Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Denver Snuffer

FAIR Answers—back to home page

A FairMormon Analysis of Denver Snuffer's Online Claims

This page is still under construction. We welcome any suggestions for improving the content of this FAIR Answers Wiki page.

Overview

Denver Snuffer was excommunicated for apostasy on 11 September 2013 because of the claims made in his book Passing the Heavenly Gift. Following his excommunication, Snuffer has declared, among other things, that the Church's First Presidency has lost their authority, and claimed that Jesus appeared to him to instruct him. This wiki page examines his historical and other claims.

Snuffer has announced that:

The Lord has said to me in His own voice, "I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you." Therefore, I want to caution those who disagree with me, to feel free, to feel absolutely free to make the case against what I say. Feel free to disagree, and make your contrary arguments. If you believe I err, then expose the error and denounce it. But take care; take care about what you say concerning me for your sake, not for mine. I live with constant criticism. I can take it. But I do not want you provoking Divine ire by unfortunately chosen words if I can persuade you against it.

At his invitation, then, FairMormon undertakes to evaluate his public claims, statements, and teachings. We do not curse him, but simply offer the "contrary arguments" that he says that he welcomes:

I like criticism more than praise. Criticism, particularly well thought through criticism, is appreciated. Never shout down critics.

FairMormon's response

In developing our response, our primary intended audience is not necessarily Snuffer nor his associates, but rather those individuals, perhaps faithful Latter-day Saints, perhaps questioning, perhaps once-faithful but now sincerely doubting, who may have come across his teachings and been troubled by their superficial plausibility.

This set of articles comprises approximately ??? questions or sources assigned to the response to Denver Snuffer. A full list of these articles may be found here: Category:Denver Snuffer. New questions and sources are periodically added to this list.

Quick Navigation

• Response to claim: "At that moment, the Lord ended all claims of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"
• Response to claim: "I quoted from past church leaders’ diaries, journals, talks, letters or writings. But I did not criticize."
• Response to claim: "We must all find salvation for ourselves"
• Response to claim: "it does not matter whether there is an officiator with authority from God on the earth or not"
• Response to claim: Snuffer claims God has called him to preach his doctrines
• Response to claim: "the responsibility to live so as to invite the Spirit is all you need"
• Response to claim: "the required priestly authority is still available through the veil"
• Response to claim: "You do not need buildings to meet. Tithing is for the poor"
• Response to claim: Passing the Heavenly Gift is "the most correct account of our dispensation written so far"
• Response to claim: "Joseph Smith only built one building-a temple"
• Response to claim: "I was and am able to a pass temple recommend interview. I can answer all the questions in the right way."

"At that moment, the Lord ended all claims of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

---

Denver Snuffer claim:

Last general conference [April 2014], the entire First Presidency, the 12, the 70, and all other general authorities and auxiliaries, voted to sustain those who abused their authority in casting me out of the church. At that moment, the Lord ended all claims of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to claim it is led by the priesthood.

Denver Snuffer, "Preserving The Restoration," Lecture 10, Mesa, Arizona (9 September 2014), 7. https://www.scribd.com/doc/239760895/10-Phoenix-Transcript-Preserving-the-Restoration

FairMormon Response

Question: Have Latter-day Saint (Mormon) Church leaders lost priesthood authority?

Such claims are typically made by apostates because they were excommunicated

The course of events makes it clear that the Stake, the Seventy and the Twelve have all been involved and bear some responsibility for [my excommunication]. I need to afford the First Presidency the opportunity to bear responsibility as well.

— Denver Snuffer, Jr. to the First Presidency

∗       ∗       ∗

Last general conference [April 2014], the entire First Presidency, the 12, the 70, and all other general authorities and auxiliaries, voted to sustain those who abused their authority in casting me out of the church. At that moment, the Lord ended all claims of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to claim it is led by the priesthood.

— Denver Snuffer, Jr. to his followers

∗       ∗       ∗

I will give you one of the keys of the mysteries of the kingdom. It is an eternal principle that has existed with God from all Eternity that that man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly that that man is in the high road to apostacy and if he does not repent will apostatize as God lives[.]

