Denver Snuffer: Full page ad in today's LA Times

[DEEPER storm]

Denver Snuffer is going to be lecturing here in Southern California on September 21. On September 24, he will be baptizing interested people.

The word "Remnant" does not appear in the advertisement.

I did not realize he is a Christian. He claims, "Jesus Alone Saves" and "Christ is the way to social justice."

Is he getting a significant following?

[BringerOfJoy]

...
I did not realize he is a Christian. He claims, "Jesus Alone Saves" and "Christ is the way to social justice."
...

That is unfortunate that you did not think he was Christian. Denver is not-Christian in the same way Joseph Smith was Not-Christian. (I say that somewhat in jest in case someone should take me literally). His first book, with 400+ pages (The Second Comforter) was about coming into the presence of Christ. Which experience he had for the first time in 2003.

He also wrote a 300+ page book called, Come, Let us Adore Him. It is, of course, about the life of the Savior, and also gives some detail about his audience with Christ (specifically being shown the Atonement and Resurrection) --in the third person--in the last few chapters.

He has written several books about the primary message of the Book of Mormon being "Come unto Christ" but Moroni seemed to think that was the case, also, as those were some of his closing words in the Book of Mormon.

I don't know for sure what qualifies as a "significant following," but I suppose there are around 1000 of us scattered all over the place including Sweden, Germany, and apparently Africa. We've lost some and we've gained some. For a movement that has been in existence for three years now, that's not bad, but Snuffer would be the first to say quality is more important than quantity. Abinidi had a following of one (Alma) but that turned out to be a most significant following.

[truth]

The ad also included the text of the Sermon on the Mount from Luke 6 and originally included this essay (though this essay is not what was published) [edited because I unintentionally misspoke]:

The ways humanity tries to bring about justice, peace, and unity do not and cannot work. History and current events are proof that competing against, controlling, or manipulating others always results in disunity, conflict, injustice, and inequality. Yet competition, force, and manipulation are how humanity has chosen to govern itself. Jesus offers us the sole alternative to humanity’s self-destructive ways: love.

The law of God is this: every last thing you wish others would do to you, do those exact same things to them. This law defines the behavior of perfect love, which is called “charity.” God’s law is the true moral and ethical standard of all humankind, being written into every conscience, and it is the definition of “good.” Behavior that falls short of this law is not good and produces both guilt and conflict with others.

The purpose of the law of God is to end conflict between people. Those who willingly keep His law may joyfully and peacefully live together as equals, both here and now, and forever in the eternal world. The commandments that Jesus gave us in the Sermon on the Mount are how we are to obey the law of God through our works and end our conflicts with others.

Love, the feeling which makes us want to do what the law of God commands, is given to us by God. Charity is Jesus’s nature, meaning He feels perfect love towards everyone. Charity is the nature of all those who inherit God’s kingdom with Jesus. Jesus’s commandments in the Sermon on the Mount are the actions which those who have charity do by nature.

“Sin” is intent or action which falls short of the law of God, such as giving in to lust and doing to others what we do not wish others would do to us. “Repent” means to change one’s mind, to reconsider, or to relent, all of which implies a willing change in one’s behavior.

Any who will believe Jesus’s words in the Sermon on the Mount as literally as small children believe their parents’ words, and repent of all their sins, and be baptized by one of His sent servants, shall be visited by God with fire and with the Holy Ghost and shall receive a remission of their sins.

The visitation of the Holy Ghost changes our feelings so that we understand Jesus’s love and want to only do good. Then we are to do what Jesus commands until the end of our lives. We trust in Jesus to guide and comfort us in our trials and afflictions as we learn who and what He is by the things we suffer in obedience to His teachings. Just as one does not learn a new skill without practice, nobody can understand nor master the discipline of perfect love without doing its works. Doing the works Jesus commanded until we fully understand Him and freely agree to become what He is and to receive His nature from Him permanently as a gift by His grace so that we love everyone perfectly just like He does is what it means to be a disciple of Jesus.

