Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Passing the Heavenly Gift/Introduction - Revision history

GregSmith: /* top */Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}}

2024-04-13T20:17:15Z

top: Bot replace {{FairMormon}} with {{Main Page}} and remove extra lines around {{Header}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:17, 13 April 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~FairMormon~~}}		{{Main Page}}
	{{H1		{{H1
	\|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Passing the Heavenly Gift/Introduction		\|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Passing the Heavenly Gift/Introduction

RogerNicholson at 16:42, 7 October 2018

2018-10-07T16:42:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:42, 7 October 2018
Line 40:		Line 40:
	Snuffer is somewhat dismissive of previous efforts to recount Latter-day Saint history. “History does not belong to the historians. Their techniques only permit them to offer an interpretation of events. Your own opinion is as valid as theirs” (38). This is an excellent example of PTHG’s tendency to make statements that are absolutely true, and then couple them with a conclusion that is dubious. It is certainly true that all history is an interpretation; no historian is infallible, nor are only professional historians allowed to “do history.” But it is absurd to claim that any opinion is as valid as any other opinion. If I am firmly of the view that the Church was first organized in Japan in 1930, instead of New York in 1830, my opinion is simply wrong, however sincerely I hold it. Snuffer continues:		Snuffer is somewhat dismissive of previous efforts to recount Latter-day Saint history. “History does not belong to the historians. Their techniques only permit them to offer an interpretation of events. Your own opinion is as valid as theirs” (38). This is an excellent example of PTHG’s tendency to make statements that are absolutely true, and then couple them with a conclusion that is dubious. It is certainly true that all history is an interpretation; no historian is infallible, nor are only professional historians allowed to “do history.” But it is absurd to claim that any opinion is as valid as any other opinion. If I am firmly of the view that the Church was first organized in Japan in 1930, instead of New York in 1830, my opinion is simply wrong, however sincerely I hold it. Snuffer continues:

	:I am a lawyer, not an historian. This book is a view of the events as I have come to understand them. Any historian will offer only his editorial opinion dressed in an academic discipline to pretend it is more than mere opinion. But history written by the academics suffers from all the bias, blindness and foolishness of the one who writes (5).		<blockquote>
			I am a lawyer, not an historian. This book is a view of the events as I have come to understand them. Any historian will offer only his editorial opinion dressed in an academic discipline to pretend it is more than mere opinion. But history written by the academics suffers from all the bias, blindness and foolishness of the one who writes (5).
	He is certainly correct that authorial bias cannot but contaminate any work. Elsewhere, however, he seems to declare himself above or immune to such concerns. There is not much intellectual caution in his self-portrait:		He is certainly correct that authorial bias cannot but contaminate any work. Elsewhere, however, he seems to declare himself above or immune to such concerns. There is not much intellectual caution in his self-portrait:

	:Taking this scriptural framework, (not as an historian but as a believer in the prophetic insight about us) I then tracked through our history. I used a lot of primary sources, including journals and diaries of church leaders. What I found was that the events in our history could be viewed as an exact match for the prophetic warnings given us in scripture (Book of Mormon/D&C). The result was not history, but truth. If the book is true (and I am persuaded it is the most correct account of our dispensation written so far) then we need to awaken to our present peril and repent.<ref>Snuffer, “Current events,” italics added.</ref>		Taking this scriptural framework, (not as an historian but as a believer in the prophetic insight about us) I then tracked through our history. I used a lot of primary sources, including journals and diaries of church leaders. What I found was that the events in our history could be viewed as an exact match for the prophetic warnings given us in scripture (Book of Mormon/D&C). The result was not history, but truth. If the book is true (and I am persuaded it is the most correct account of our dispensation written so far) then we need to awaken to our present peril and repent.<ref>Snuffer, “Current events,” italics added.</ref>
			</blockquote>