— Joseph Smith, Jr.

∗       ∗       ∗

Some who are excommunicated from the Church believe that the leaders of the Church have lost any right to claim priesthood leadership. For example, Denver Snuffer, after his excommunication, claimed that everyone is "out of the way"—the Prophet, the apostles, the entire Church leadership, have all lost any right to claim priesthood leadership. Why? Because Snuffer was excommunicated.

Denver Snuffer stated:

Last general conference [April 2014], the entire First Presidency, the 12, the 70, and all other general authorities and auxiliaries, voted to sustain those who abused their authority in casting me out of the church. At that moment, the Lord ended all claims of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to claim it is led by the priesthood.

By contrast, Joseph Smith says that people who make claims such as Snuffer does are possessed with the spirit of apostasy, and not the spirit of God:

I will give you one of the keys of the mysteries of the kingdom. It is an eternal principle that has existed with God from all Eternity that that man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly that that man is in the high road to apostacy and if he does not repent will apostatize as God lives[.]

Snuffer claims to sustain Joseph Smith, and to be continuing his work.

But, if Joseph is a prophet, Snuffer is an apostate from the truth.

If Joseph is not a prophet, then Snuffer's religious claims are likewise false.

In either case, Snuffer is wrong.

"I quoted from past church leaders’ diaries, journals, talks, letters or writings. But I did not criticize."

---

Denver Snuffer claim:

Snuffer told his stake president and the First Presidency: "I was shown a section of the Church Handbook of Instructions that mandated discipline for criticizing the church’s leaders. I explained I hadn’t done that. I quoted from past church leaders’ diaries, journals, talks, letters or writings. But I did not criticize.

FairMormon Response

Question: What happens when a Mormon criticizes Church leaders?

If done publicly and repeatedly, it can lead to excommunication

I am repulsed by people claiming they are to be respected as some giant, freaking, priesthood key holding, omni-competent replacement for God! I am tired of that! I don't want any more of that! I've had enough!

— Denver Snuffer

∗       ∗       ∗

To the extent I have ever spoken about living church leaders I have praised them.

— Denver Snuffer

∗       ∗       ∗

Murder was allowed [in Utah] but only when President Young thought it was needed for the salvation of the victim.

— Denver Snuffer

∗       ∗       ∗

It is not the responsibility of church members to judge church authorities.

— Denver Snuffer

One critic of the Church, Denver Snuffer, told his stake president and the First Presidency::

I was shown a section of the Church Handbook of Instructions that mandated discipline for criticizing the church’s leaders. I explained I hadn’t done that. I quoted from past church leaders’ diaries, journals, talks, letters or writings. But I did not criticize.

Snuffer's account is not accurate. He has repeatedly criticized and attacked Church leaders.

Snuffer claims that his stake president agree with this after he 'explained' it to him:

I denied this accusation and after giving the explanation President Hunt agreed.

However, his stake president seems to see the matter very differently, as revealed in a letter he wrote to Snuffer which Snuffer made public:

You [Denver Snuffer] have mischaracterized doctrine, denigrated virtually every prophet since Joseph Smith, and placed the church in a negative light....

Snuffer reports that:

I asserted [to the stake president] that if he believed I was really "apostate" he would never have stood down. For that reason it was him merely following commands from higher up, and not a local matter.

Yet, the Stake President clearly did not agree with this view:

[A]s you know, a stake disciplinary council was held on your behalf on September 8, 2013. The council's conclusion was that several of the claims that you make in Passing the Heavenly Gift constitute clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church and its leaders. Consequently, the council determined that you should be excommunicated from the Church for apostasy.

It seems more likely, then, that Snuffer's stake president concluded that further attempts to reason with Snuffer on this issue was pointless. Anyone who can make so many criticisms and complaints, and then insist with a straight face that they've never criticized Church leaders is either dishonest, or not open to reasoned discussion.

False and self-contradictory claims

This claim is blatantly false. Snuffer's book and other pre-excommunication writing is filled with criticism of the Church's leaders.