If you keep the commandments of Jesus Christ, you are His church (Matthew 7:24-25, 16:18; Luke 6:47-48), you are His disciple (John 8:31-32), you are His friend (John 15:14), and you are His family (Luke 8:19-21).

[Silas]

Denver Snuffer is going to be lecturing here in Southern California on September 21. On September 24, he will be baptizing interested people.

The word "Remnant" does not appear in the advertisement.

I did not realize he is a Christian. He claims, "Jesus Alone Saves" and "Christ is the way to social justice."

Is he getting a significant following?

Sounds like a clever marketer.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Denver Snuffer is going to be lecturing here in Southern California on September 21. On September 24, he will be baptizing interested people.

The word "Remnant" does not appear in the advertisement.

I did not realize he is a Christian. He claims, "Jesus Alone Saves" and "Christ is the way to social justice."

Is he getting a significant following?

Snuffer is an apostate.

[Mindfields]

Using ad hominem attacks is not helpful.

[Silas]

Using ad hominem attacks is not helpful.

Apostate is not a pejorative term. It’s not like saying someone is an idiot or a jerk. It has a specific meaning and you can debate whether or not it’s accurate in this case but I don’t think it’s ad hominem.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Using ad hominem attacks is not helpful.

It is not an attack. It is the truth.

[justme]

Using ad hominem attacks is not helpful.

It is not an attack. It is the truth.

Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. It does not mean that the conclusion is false, it just means that current argument or logic being used to establish a conclusion is wrong or fallacious and another logically correct argument must be made.

[Valo]

Using ad hominem attacks is not helpful.

Apostate is not a pejorative term. It’s not like saying someone is an idiot or a jerk. It has a specific meaning and you can debate whether or not it’s accurate in this case but I don’t think it’s ad hominem.

Yes it is an ad hominem. Ad hominem has a specific meaning and that is what determines the facts here, not whether or not apostate is perjorative or not.

An ad hominem occurs when, in the course of a discussion or a debate, you focus on the character of the person as opposed to the content of their message.

Now, if you wanted to start a discussion as to the status of Denver Snuffer in the church, then at that point the subject matter would be his state in the Church and so state that can be debated.

However, the OP is not about that and so ignoring the substance and talking about Denver Snuffer personally, is, by definition, an ad hominem.

An ad hominem is not always an insult, slur, etc. In simple terms its anytime you focus on the messenger as opposed to the message, with some exceptions that are clearly defined.

Valo

[Valo]

Using ad hominem attacks is not helpful.

It is not an attack. It is the truth.

I'm not being mean here, but, this is an important point and so I want to invite you to take some time and thoroughly learn about ad hominems and a few other of the more common logical fallacies that are found on discussion forums, etc.

It is an ethical imperative for us to make sure we treat everyone we interact with fairly and justly. This means that we have an obligation to understand the fundamental principles of effective communication or debate. It is super important especially on an internet forum.

In general, anytime you focus on the messenger as opposed to the message of the messager, it is an ad hominem, even if the ad hominem is true. Therefore, it is an attack against the person as opposed to an attack against their message.

In the rules of rational discourse, the content or the message of a person is fair game. That is what CAN be attacked, destroyed, etc. You don't have to hold back, ethically and morally, when tearing down another persons ARGUMENTS/CONTENT/MESSAGE, however, talking about the person, whether true or not, is irrational and it is what ends up causing contention and conversations to break down.

Now, there are people (I believe a minority) who understand these things and they understand how effective logical fallacies can be when trying to prevent a message from being believe, discussed, taught, etc. However, no matter what others might do and how they might be motivated, we can't allow that to prevent us from doing the right things when we interact and communicate with others.

Valo

[Silas]

Using ad hominem attacks is not helpful.

Apostate is not a pejorative term. It’s not like saying someone is an idiot or a jerk. It has a specific meaning and you can debate whether or not it’s accurate in this case but I don’t think it’s ad hominem.

Yes it is an ad hominem. Ad hominem has a specific meaning and that is what determines the facts here, not whether or not apostate is perjorative or not.

