a mirror up so you can see how your arguments may be wrong or off the track a bit. I'm not sure how many rants you've seen, but that is nothing like any of the rants I've seen from frustrated or ticked off people.

I know all my mistakes. They are greater than most of yours. I am in awe of His mercy and forgiveness. I am not at all impressed by my worthiness. It is nothing. It consists of borrowed finery from Him who has let me use His great worthiness to cover my own failings. To the extent that I have any merit, it comes from Him. I remain astonished that He would condescend for someone like me.

It is a wonder some think I have an advantage. I assure you that the promised blessings are available to ALL. If that were not true then someone as weak, simple and flawed as I am would never have had the hope that I now have in Christ. ~~ Snuffer

[shadow]

No, I didn't pose a question to Denver. I've never corresponded with him. I read a lot of his stuff this last winter and disagree with his interpretation of church history and view of the church today. I'm not bothered by his opinions, I just don't share them. As far as Denver being a better person than I, I'm sure he is.

This is the only thread regarding Denver that I've posted anything on for well over a year, so it's not me that has shown animosity towards him. I simply got a kick out of his stance that he's the victim of being called names, then he goes on to call others names.

A- hey, you're an idiot.
B- no, you're an idiot.
A- oh, so now you resort to name calling. You're such an idiot.
B- uh, you started it.
A- I'm just a humble man who isn't worthy of mention. Why can't you leave me in peace?
Shadow- wait, is this a prank call?

[Lance]

-

[FoxMammaWisdom]

Shadow,

Somebody by the name of Erick Sosa sent a comment to Denver which was identical to your post from this thread, and it is now a listed comment on his blog with a short response back from Denver.

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/

Zkulptor.

[hyloglyph]

Denver Snuffer:
We no longer allow comments on this blog. However I'm making an exception (which I expect will be one-time only) because I appreciate the question and want to discuss it.

Right now I'm headed to my daughter's baseball game, and therefore won't have time to do more than make a brief comment in reply:

First, I've never said the church was "apostate" nor engaged in name-calling. I've quoted journals, talks, diaries, and discussed scripture. I've explained how my views differ from historic conclusions, and then explained why I reach a different conclusion. I've also explained the church's position to contrast with mine. I try to give information to permit the reader to reach their own conclusion, whether they agree or disagree with me.

Is the phrase "proud descendants of Nauvoo" untrue? Is it insulting? How so? How it is more insulting than "Blessed, Honored Pioneers" (the title to an LDS hymn)? Are not the descendants of Nauvoo proud of that heritage? Since when did the descendants of Nauvoo cease to be proud of that heritage? Aren't their ancestors constantly extolled in church? And is it not a fact that the leadership (1st Presidency, Quorum of 12) chosen almost exclusively from Nauvoo descendants?

I'll address this further later, because I've got to go.

In response to:

Shadow?/Erick Sosa?:
I'm not sure if my previous post was deleted or if I simply forgot to hit the submit button. Probably the latter. This is a public letter so I suspect it would be OK to give my opinion on it since differing opinions are encouraged, right? I think differing opinions can be healthy so long is there's no name calling.

So Denver starts out with this- "I have been called, among other choice words, "apostate" by some LDS folks in their indiscriminate, anonymous on-line rants. Name-calling by Latter-day Saints is a complete role reversal from where the Restoration began."
Didn't Denver call the leaders of the church "proud decendants"? Is that name calling? What about his many heavily insinuated comments about the church and the Prophet and Apostles being apostate? Isn't that what Snuffer supporters think as well, that the church doesn't have the authority the leaders claim it has and that the church has fallen into apostasy? Didn't Denver start the name calling? (honest questions). What about this gem from Denvers letter?-
"Instead I read the accusation I am “apostate” by these SMUG Latter-day Saints. It must put a smile on the faces of authority and the devil. These disciples pretend to follow Joseph's restored religion while acting the part of his persecutors. The saints have come full circle indeed." Well that's not nice! ;)

K, so he claims the church is apostate (a theme of PTHG) but gets upset and NAME CALLS those that suggest he's the apostate one? Really? Why can't I believe differently than he does? Why is it that he can call others beliefs apostate but nobody dare call his beliefs apostate or else they are pleasing the devil and are smug? Why accuse others of being a "pretender" for doing nothing less than what he does? He thinks others are pretenders and comes out and says it. Should others be allowed to call HIM a pretender?

"If I will let you go in peace, why cannot you let me go likewise in peace."
Um, so is that something that he is going to do from now on, leave the church in peace? Because up til now, and including now, he hasn't left the church alone. Once he does let the church go in peace I suspect after a short period people will indeed leave him in peace. I mean come on, you go out and YOU pick a fight, YOU name call then pretend you're the victim? Reminds me of Brer Rabbit.

As far as I'm concerned Denver can believe whatever he wants to, doesn't hurt my feelings at all, but come on- mirror mirror on the wall Denver. You jab at someone long enough and they tell you to knock it off then you pretend you're the victim and the guy you've been poking is a big meanie because you kept jabbing? I'm scratching my head on this one

I think this is a fair post. Hopefully it won't be deleted.

[shadow]

Shadow,

Somebody by the name of Erick Sosa sent a comment to Denver which was identical to your post from this thread, and it is now a listed comment on his blog with a short response back from Denver.

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/

Zkulptor.

I can promise you that it wasn't me!
Plagiarism.

[FoxMammaWisdom]

Shadow,

Somebody by the name of Erick Sosa sent a comment to Denver which was identical to your post from this thread, and it is now a listed comment on his blog with a short response back from Denver.

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/

Zkulptor.

I can promise you that it wasn't me!
Plagiarism.