Snuffer's book is also self-contradictory. He declares that "It is not the responsibility of church members to judge church authorities."

But, he judges them repeatedly. By his own standards, his behavior is inappropriate.

He is not speaking the truth when he says that he does not criticize, and he judges despite claiming he should not.

Response to claim: Latter-day Saint leaders = Popes

Snuffer compares modern leaders to the Popes, making false claims:

"The proud descendants of Nauvoo who have always retained control of the church’s top leadership positions, claim to hold all the keys ever given to Joseph Smith. They teach that they can bind on earth and in heaven. They are the ‘new Popes’ having the authority the Catholic Pope claims to possess."

If this is not a criticism, what is it?

Response to claim: Latter-day Saint leaders foster "cult of personality"

Snuffer repeatedly claims that leaders of the Church foster a "cult of personality."

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

Response to claim: Latter-day Saint leaders believe they should be "adored"

Snuffer claims that prophets believe

they are entitled to the adoration of followers.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

Response to claim: Latter-day Saint leaders guilty of spiritual "murder" and "priestcrafts"

Snuffer claims:

We [the Latter-day Saints] claim to hold keys that would allow men filled with sin to forgive sins on earth and in heaven, to grant eternal life, or to bar from the kingdom of God. Using that false and useless claim, we slay the souls of men, thereby committing murder. We are riddled with priestcrafts.

Snuffer ignores that the claim to hold keys derives not from "Latter-day Saints," but from both the Bible and Doctrine and Covenants:

Bible: And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matthew 16:19).

Doctrine and Covenants: That whoever he blesses shall be blessed, and whoever he curses shall be cursed; that whatsoever he shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever he shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (D&C 124:93).

Doctrine and Covenants:hatsoever you seal on earth shall be sealed in heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth, in my name and by my word, saith the Lord, it shall be eternally bound in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you remit on earth shall be remitted eternally in the heavens; and whosesoever sins you retain on earth shall be retained in heaven (D&C 132꞉46, emphasis added).

Does Snuffer imagine that these men were any less fallible, any less sinful that modern leaders? Yet, God declared that they had priesthood keys of blessing and cursing, binding and loosing, of remitting or retaining sins.

Joseph Smith could have been speaking directly to Snuffer's complaint when he wrote:

It may seem to some to be a very bold doctrine that we talk of—a power which records or binds on earth and binds in heaven. Nevertheless, in all ages of the world, whenever the Lord has given a dispensation of the priesthood to any man by actual revelation, or any set of men, this power has always been given. Hence, whatsoever those men did in authority, in the name of the Lord, and did it truly and faithfully, and kept a proper and faithful record of the same, it became a law on earth and in heaven, and could not be annulled, according to the decrees of the great Jehovah. This is a faithful saying. Who can hear it? (D&C 128꞉9). [Joseph then quotes Matthew 16 as above.]

Snuffer's quarrel, then, is not with the Church leaders, but with ancient and modern scripture, as well as Joseph Smith whom he claims to sustain.

These claims are criticisms. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

Response to claim: David O. McKay liked to be 'lionized'

Snuffer makes a false claim relying on a misrepresented text to claim that David O. McKay "liked his ‘celebrity status’ and wanted ‘to be recognized, lauded, and lionized'."

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

Question: Did David O. McKay like to be "recognized, lauded, and lionized"?

It takes a certain talent to transform an account that praises McKay as a “modest, private person,” into an “admission” that McKay “liked” his celebrity

Some claim that David O. McKay "liked his ‘celebrity status’ and wanted ‘to be recognized, lauded, and lionized'."