An ad hominem occurs when, in the course of a discussion or a debate, you focus on the character of the person as opposed to the content of their message.

Now, if you wanted to start a discussion as to the status of Denver Snuffer in the church, then at that point the subject matter would be his state in the Church and so state that can be debated.

However, the OP is not about that and so ignoring the substance and talking about Denver Snuffer personally, is, by definition, an ad hominem.

An ad hominem is not always an insult, slur, etc. In simple terms its anytime you focus on the messenger as opposed to the message, with some exceptions that are clearly defined.

Valo

Yeah, that is a good point. I stand corrected.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

I'm not being mean here, but, this is an important point and so I want to invite you to take some time and thoroughly learn about ad hominems and a few other of the more common logical fallacies that are found on discussion forums, etc.

It is an ethical imperative for us to make sure we treat everyone we interact with fairly and justly. This means that we have an obligation to understand the fundamental principles of effective communication or debate. It is super important especially on an internet forum.

In general, anytime you focus on the messenger as opposed to the message of the messager, it is an ad hominem, even if the ad hominem is true. Therefore, it is an attack against the person as opposed to an attack against their message.

In the rules of rational discourse, the content or the message of a person is fair game. That is what CAN be attacked, destroyed, etc. You don't have to hold back, ethically and morally, when tearing down another persons ARGUMENTS/CONTENT/MESSAGE, however, talking about the person, whether true or not, is irrational and it is what ends up causing contention and conversations to break down.

Now, there are people (I believe a minority) who understand these things and they understand how effective logical fallacies can be when trying to prevent a message from being believe, discussed, taught, etc. However, no matter what others might do and how they might be motivated, we can't allow that to prevent us from doing the right things when we interact and communicate with others.

Valo

First off, I don't really see there is anything to discuss. You cannot separate Snuffer's ideology from the person; it is one and the same. He is a messenger of apostasy. His arguments are satanically inspired and I will not debate satanic ideas. I know that as sure as I live. The right thing to do is to condemn anything that Snuffer teaches. That is the only ethical thing to do.

[Valo]

I'm not being mean here, but, this is an important point and so I want to invite you to take some time and thoroughly learn about ad hominems and a few other of the more common logical fallacies that are found on discussion forums, etc.

It is an ethical imperative for us to make sure we treat everyone we interact with fairly and justly. This means that we have an obligation to understand the fundamental principles of effective communication or debate. It is super important especially on an internet forum.

In general, anytime you focus on the messenger as opposed to the message of the messager, it is an ad hominem, even if the ad hominem is true. Therefore, it is an attack against the person as opposed to an attack against their message.

In the rules of rational discourse, the content or the message of a person is fair game. That is what CAN be attacked, destroyed, etc. You don't have to hold back, ethically and morally, when tearing down another persons ARGUMENTS/CONTENT/MESSAGE, however, talking about the person, whether true or not, is irrational and it is what ends up causing contention and conversations to break down.

Now, there are people (I believe a minority) who understand these things and they understand how effective logical fallacies can be when trying to prevent a message from being believe, discussed, taught, etc. However, no matter what others might do and how they might be motivated, we can't allow that to prevent us from doing the right things when we interact and communicate with others.

Valo

First off, I don't really see there is anything to discuss. You cannot separate Snuffer's ideology from the person; it is one and the same. He is a messenger of apostasy. His arguments are satanically inspired and I will not debate satanic ideas. I know that as sure as I live. The right thing to do is to condemn anything that Snuffer teaches. That is the only ethical thing to do.

Of course it is.

Valo

[Silver Pie]

Snuffer is an apostate.

He has certainly abandoned many of the current religious beliefs and principles of Mormonism, including the belief that Joseph had more than one wife or that God has ever commanded it.

a·pos·tate
/əˈpäˌstāt,əˈpästət/

noun
noun: apostate; plural noun: apostates
a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle.


adjective
adjective: apostate
abandoning a religious or political belief or principle.

[Silver Pie]

Good points.