	Not only is Snuffer’s work “truth” (rather than biased history), and not only is it the best account of our dispensation, but “I think I understand [Joseph Smith] as well as any person who has reviewed the written record about him” (40). But, even if this lofty self-portrait is true, if anyone’s opinion about history is as valid as anyone else’s, it is not clear why we ought to listen to Snuffer at all.		Not only is Snuffer’s work “truth” (rather than biased history), and not only is it the best account of our dispensation, but “I think I understand [Joseph Smith] as well as any person who has reviewed the written record about him” (40). But, even if this lofty self-portrait is true, if anyone’s opinion about history is as valid as anyone else’s, it is not clear why we ought to listen to Snuffer at all.
Line 73:		Line 75:
	Undergirding everything is Snuffer’s claim to have seen Jesus Christ, and to therefore have his “calling and election made sure.” A large portion of his critique focuses on the supposed absence of this blessing among post-Joseph Smith leaders of the Church. Furthermore, Snuffer has portrayed himself as an expert on the topic in books and elsewhere:<ref>''The Second Comforter: Conversing with the Lord Through the Veil'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Mill Creek Press, 2006). On Snuffer’s public claims about having seen Christ, see “The Lord does still personally appear to mankind. I am a witness to that fact. He first appeared to me February 13, 2003. I have written a book about the topic….That book does not contain any details about the Lord’s ministry to me, but affirms it took place” (452) and John Dehlin, “321-322: Denver Snuffer – A Progressive, Fundamentalist, Non-Polygamist Mormon Lawyer Who Claims to Have Seen Christ,” Mormon Stories Podcast (12 February 2012). Snuffer says (51 n. 46) that the results of the Second Comforter are discussed in his book ''Beloved Enos'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Mill Creek, 2009). The introduction of the Father by Christ is “not appropriate to set out except through symbols and allegory,” and Snuffer claims to have done so in his ''Ten Parables'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Mill Creek, 2008). Snuffer’s grandiose characterization of his work (see [[#Prophecy and historical claims\|here]]) is not absent from these books either: “This commentary sheds light on Enos in a way which has not been provided by any previous writer. It will reveal to the reader some of the deepest and most profound messages of the Gospel of Jesus Christ” (''Beloved Enos''). ''Ten Parables'' tells us that “this collection of parables weave together symbols to illustrate profound truths. While meaningful in a single read, you will discover layers of meaning with careful review.” </ref>		Undergirding everything is Snuffer’s claim to have seen Jesus Christ, and to therefore have his “calling and election made sure.” A large portion of his critique focuses on the supposed absence of this blessing among post-Joseph Smith leaders of the Church. Furthermore, Snuffer has portrayed himself as an expert on the topic in books and elsewhere:<ref>''The Second Comforter: Conversing with the Lord Through the Veil'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Mill Creek Press, 2006). On Snuffer’s public claims about having seen Christ, see “The Lord does still personally appear to mankind. I am a witness to that fact. He first appeared to me February 13, 2003. I have written a book about the topic….That book does not contain any details about the Lord’s ministry to me, but affirms it took place” (452) and John Dehlin, “321-322: Denver Snuffer – A Progressive, Fundamentalist, Non-Polygamist Mormon Lawyer Who Claims to Have Seen Christ,” Mormon Stories Podcast (12 February 2012). Snuffer says (51 n. 46) that the results of the Second Comforter are discussed in his book ''Beloved Enos'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Mill Creek, 2009). The introduction of the Father by Christ is “not appropriate to set out except through symbols and allegory,” and Snuffer claims to have done so in his ''Ten Parables'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Mill Creek, 2008). Snuffer’s grandiose characterization of his work (see [[#Prophecy and historical claims\|here]]) is not absent from these books either: “This commentary sheds light on Enos in a way which has not been provided by any previous writer. It will reveal to the reader some of the deepest and most profound messages of the Gospel of Jesus Christ” (''Beloved Enos''). ''Ten Parables'' tells us that “this collection of parables weave together symbols to illustrate profound truths. While meaningful in a single read, you will discover layers of meaning with careful review.” </ref>

	:The books I have written do not ever touch upon Calling and Election, nor discuss the Second Anointing. But they will tell you what is required to go and learn from the Lord about these things directly. If you want answers about that, then follow the same path as the ancients did, as Joseph Smith did, and as Abraham did. I'm only interested in helping you understand the path….Most people who spend time writing about second anointings and calling and election don't know what they're talking about. The best treatment of that subject is something which ought to come from the Lord directly. Or an angel assigned by Him to minister to the person who has prepared.		<blockquote>
			The books I have written do not ever touch upon Calling and Election, nor discuss the Second Anointing. But they will tell you what is required to go and learn from the Lord about these things directly. If you want answers about that, then follow the same path as the ancients did, as Joseph Smith did, and as Abraham did. I'm only interested in helping you understand the path….Most people who spend time writing about second anointings and calling and election don't know what they're talking about. The best treatment of that subject is something which ought to come from the Lord directly. Or an angel assigned by Him to minister to the person who has prepared.