Apparently Zkulptor plagiarized your post and used it to comment on Denver's blog. @-)

[ajax]

Denver Snuffer:
We no longer allow comments on this blog. However I'm making an exception (which I expect will be one-time only) because I appreciate the question and want to discuss it.

Right now I'm headed to my daughter's baseball game, and therefore won't have time to do more than make a brief comment in reply:

First, I've never said the church was "apostate" nor engaged in name-calling. I've quoted journals, talks, diaries, and discussed scripture. I've explained how my views differ from historic conclusions, and then explained why I reach a different conclusion. I've also explained the church's position to contrast with mine. I try to give information to permit the reader to reach their own conclusion, whether they agree or disagree with me.

Is the phrase "proud descendants of Nauvoo" untrue? Is it insulting? How so? How it is more insulting than "Blessed, Honored Pioneers" (the title to an LDS hymn)? Are not the descendants of Nauvoo proud of that heritage? Since when did the descendants of Nauvoo cease to be proud of that heritage? Aren't their ancestors constantly extolled in church? And is it not a fact that the leadership (1st Presidency, Quorum of 12) chosen almost exclusively from Nauvoo descendants?

I'll address this further later, because I've got to go.

He added a couple more comments:

Part 1: Sorry about the delay. Great day at the ballpark. Last game my daughter got on base twice, scored twice and her team won by 2 runs. One of the other team's moms became a fan, even though her son's team lost. That happens a lot when a girl plays well in a boy's league.

Returning to the subject, however, the issue is bigger than "who said what and how did they say it?" It is a cultural problem. Our entire society is weak. VERY weak. Emotionally immature and very unrealistic about its self-image.

Truth is not welcome if it can be viewed as a criticism. We turn an unpleasant truth into something vile. We react by calling it names, as if that somehow reduces the effect of truth.

We want everyone to "win" every time. We give awards to everyone in the league, and are embarrassed when someone has to lose the competition. We desperately do not want to have anyone be better than anyone else, because that somehow implies someone is inferior.

This weakness exists across political, religious, educational, social and sports boundaries. We cover our insecurities with a morass of cultural clutter to try and prevent anyone feeling persecuted, or despised, or rejected.

Truth sometimes hurts. But that doesn't mean it is insulting. When it comes to religious truths, quite often the majority takes the truth to be hard. We call evil good, and good evil, because it makes us feel better about ourselves to do so. Eventually truth becomes a "sin" when it reminds us of what we would prefer to ignore.

and

Part 2: I'm not LDS any longer. I would have stayed, but the Strengthening the Members Committee influenced its presiding authority, Elder Russell M. Nelson, to pressure my former Stake President to have me excommunicated. So now the rules have changed. I do not need to behave as if I were a member of the church any longer. If I were a member, I would behave accordingly. But since I'm not, I needn't do so.

The church has constructed the perfect mousetrap for its members' minds. In the trap, anything said by anyone which can be construed to be "criticism" is then equated with "evil speaking." I believe the truth can never be "evil." But that doesn't matter. The church culture is determined to avoid anything unpleasant about any significant church leader from ever being spoken. It doesn't matter that President George Albert Smith was so emotionally disturbed he was institutionalized, any candid remark about him being feeble-minded and emotionally disturbed cannot be said without great risk. You tread on dangerous ground, because if someone believes you are "attacking a church president" then you become instantly guilty of "evil speaking" and therefore in danger of lapsing into apostasy.

Under the social controls presently in place, it is impossible for the church to correct itself from within. No matter how much members may care, even adore the church, they cannot take note of even obvious defects without risking the cultural ire of other church members. No one can speak up and point out stupidity, error or blatant dishonesty among church leadership without suffering the accusation they are "evil speaking." This has only one outcome: wider spread of corruption and decay. It is inevitable.

While a member I was careful to avoid speaking or accusing leaders or the church itself. Even now I have stopped short of every saying the church and its leaders are apostate. Instead I try to focus on what I think to be true. I use the scriptures for the most part to explain my views.

The church now has a very broad web presence. They have both paid and volunteer people hammering away on keyboards worldwide. Some are assigned to criticize me. It is just one of the minor irritants in my life. The focus should be on truth, ideas, events, history, scriptures and doctrines. Calling names changes the subject. Then we get to use names to briefly dismiss what may be very important to understand.

Though I think myself unimportant, I try to discuss very important things. The things I talk about can be considered, even if I remain unimportant. I'm very through with the LDS Church. At the present it is only important as a side-note to history. Now they no longer have the rights once given them, I intend to press forward with what God is doing at present and in the future. I will never again belong to the LDS Church. I wish it well and bear no animosity toward it whatsoever. I don't have anything to say to it or its active members. But the disaffected (which comprises over two-thirds of the claimed membership number) may still believe in Joseph Smith's original mission, as I do. I'd like to talk with them, and all others who are not Latter-day Saints. Content, active Latter-day Saints I intend to leave alone. If they overhear something I say I apologize to them and their church. I don't want to disturb their peace or awaken them.

My next talk will be in Ephriam at the end of June. I hope no active Latter-day Saints attend. If they are content with their religion, then I have nothing to say to them. In return, I hope they have nothing to say about me.

[Thinker]

Where exactly do you draw the line and begin to denounce others as “apostate?”

I would say the line is when a person is excommunicated for apostacy. Then they are apostate. And when another person identifies with and upholds that same apostate's teachings as the "truth", then that person also is an apostate.

Apostate from what?
Apostate: a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle.

Jesus was considered apostate and worse, as were those who followed him.
My God is God, not a person, not even a prophet.
My intention is to never apostate from God, even if that requries apostating from a particular religious belief.

And I don't think you or I can always rightously judge whether someone is apostasizing from God's will or not.