Yes it is an ad hominem. Ad hominem has a specific meaning and that is what determines the facts here, not whether or not apostate is perjorative or not.

An ad hominem occurs when, in the course of a discussion or a debate, you focus on the character of the person as opposed to the content of their message.

Now, if you wanted to start a discussion as to the status of Denver Snuffer in the church, then at that point the subject matter would be his state in the Church and so state that can be debated.

However, the OP is not about that and so ignoring the substance and talking about Denver Snuffer personally, is, by definition, an ad hominem.

An ad hominem is not always an insult, slur, etc. In simple terms its anytime you focus on the messenger as opposed to the message, with some exceptions that are clearly defined.

Valo

[Silver Pie]

It would surely be sad if, at some future time (perhaps in the next life), you discovered that you were wrong and Satan had not inspired all of this man's teachings.

[ I understand you to mean that everything he teaches should be condemned] but what if you discovered that outright rejection of everything was actually a great disservice to yourself and to those you had convinced to reject him outright?

His arguments are satanically inspired . . . . I know that as sure as I live. The right thing to do is to condemn anything that Snuffer teaches. That is the only ethical thing to do.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

It would surely be sad if, at some future time (perhaps in the next life), you discovered that you were wrong and Satan had not inspired all of this man's teachings.

[ I understand you to mean that everything he teaches should be condemned] but what if you discovered that outright rejection of everything was actually a great disservice to yourself and to those you had convinced to reject him outright?

His arguments are satanically inspired . . . . I know that as sure as I live. The right thing to do is to condemn anything that Snuffer teaches. That is the only ethical thing to do.

I can understand why you might think something like this as you do not know me from a bag of dirt. You cannot know what I've had to do to come back from the depths of sin that I sunk to. I've spent the last nearly seven years trying to get back in the good graces of the Holy Ghost. I have spent, quite literally, several thousand hours researching, pondering, discussing, and writing the things I have learned. One thing that I have learned is that someone with correct knowledge and understanding cannot be deceived by false doctrine. Knowledge without understanding is worthless; in fact, it can be downright dangerous. Snuffer had knowledge without that precious understanding. He knows absolutely nothing about false spirits or discernment.

There is a very common misunderstanding among the membership about discernment. It is commonly called the "gift of discernment" or the "spirit of discernment." Both of those two terms are incorrect and cannot be found in the scriptures and Joseph Smith never used either term. The correct term or name is the gift of the discerning of spirits. It might seem like hair-splitting but that isn't the case. Joseph taught more about the discerning of spirits than any other subject. He wrote an extensive article on this gift called, Try the Spirits. Essentially, the discerning of spirits is all about discerning which spirit is trying to influence you: a good spirit or an evil spirit. It isn't necessarily about good and bad choices; they are the result of which spirit you're listening to. Because good spirits are not permitted to deceive, discernment is primarily about discerning evil/false spirits.

False spirits know everything there is to know about you and they keep notes on your beliefs, prejudices, character traits, everything you've ever read, said or done. They know if you have rebellious tendencies, your level of knowledge, both secular and spiritual, and your feelings about and belief in that knowledge. With this understanding about you, just like God has a plan for your life personally crafted for you, so does Satan. He will craft a plan of deception based on all the above things and, at first, it will be very subtle with carefully crafted falsehoods liberal coated with truth. Once he can get you to swallow down one or two falsehoods, the way is opened for him to dangle more bait. This is how Snuffer got started. Just one little falsehood at a time.

[Dave62]

Using ad hominem attacks is not helpful.

It is not an attack. It is the truth.

I have to confess, Rumpelstiltskin, I really do like your style!

[jmack]

Using ad hominem attacks is not helpful.

Apostate is not a pejorative term. It’s not like saying someone is an idiot or a jerk. It has a specific meaning and you can debate whether or not it’s accurate in this case but I don’t think it’s ad hominem.

Yes it is an ad hominem. Ad hominem has a specific meaning and that is what determines the facts here, not whether or not apostate is perjorative or not.