	:The challenge is preparation. I'm all about that. That is what I write to explain and what I encourage all to do.<ref>Denver Snuffer, “Clarification,” blog post (2 May 2010) and follow-up comment (10:41 pm).</ref>		The challenge is preparation. I'm all about that. That is what I write to explain and what I encourage all to do.<ref>Denver Snuffer, “Clarification,” blog post (2 May 2010) and follow-up comment (10:41 pm).</ref>
			</blockquote>

	These doctrines and the experiences that go with them are among the things which Snuffer sees the post-Joseph Smith Church as minimizing and rejecting, in part because of what Joseph could not pass on and in part because of the failings or inadequacy of subsequent leaders. Because Snuffer claims experience and expertise in a matter about which he says the modern leaders are either ignorant or inappropriately silent, this forms the implicit basis for his effort to steady the historical and ecclesiastical ark. “The culminating ordinances of Joseph Smith’s restoration….[is that w]e are to be prepared in all things” to receive” direct revelation from God.<ref>Snuffer’s text is more explicit, but since it quotes language from the LDS temple ceremony, I have elected not to reproduce it.</ref> “The real thing is when a person actually obtains an audience with Jesus Christ, returns to His presence, and gains the knowledge by which they are saved. This was the topic I first wrote about, and has ''remained the underlying theme of everything I have written''” (53, italics added).		These doctrines and the experiences that go with them are among the things which Snuffer sees the post-Joseph Smith Church as minimizing and rejecting, in part because of what Joseph could not pass on and in part because of the failings or inadequacy of subsequent leaders. Because Snuffer claims experience and expertise in a matter about which he says the modern leaders are either ignorant or inappropriately silent, this forms the implicit basis for his effort to steady the historical and ecclesiastical ark. “The culminating ordinances of Joseph Smith’s restoration….[is that w]e are to be prepared in all things” to receive” direct revelation from God.<ref>Snuffer’s text is more explicit, but since it quotes language from the LDS temple ceremony, I have elected not to reproduce it.</ref> “The real thing is when a person actually obtains an audience with Jesus Christ, returns to His presence, and gains the knowledge by which they are saved. This was the topic I first wrote about, and has ''remained the underlying theme of everything I have written''” (53, italics added).
Line 81:		Line 85:
	==Lawyer, not historian==		==Lawyer, not historian==
	In a sense, Snuffer is more right than he knows when he claims to be a lawyer, not a historian. He is also absolutely correct when he says that has not provided us with history. What we have, rather than the unadulterated “truth” he claims to provide, is simply a type of legal brief. In this case, however, the lawyer does not address—or even mention—evidence that does not support his client’s case. And so, we must proceed to cross-examine his presentation.		In a sense, Snuffer is more right than he knows when he claims to be a lawyer, not a historian. He is also absolutely correct when he says that has not provided us with history. What we have, rather than the unadulterated “truth” he claims to provide, is simply a type of legal brief. In this case, however, the lawyer does not address—or even mention—evidence that does not support his client’s case. And so, we must proceed to cross-examine his presentation.
	{{~~Endnotes label~~}}
	~~<references />~~		{{endnotes sources}}

	[[Category:Denver Snuffer]]		[[Category:Denver Snuffer]]