<onlyinclude>Snuffer quotes D. Michael Quinn: “a First Presidency secretary acknowledged that [David O.] McKay liked his ‘celebrity status,’ and wanted ‘to be recognized, lauded, and lionized’” (349). He cites Quinn’s Extensions of Power volume, which gives as its source a book by secretary Francis M. Gibbons. A check of these references is discouraging, but not surprising for those familiar with Quinn’s methods. The actual text of Gibbons’ volume for the pages cited reads:

[263] The encroachment on [McKay's] private life that celebrity status imposed...was something President McKay adjusted to with apparent difficulty. He was essentially a modest, private person, reared in a rural atmosphere, who at an early age was thrust into the limelight of the Mormon community. And as he gained in experience...as wide media exposure made his name and face known in most households, he became, in a sense, a public asset whose time and efforts were assumed to be available to all. This radical change in status was a bittersweet experience. To be recognized, lauded, and lionized is something that seemingly appeals to the ego and self-esteem of the most modest among us, even to David O. McKay. But the inevitable shrinkage in the circle of privacy that this necessarily entails provides a counter-balance that at times outweighs the positive aspects of public adulation. This is easily inferred from a diary entry of July 19, 1950....The diarist hinted that it had become so difficult to venture forth on the streets of Salt Lake City that he had about decided to abandon the practice. For such a free spirit as he, for one who was so accustomed to going and coming as he pleased, any decision to restrict his movements about the city was an imprisonment of sorts. But the only alternatives, neither of which was acceptable, were to go in disguise or to ignore or to cut short those who approached him. The latter would have been especially repugnant to one such as David O. McKay, who had cultivated to the highest degree the qualities of courtesy and attentive listening.

It was ironic, therefore, that as the apostle's fame and influence widened, the scope of his private life was proportionately restricted.... [347]

Everywhere he traveled in Australia, or elsewhere on international tours, President McKay received celebrity treatment. Enthusiastic, cheering, singing crowds usually greeted him at every stop, sometimes to the surprise or chagrin of local residents. A group of well-known Australian athletes, about a flight to Adelaide with President McKay's party, learned an embarrassing lesson in humility. Seeing a large, noisy crowd at the airport, and assuming they were the object of its adulation, the handsome young men stepped forward to acknowledge the greeting [348] only to find that the cheers and excitement were generated by the tall, white-haired man who came down the ramp after them.

It takes a certain talent to transform an account that praises McKay as a “modest, private person,” (whose privacy and personal convenience suffered because of how unwilling he was to appear rude or short with anyone) into an “admission” that McKay “liked” his celebrity. The original line about being “recognized, lauded, and lionized” is obviously intended to point out that such things are a danger to anyone because they appeal to the ego, and all would be tempted by them—but it is likewise clear that Gibbons does not think that McKay succumbed to that temptation. Snuffer is helping Quinn bear false witness against both McKay and Gibbons.

Response to claim: Latter-day Saint leaders = Proud

He repeatedly labels all general leaders since Nauvoo as "proud":

• “Ever since the expulsion of church members from Nauvoo, the highest leadership positions in the church have been held by Nauvoo’s proud descendants.”
• “The proud refugees from Nauvoo and their descendants have always claimed they succeeded in doing all that was required.”
• “If [my] new view of history is more correct than the narrative offered by the proud descendants of Nauvoo…”
• “The Nauvoo saints and their proud descendants would necessarily diminish. This view is unlikely to ever be accepted by a church whose leadership is filled overwhelmingly by those same proud descendants of Nauvoo. There hasn’t been a single church president without Nauvoo ancestors.”

It is clear that he intends the term "proud" in its negative sense, since he elsewhere accuses the leaders of great arrogance:

I am repulsed by people claiming they are to be respected as some giant, freaking, priesthood key holding, omni-competent replacement for God! I am tired of that! I don't want any more of that! I've had enough!

This is a gross misrepresentation of how LDS members see their leaders, or what the leaders claim. But, it is the attitude that Snuffer imputes to them—clearly stuffed with pride and arrogance.

To be "proud" is to be guilty of great sin.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

Response to claim: Latter-day Saint leaders only "administrative apostles"

Snuffer's attitude toward modern Church leaders is displayed in his chapter title, "Prophets, Profits and Priestcraft." The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are said to be "modern administrative Apostles," who cannot bear the proper Apostolic witness that Snuffer can: there are “two different kinds of Apostles”—”one is an administrative office in the church. The other is a witness of the resurrection, who has met with Christ”.