An ad hominem occurs when, in the course of a discussion or a debate, you focus on the character of the person as opposed to the content of their message.

Now, if you wanted to start a discussion as to the status of Denver Snuffer in the church, then at that point the subject matter would be his state in the Church and so state that can be debated.

However, the OP is not about that and so ignoring the substance and talking about Denver Snuffer personally, is, by definition, an ad hominem.

An ad hominem is not always an insult, slur, etc. In simple terms its anytime you focus on the messenger as opposed to the message, with some exceptions that are clearly defined.

Valo

What status does he have in the church? He's excommunicated. For apostasy. And this op is 2 years old. 2 years later that hasnt changed. He's still excommunicated. For apostasy. People exed for apostasy are sometimes called apostate. Why wouldn't Snuffer consider it a badge of honor as well as fact to have left what he considers an apostate church.

[truth]

The words of the Lord Jesus Christ as given in the Sermon on the Mount are not "satanically inspired." Read 2 Nephi 31-32 to understand the doctrine of Christ. Read the Sermon to understand the commandments which we must obey. 3 Nephi 14:24:

Therefore, whoso heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, who built his house upon a rock--

Denver is not the point. Christ is the rock. Christ's teachings and message are what we should hold fast to.

[lemuel]

I'm not being mean here, but, this is an important point and so I want to invite you to take some time and thoroughly learn about ad hominems and a few other of the more common logical fallacies that are found on discussion forums, etc.

It is an ethical imperative for us to make sure we treat everyone we interact with fairly and justly. This means that we have an obligation to understand the fundamental principles of effective communication or debate. It is super important especially on an internet forum.

In general, anytime you focus on the messenger as opposed to the message of the messager, it is an ad hominem, even if the ad hominem is true. Therefore, it is an attack against the person as opposed to an attack against their message.

In the rules of rational discourse, the content or the message of a person is fair game. That is what CAN be attacked, destroyed, etc. You don't have to hold back, ethically and morally, when tearing down another persons ARGUMENTS/CONTENT/MESSAGE, however, talking about the person, whether true or not, is irrational and it is what ends up causing contention and conversations to break down.

Now, there are people (I believe a minority) who understand these things and they understand how effective logical fallacies can be when trying to prevent a message from being believe, discussed, taught, etc. However, no matter what others might do and how they might be motivated, we can't allow that to prevent us from doing the right things when we interact and communicate with others.

Valo

First off, I don't really see there is anything to discuss. You cannot separate Snuffer's ideology from the person; it is one and the same. He is a messenger of apostasy. His arguments are satanically inspired and I will not debate satanic ideas. I know that as sure as I live. The right thing to do is to condemn anything that Snuffer teaches. That is the only ethical thing to do.

All virtue is comprised in the fact of membership in Our Group; all vice consists in not belonging.20 It can be shown by a most convenient syllogism that since God is on our side we cannot show any degree of toleration for any opposition without incurring infinite guilt.21 In the fourth century everybody was officiously rushing to the defense of God;22 but John Chrysostom’s pious declaration that we must avenge insults to God while patiently bearing insults to ourselves is put in its proper rhetorical light by the assumption of Hilary that an insult to himself is an insult to God.23 Therein lies the great usefulness of the doctrine of guilt and innocence by association that became so popular in the fourth century: one does not need to quibble; there is no such thing as being partly wrong or merely mistaken; the painful virtue of forbearance and the labor of investigation no longer embarrass the champions of one-package loyalty. No matter how nobly and austerely heretics may live, for Augustine they are still Antichrist—all of them, equally and indiscriminately;24 their virtues are really vices, their virginity carnality, their reason unreason, their patience in persecution mere insolence; any cruelty shown them is not really cruelty but kindness.25 Chrysostom goes even further: the most grossly immoral atheist is actually better off than an upright believer who slips up on one point, since though both go to hell, the atheist has at least the satisfaction of having gratified his lust on earth. Why not? Is not heresy in any degree a crime against God? And is not any crime against God an infinite sin?