RogerNicholson at 16:03, 6 October 2018

2018-10-06T16:03:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:03, 6 October 2018
Line 14:		Line 14:
	\|H=Response to ''Passing the Heavenly Gift'': Introduction to the volume's claims		\|H=Response to ''Passing the Heavenly Gift'': Introduction to the volume's claims
	\|S=		\|S=
	\|L1=		\|L1=The central thesis
			\|L2=Prophecy and historical claims
			\|L3=Summary of Snuffer’s historical reconstruction
			\|L4=Snuffer’s Conclusion
			\|L5=Snuffer's visionary claims
			\|L6=Lawyer, not historian
			}}
	</onlyinclude>		</onlyinclude>

Line 64:		Line 70:
	Snuffer concludes, then, that the apostles’ lack of full authority, and God’s displeasure with the Church subsequent to Joseph’s death, means that since Joseph the leaders have been misguided. They have introduced inappropriate innovations in practice or doctrine. Mormonism has lost some vital truths which members, independent of the institutional Church and its leadership, can reclaim if they are faithful.		Snuffer concludes, then, that the apostles’ lack of full authority, and God’s displeasure with the Church subsequent to Joseph’s death, means that since Joseph the leaders have been misguided. They have introduced inappropriate innovations in practice or doctrine. Mormonism has lost some vital truths which members, independent of the institutional Church and its leadership, can reclaim if they are faithful.

	===Snuffer's visionary claims===		==Snuffer's visionary claims==
	Undergirding everything is Snuffer’s claim to have seen Jesus Christ, and to therefore have his “calling and election made sure.” A large portion of his critique focuses on the supposed absence of this blessing among post-Joseph Smith leaders of the Church. Furthermore, Snuffer has portrayed himself as an expert on the topic in books and elsewhere:<ref>''The Second Comforter: Conversing with the Lord Through the Veil'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Mill Creek Press, 2006). On Snuffer’s public claims about having seen Christ, see “The Lord does still personally appear to mankind. I am a witness to that fact. He first appeared to me February 13, 2003. I have written a book about the topic….That book does not contain any details about the Lord’s ministry to me, but affirms it took place” (452) and John Dehlin, “321-322: Denver Snuffer – A Progressive, Fundamentalist, Non-Polygamist Mormon Lawyer Who Claims to Have Seen Christ,” Mormon Stories Podcast (12 February 2012). Snuffer says (51 n. 46) that the results of the Second Comforter are discussed in his book ''Beloved Enos'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Mill Creek, 2009). The introduction of the Father by Christ is “not appropriate to set out except through symbols and allegory,” and Snuffer claims to have done so in his ''Ten Parables'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Mill Creek, 2008). Snuffer’s grandiose characterization of his work (see [[#Prophecy and historical claims\|here]]) is not absent from these books either: “This commentary sheds light on Enos in a way which has not been provided by any previous writer. It will reveal to the reader some of the deepest and most profound messages of the Gospel of Jesus Christ” (''Beloved Enos''). ''Ten Parables'' tells us that “this collection of parables weave together symbols to illustrate profound truths. While meaningful in a single read, you will discover layers of meaning with careful review.” </ref>		Undergirding everything is Snuffer’s claim to have seen Jesus Christ, and to therefore have his “calling and election made sure.” A large portion of his critique focuses on the supposed absence of this blessing among post-Joseph Smith leaders of the Church. Furthermore, Snuffer has portrayed himself as an expert on the topic in books and elsewhere:<ref>''The Second Comforter: Conversing with the Lord Through the Veil'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Mill Creek Press, 2006). On Snuffer’s public claims about having seen Christ, see “The Lord does still personally appear to mankind. I am a witness to that fact. He first appeared to me February 13, 2003. I have written a book about the topic….That book does not contain any details about the Lord’s ministry to me, but affirms it took place” (452) and John Dehlin, “321-322: Denver Snuffer – A Progressive, Fundamentalist, Non-Polygamist Mormon Lawyer Who Claims to Have Seen Christ,” Mormon Stories Podcast (12 February 2012). Snuffer says (51 n. 46) that the results of the Second Comforter are discussed in his book ''Beloved Enos'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Mill Creek, 2009). The introduction of the Father by Christ is “not appropriate to set out except through symbols and allegory,” and Snuffer claims to have done so in his ''Ten Parables'' (Salt Lake City, Utah: Mill Creek, 2008). Snuffer’s grandiose characterization of his work (see [[#Prophecy and historical claims\|here]]) is not absent from these books either: “This commentary sheds light on Enos in a way which has not been provided by any previous writer. It will reveal to the reader some of the deepest and most profound messages of the Gospel of Jesus Christ” (''Beloved Enos''). ''Ten Parables'' tells us that “this collection of parables weave together symbols to illustrate profound truths. While meaningful in a single read, you will discover layers of meaning with careful review.” </ref>