To accuse others of priestcraft and valuing "profits" over prophecy is not a compliment. It is not praise to say that the Twelve Apostles are only "administrators" instead of witnesses of the resurrection.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

Response to claim: Latter-day Saint leaders use "Babylonian methods"

Snuffer accuses Church leaders of changing the Church, and using "[B]abylonian methods":

"The book brings to light the [B]abylonian methods church leadership uses to make rapid and dramatic changes. We are not now the same church restored by Joseph Smith....."

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

Response to claim: Latter-day Saint leaders = not true messengers

Snuffer writes:

Part of the ceremony [made] it...clear to those who participated that there were no mortal sources who could claim they were ‘true messengers.’ Mortal men were universally depicted as false ministers in the ceremony Joseph restored. The only source of true messengers was God or angels sent by Him.

LDS prophets and apostles claim to be true messengers from God. Snuffer says that they are not.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

Response to claim: "Instructions from above" are not from Salt Lake City

Snuffer tells his followers:

instruction from above...for me...has little to do with 47 East South Temple.

Snuffer claims that instructions from Church leaders (at the Church Office Building at 47 East South Temple) are not from above, while claiming that he does get instruction from God above.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

Response to claim: Latter-day Saint leaders wish to hide the Church's desire to accommodate the homosexual agenda

Snuffer tells his audience that the Church is easing "toward open acceptance of socially progressive mormonism. This is the product of social, political and legal pressure," as evidenced by the Church's support of anti-discrimination ordinances for homosexuals.

• "This accounts for the difference between the reaction of the church to socially progressive Mormons (who are tolerated) and me. Those who advocate for the place the church has already decided to go are not a threat to their plans. What I write can create a good deal of difficultly in arriving there."
• "The church needs not only to "teach for doctrine the commandments of men," the church must be able to teach AS doctrine the commandments of men. Meaning that the church must have those aboard who will do, believe and accept whatever the leaders tell the members. Unquestionably. Unhesitatingly."
• "I will state for all you blog readers: Passing the Heavenly Gift contains content that will make your appreciation and acceptance of the efforts of the institution now and in the future to bend its teachings to conform to social, political and legal trends much more difficult to achieve. You will be happier if you don't read the book. You will be more inclined to sleepwalk along with what is progressively distant from the original restoration. You will not detect that these changes mark the downfall predicted in the prophecies of the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants."

Snuffer claims Church leaders are caving to social and legal pressure on homosexuality, and not following God's will.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

Response to claim: Latter-day Saint leaders wink at homosexual lust

• The church introduced a web page on same sex attraction. Two of the twelve contributed to the page. One of them asserted that same sex attraction is not a sin, but only acting on the impulse would be. This is an interesting accommodation which contradicts the Lord's statement that "whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery in his heart." Or, adds to it: "but if you burn in lust for the same sex that isn't adultery in your heart."

Snuffer here accuses two of the twelve apostles:

1. of teaching contrary to Jesus' words
2. of declaring that "burning in lust" isn't a sin.

Snuffer is clearly misrepresenting the apostles. Snuffer's "opposite sex attraction" is not a sin in and of itself, and someone else's "same sex attraction" is not a sin. Snuffer could sin by burning in lust toward someone, just as a homosexual member could sin by encouraging fantasies of same sex acts. But, there mere fact that Snuffer, or the homosexual member, have an attraction to one gender or the other is not a sin.

It appears that Snuffer is going out of his way to find fault, and reading Church leaders with the least charitable interpretation possible.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

Response to claim: LDS leaders cannot bear proper testimony of the resurrection

Question: Do LDS leaders bear proper testimony of the resurrection?

Snuffer claims:

Today, testimonies of the presiding authorities, including the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve, assert only vaguely they are “special witnesses” of the Lord…. A great number of active Latter-day Saints do not notice the careful parsing [sic] of words used by modern administrative Apostles. They presume a “witness of the name” of Christ is the same as the New Testament witness of His resurrection. The apostolic witness was always intended to be based upon the dramatic, the extraordinary…. Without such visionary encounters with the Lord, they are unable to witness about Him, but only of His name.