RogerNicholson at 16:00, 6 October 2018

2018-10-06T16:00:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:00, 6 October 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{FairMormon}}		{{FairMormon}}
	{{H1		{{H1
	\|L=~~{{check}}~~		\|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Passing the Heavenly Gift/Introduction
	\|H=Response to ''Passing the Heavenly Gift''		\|H=Response to ''Passing the Heavenly Gift'': Introduction to the volume's claims
	\|S=		\|S=Portions of this wiki response are based upon {{GLS-Paper-Snuffer-0}} The text here may have been expanded, reworded, or corrected given the nature of a wiki project. References in brackets like this: (xx) refer to page numbers in {{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Passing_the_Heavenly_Gift}}
	~~\|L1=~~
	\|T=''Passing the Heavenly Gift''		\|T=''Passing the Heavenly Gift''
	\|A=Denver C. Snuffer		\|A=Denver C. Snuffer
Line 10:		Line 9:
	\|>=[[../Claims_about_priesthood_ordination\|Claims about priesthood ordination]]		\|>=[[../Claims_about_priesthood_ordination\|Claims about priesthood ordination]]
	}}		}}
			<onlyinclude>
			{{H2
			\|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Passing the Heavenly Gift/Introduction
			\|H=Response to ''Passing the Heavenly Gift'': Introduction to the volume's claims
			\|S=
			\|L1=
			</onlyinclude>

	==Introduction to the volume's claims<ref name="GLS-source">Portions of this wiki response are based upon {{GLS-Paper-Snuffer-0}} The text here may have been expanded, reworded, or corrected given the nature of a wiki project. References in brackets like this: (xx) refer to page numbers in {{CriticalWork:Snuffer:Passing_the_Heavenly_Gift}}</ref>==		==The central thesis==

	===The central thesis===

	{{Epigraph\|“…the Latter-day Saint church was predicted to fail, and in all likelihood has failed to secure the fullness of the priesthood” (447).<br>		{{Epigraph\|“…the Latter-day Saint church was predicted to fail, and in all likelihood has failed to secure the fullness of the priesthood” (447).<br>
Line 22:		Line 26:
	Snuffer claims that Joseph Smith was an inspired prophet, but Joseph’s commands and revelations were not heeded adequately. As a result, Joseph was betrayed by Church members and murdered prior to the completion of the Nauvoo Temple (104). This made it impossible, in Snuffer’s view, for Joseph to pass on all the necessary ordinances and doctrines, notwithstanding the endowment and other ordinances given the Twelve prior to Joseph’s death (105–110). Brigham Young, the Twelve, and their ecclesiastical heirs did not, therefore, perpetuate the fullness of Joseph’s mission (87–89, 268, 272–276, 283). Some of their acts, and the changes which Snuffer believes they have made to Church doctrine, practice, or administration, were not sanctioned by God, and constitute the “passing of the heavenly gift” (287, 400). This loss was, in Snuffer’s telling, predicted by Joseph Smith, and the time is now ripe for members of the Church to reclaim these blessings (315–317, 400–402, 447–499).		Snuffer claims that Joseph Smith was an inspired prophet, but Joseph’s commands and revelations were not heeded adequately. As a result, Joseph was betrayed by Church members and murdered prior to the completion of the Nauvoo Temple (104). This made it impossible, in Snuffer’s view, for Joseph to pass on all the necessary ordinances and doctrines, notwithstanding the endowment and other ordinances given the Twelve prior to Joseph’s death (105–110). Brigham Young, the Twelve, and their ecclesiastical heirs did not, therefore, perpetuate the fullness of Joseph’s mission (87–89, 268, 272–276, 283). Some of their acts, and the changes which Snuffer believes they have made to Church doctrine, practice, or administration, were not sanctioned by God, and constitute the “passing of the heavenly gift” (287, 400). This loss was, in Snuffer’s telling, predicted by Joseph Smith, and the time is now ripe for members of the Church to reclaim these blessings (315–317, 400–402, 447–499).

	===Prophecy and historical claims===		==Prophecy and historical claims==

	{{Epigraph\|If you can control people's ideas of the past, you control their ideas of the present and hence the future.<br>		{{Epigraph\|If you can control people's ideas of the past, you control their ideas of the present and hence the future.<br>
Line 41:		Line 45:
	I therefore propose to first outline the various historical claims upon which Snuffer’s reconstruction of the Restoration rests. I will then consider each point in detail—we will see that Snuffer’s reconstruction is simply implausible or in error. It ignores documents that do not match the story he tells and it distorts or misrepresents some documents that he cites. He does not interact with previous scholarship in a responsible way. It certainly cannot pretend to pure “truth,” and often shades into frank error.		I therefore propose to first outline the various historical claims upon which Snuffer’s reconstruction of the Restoration rests. I will then consider each point in detail—we will see that Snuffer’s reconstruction is simply implausible or in error. It ignores documents that do not match the story he tells and it distorts or misrepresents some documents that he cites. He does not interact with previous scholarship in a responsible way. It certainly cannot pretend to pure “truth,” and often shades into frank error.

	===Summary of Snuffer’s historical reconstruction===		==Summary of Snuffer’s historical reconstruction==

	One searches in vain for a succinct summary of PTHG’s argument.<ref>Snuffer’s blog summarizes it in once sentence, however: “We are not now the same church restored by Joseph Smith.” Denver Snuffer, “Compliance (So Far As Possible),” blog post (4 September 2013).</ref> The book wanders, repeats itself, and usually does not include the author’s entire argument in a single place—it is scattered throughout. The claims do not always seem entirely self-consistent. The following points, however, provide the framework for his interpretation of LDS scripture and history:		One searches in vain for a succinct summary of PTHG’s argument.<ref>Snuffer’s blog summarizes it in once sentence, however: “We are not now the same church restored by Joseph Smith.” Denver Snuffer, “Compliance (So Far As Possible),” blog post (4 September 2013).</ref> The book wanders, repeats itself, and usually does not include the author’s entire argument in a single place—it is scattered throughout. The claims do not always seem entirely self-consistent. The following points, however, provide the framework for his interpretation of LDS scripture and history:
Line 56:		Line 60:
	#There were no divine, Pentecostal-type experiences in the Nauvoo temple as there were in the Kirtland temple. This demonstrates that God did not fully accept the temple because of the Saints’ delay in building it (381).		#There were no divine, Pentecostal-type experiences in the Nauvoo temple as there were in the Kirtland temple. This demonstrates that God did not fully accept the temple because of the Saints’ delay in building it (381).