It is not a compliment to claim that the Twelve Apostles "are unable to witness about" Christ.

This is a criticism. Snuffer's claim to not criticize is false.

Snuffer also misrepresents the content of many modern apostles' witness:

Response to Passing the Heavenly Gift: Claims about Brigham Young and apostles not being witnesses of Christ

Jump to details:

• Apostles as personal witnesses of Christ
• Question: Did any nineteenth century leader after Joseph Smith report divine visions?
• Question: Did any twentieth century leader after Joseph Smith report divine visions?

"We must all find salvation for ourselves"

---

Denver Snuffer claim:

"Even if you give the most optimistic assessment of the restoration and current condition of the church it can do nothing for the individual Latter-day Saint. We must all find salvation for ourselves.

FairMormon Response

Plan of salvation/Do we need a church

The Doctrine and Covenants teaches that some things are required from the Church for full salvation to its members. The Lord says of those who have acted wickedly:

But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves....Wo unto them; because they have offended my little ones they shall be severed from the ordinances of mine house....They shall not have right to the priesthood, nor their posterity after them from generation to generation. It had been better for them that a millstone had been hanged about their necks, and they drowned in the depth of the sea (DC 121꞉17,19,21-22).

These scriptures teach that it is a great tragedy and punishment if:

• one does not receive the priesthood
• one is severed from the ordinances

Joseph Smith always administered these things through the Church's organizational structure: these ordinances require legitimate authority, and are important for exaltation, contrary to Snuffer's claims.

Just before his death, Joseph emphasized:

I advise all to go on to perfection and search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of Godliness—a man can do nothing for himself unless God direct him in the right way, and the Priesthood is reserved for that purpose.

Snuffer's efforts to dismiss the importance of the Church and its ordinances via priesthood authority lead him to preach false doctrine.

"it does not matter whether there is an officiator with authority from God on the earth or not"

---

Denver Snuffer claim:

"[I]t would be good to have an authorized minister to perform the ordinance [of baptism, but] it does not matter whether there is an officiator with authority from God on the earth or not...."

FairMormon Response

Mormonism and priesthood/Restoration/Why do we need authority

[There is] no salvation between the two lids of the bible without a legal administrator.

—Joseph Smith

The scriptures and Joseph Smith repeatedly teach that an authorized priesthood holder is necessary for ordinances, including baptism:

• Jesus in 3 Nephi 11꞉21-22: "I give unto you power that ye shall baptize this people when I am again ascended into heaven.And again the Lord called others, and said unto them likewise; and he gave unto them power to baptize."
• Articles of Faith: "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof" (A+of+F 1꞉5).
• Book of Mormon: "...king Limhi and many of his people were desirous to be baptized; but there was none in the land that had authority from God....Therefore they did not at that time form themselves into a church, waiting upon the Spirit of the Lord....They were desirous to be baptized as a witness and a testimony that they were willing to serve God with all their hearts; nevertheless they did prolong the time; and an account of their baptism shall be given hereafter" (Mosiah 21꞉33-35).

---

Denver Snuffer claim:

"[I]t would be good to have an authorized minister to perform the ordinance [of baptism, but] it does not matter whether there is an officiator with authority from God on the earth or not...."

FairMormon Response

Snuffer claims anyone can baptize without authority, but the Doctrine and Covenants teaches that not even all priesthood offices can baptize:

But neither teachers nor deacons have authority to baptize, administer the sacrament, or lay on hands.... (DC 20꞉58).

The scripture tells us precisely who may baptize:

an Apostle is an Elder & it is his calling to Baptize & to ordain other Elders, Priests, Teachers & Deacons…The Priests duty is to…baptize…& ordain other Priests, Teaches & Deacons....

Snuffer claims God has called him to preach his doctrines

---

Denver Snuffer claim:

Snuffer claims God has called him to preach his doctrines. ^{[needs work]}

FairMormon Response

The scriptures tell us that one may not preach the gospel or build up the Church without known authority:

Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church (DC 42꞉11).

Not only does Snuffer have no authority from the heads of the Church, he certainly not been "regularly ordained." Instead, he has been excommunicated for apostasy.

His teachings and claims violate the scriptures he claims to uphold.

"the responsibility to live so as to invite the Spirit is all you need"

---

Denver Snuffer claim:

" If the Holy Ghost will visit you even without an authoritative ordinance then the responsibility to live so as to invite the Spirit is all you need to have that same companionship the ordinance could confer...."

FairMormon Response

Snuffer claims that receiving the ordinance of confirmation and the gift of the Holy Ghost makes no difference. But, Joseph Smith taught the opposite:

There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized, which was the convincing [Page 194]power of God unto him of the truth of the Gospel, but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized. Had he not taken this sign or ordinance upon him, the Holy Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him.

Snuffer is teaching false doctrine about the Restoration.

"the required priestly authority is still available through the veil"

---

Denver Snuffer claim:

Ordinances do not need to be performed by one with legitimate Church authority, since "the required priestly authority is still available through the veil."

FairMormon Response

Snuffer again contradicts Joseph Smith, who made it very clear that no ordinances would be performed by divine messengers once the authority had been conferred on mortals:

The angel told… Cornelius that he must send for Peter to learn how to be saved: Peter could baptize, and angels could not, so long as there were legal officers in the flesh holding the keys of the kingdom, or the authority of the priesthood. There is one evidence still further on this point, and that is that Jesus himself when he appeared to Paul on his way to Damascus, did not inform him how he could be saved. He had set in the church firstly Apostles, and secondly prophets for the work of the ministry… and as the grand rule of heaven was that nothing should ever be done on earth without revealing the secret to his servants the prophets…. [S]o Paul could not learn so much from the [Page 196]Lord relative to his duty in the common salvation of man, as he could from one of Christ’s ambassadors called with the same heavenly calling of the Lord, and endowed with the same power from on high—so that what they loosed on earth, should be loosed in heaven; and what they bound on earth should be bound in heaven.

---

Denver Snuffer claim:

Snuffer claims the Church has lost the fullness, but "[t]he required priestly authority is still available through the veil."

FairMormon Response

Snuffer claims that the Church has lost vital priesthood authority, and so ordinances do not need it, or Snuffer's followers can get it "through the veil."

An angel, said Joseph, may administer the word of the Lord unto men, and bring intelligence to them from heaven upon various subjects; but no true angel from God will ever come to ordain any man, because they have once been sent to establish the priesthood by ordaining me thereunto; and the priesthood being once established on earth, with power to ordain others, no heavenly messenger will ever come to interfere with that power by ordaining any more…You may therefore know, from this time forward, that if any man comes to you professing to be ordained by an angel, he is either a liar or has been imposed upon in consequence of transgression by an angel of the devil, for this priesthood shall never be taken away from this church.

Joseph Smith said that the Church would never lack priesthood authority, and that if someone claimed a heavenly messenger had brought them authority, they were either:

1. deceived by Satan; or
2. a liar.

"You do not need buildings to meet. Tithing is for the poor"

---

Denver Snuffer claim:

"You do not need buildings to meet. Tithing is for the poor."

FairMormon Response

1. REDIRECT Money_spent_on_temples

Passing the Heavenly Gift is "the most correct account of our dispensation written so far"

---

Denver Snuffer claim:

"[My book Passing the Heavenly Gift is] the most correct account of our dispensation written so far...."

FairMormon Response

Despite this grandiose claim, Snuffer's book is filled with historical errors, omissions, and misrepresentations.

Response to claims made in Passing the Heavenly Gift by Denver C. Snuffer

Summary: This account of Church history contains numerous inaccuracies, distortions, and misrepresentations of the data.

Jump to details:

• Response to Passing the Heavenly Gift: Introduction to the volume's claims
• Response to Passing the Heavenly Gift: Claims about priesthood ordination
• Response to Passing the Heavenly Gift: Claims about Brigham Young and apostles not being witnesses of Christ
• Response to Passing the Heavenly Gift: Claims regarding source of Brigham Young and apostles' authority after Joseph Smith's death
• Response to Passing the Heavenly Gift: Claims regarding when Joseph Smith received priesthood authority
• Response to Passing the Heavenly Gift: Claims that authority could only be transmitted in a completed temple
• Response to Passing the Heavenly Gift: Claims that the Saints sinned and Joseph gave his life
• Response to Passing the Heavenly Gift: Claims that the Saints did not build the Nauvoo Temple quickly enough
• Response to Passing the Heavenly Gift: Claims that the Saints in Nauvoo were punished because they were slothful in building the temple
• Response to Passing the Heavenly Gift: Response to claims made in Conclusion
• Response to Passing the Heavenly Gift: Appendix 1 & 2—Comparing the size and cost of the Kirtland and Nauvoo temples
• Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, "Passing Up The Heavenly Gift (Part One of Two)"
• Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, "Passing Up The Heavenly Gift (Part Two of Two)"
• Reviews of this work

"Joseph Smith only built one building-a temple"

---

Denver Snuffer claim:

"Joseph Smith only built one building—a temple."

FairMormon Response

Question: Should there be only one temple?

Through Joseph Smith, the Lord directed the construction of many buildings besides temples

One critic of the Church claims that "Joseph Smith only built one building. He completed the Kirtland temple. He got the Nauvoo temple started, but Joseph Smith only built one building.", and that there should not be more than a single temple: I will briefly mention there will need for a temple to be built at some point. Not yet and not more than one. But there will be a need for one.

This claim, which is made by Denver Snuffer, is false. The Doctrine and Covenants commands that consecrated Church funds be used for a variety of purposes:

Therefore, the residue [of the funds] shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer to the poor and the needy, as shall be appointed by the high council of the church, and the bishop and his council;

And for the purpose of purchasing lands for the public benefit of the church, and building houses of worship, and building up of the New Jerusalem which is hereafter to be revealed...(D&C 42꞉34-35, italics added)

Through Joseph, the Lord directed the construction of many buildings besides temples:

• A house in Kirtland for himself
• A house in Kirtland for Sidney Rigdon
• "a house...for the work of the printing of the translation of my scriptures, and all things whatsoever I shall command you."
• The Nauvoo House (D&C 128꞉55–75).

Snuffer's history is simply wrong, and he makes false claims based upon his false history.

"I was and am able to a pass temple recommend interview. I can answer all the questions in the right way"

---

Denver Snuffer claim:

"I was and am able to a pass temple recommend interview. I can answer all the questions in the right way."

FairMormon Response

This issue would not be raised if Snuffer had not made it an issue. He told the First Presidency:

I was and am worthy of a Temple Recommend.

He even enlists the stake president in this claim:

The stake president admitted to me and my wife before the Council began, that I was then worthy of a temple recommend (italics added).

One temple recommend question asks if the member sustains the President of the Church, First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and his local leaders. Snuffer has made it clear he does not sustain any of these leaders because:

• he has repeatedly criticized them (see above);
• he claims that the prophet and the apostles do not have the priesthood keys that they claim to have;
• he has refused to refrain from publishing what his stake president referred to as "mischaracterized doctrine" in a book whose "thesis is in direct conflict with church doctrine" He has done so even when he knows that a member of the Quorum of the Twelve has reviewed the book.
• he has refused to comply with disciplinary council procedures, despite his stake president's request. He had so little respect for the procedures that he refused to attend when his demands were not met (see above).

Snuffer's claim is false—by his own description of his behavior, he was not "worthy of a temple recommend." He either does not understand the temple recommend questions, or he is being dishonest with his readers, the First Presidency, and perhaps himself.

He also says:

I had a current temple recommend at the time of the disciplinary council. I was not asked to return it before the council, nor asked to return it even after the council’s decision. It expired in March, 2014, six months after excommunication.

Snuffer's recommend would have been automatically deactivated upon his excommunication; this is done electronically, and should not be interpreted to mean—as Snuffer implies by raising it—that he was known to be worthy and no one dared say otherwise.

Notes