	====Snuffer’s Conclusion====		==Snuffer’s Conclusion==

	Snuffer concludes, then, that the apostles’ lack of full authority, and God’s displeasure with the Church subsequent to Joseph’s death, means that since Joseph the leaders have been misguided. They have introduced inappropriate innovations in practice or doctrine. Mormonism has lost some vital truths which members, independent of the institutional Church and its leadership, can reclaim if they are faithful.		Snuffer concludes, then, that the apostles’ lack of full authority, and God’s displeasure with the Church subsequent to Joseph’s death, means that since Joseph the leaders have been misguided. They have introduced inappropriate innovations in practice or doctrine. Mormonism has lost some vital truths which members, independent of the institutional Church and its leadership, can reclaim if they are faithful.
Line 69:		Line 73:
	These doctrines and the experiences that go with them are among the things which Snuffer sees the post-Joseph Smith Church as minimizing and rejecting, in part because of what Joseph could not pass on and in part because of the failings or inadequacy of subsequent leaders. Because Snuffer claims experience and expertise in a matter about which he says the modern leaders are either ignorant or inappropriately silent, this forms the implicit basis for his effort to steady the historical and ecclesiastical ark. “The culminating ordinances of Joseph Smith’s restoration….[is that w]e are to be prepared in all things” to receive” direct revelation from God.<ref>Snuffer’s text is more explicit, but since it quotes language from the LDS temple ceremony, I have elected not to reproduce it.</ref> “The real thing is when a person actually obtains an audience with Jesus Christ, returns to His presence, and gains the knowledge by which they are saved. This was the topic I first wrote about, and has ''remained the underlying theme of everything I have written''” (53, italics added).		These doctrines and the experiences that go with them are among the things which Snuffer sees the post-Joseph Smith Church as minimizing and rejecting, in part because of what Joseph could not pass on and in part because of the failings or inadequacy of subsequent leaders. Because Snuffer claims experience and expertise in a matter about which he says the modern leaders are either ignorant or inappropriately silent, this forms the implicit basis for his effort to steady the historical and ecclesiastical ark. “The culminating ordinances of Joseph Smith’s restoration….[is that w]e are to be prepared in all things” to receive” direct revelation from God.<ref>Snuffer’s text is more explicit, but since it quotes language from the LDS temple ceremony, I have elected not to reproduce it.</ref> “The real thing is when a person actually obtains an audience with Jesus Christ, returns to His presence, and gains the knowledge by which they are saved. This was the topic I first wrote about, and has ''remained the underlying theme of everything I have written''” (53, italics added).

	====Lawyer, not historian====		==Lawyer, not historian==
	In a sense, Snuffer is more right than he knows when he claims to be a lawyer, not a historian. He is also absolutely correct when he says that has not provided us with history. What we have, rather than the unadulterated “truth” he claims to provide, is simply a type of legal brief. In this case, however, the lawyer does not address—or even mention—evidence that does not support his client’s case. And so, we must proceed to cross-examine his presentation.		In a sense, Snuffer is more right than he knows when he claims to be a lawyer, not a historian. He is also absolutely correct when he says that has not provided us with history. What we have, rather than the unadulterated “truth” he claims to provide, is simply a type of legal brief. In this case, however, the lawyer does not address—or even mention—evidence that does not support his client’s case. And so, we must proceed to cross-examine his presentation.
	{{Endnotes label}}		{{Endnotes label}}

FairMormonBot: Bot: Automated text replacement (-== ==\n +)

2017-07-03T14:49:41Z

Bot: Automated text replacement (-== ==\n +)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:49, 3 July 2017
Line 71:		Line 71:
	====Lawyer, not historian====		====Lawyer, not historian====
	In a sense, Snuffer is more right than he knows when he claims to be a lawyer, not a historian. He is also absolutely correct when he says that has not provided us with history. What we have, rather than the unadulterated “truth” he claims to provide, is simply a type of legal brief. In this case, however, the lawyer does not address—or even mention—evidence that does not support his client’s case. And so, we must proceed to cross-examine his presentation.		In a sense, Snuffer is more right than he knows when he claims to be a lawyer, not a historian. He is also absolutely correct when he says that has not provided us with history. What we have, rather than the unadulterated “truth” he claims to provide, is simply a type of legal brief. In this case, however, the lawyer does not address—or even mention—evidence that does not support his client’s case. And so, we must proceed to cross-examine his presentation.
	~~== ==~~
	{{Endnotes label}}		{{Endnotes label}}
	<references />		<references />

	[[Category:Denver Snuffer]]		[[Category:Denver Snuffer]]

FairMormonBot: Bot: Automated text replacement (-\|H1 +|H)

2017-06-26T21:20:44Z

Bot: Automated text replacement (-\|H1 +|H)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:20, 26 June 2017
Line 2:		Line 2:
	{{H1		{{H1
	\|L={{check}}		\|L={{check}}
	\|H1=Response to ''Passing the Heavenly Gift''		\|H=Response to ''Passing the Heavenly Gift''
	\|S=		\|S=
	\|L1=		\|L1=

FairMormonBot: Bot: Automated text replacement (-{{H2\n\|L(.)\n\|H2(.)\n(.)\n(.)\n\|T +{{H1\n|L\1\n|H1\2\n\3\n\4\n|T)

2017-06-10T03:51:08Z

Bot: Automated text replacement (-{{H2\n\|L(.*)\n\|H2(.*)\n(.*)\n(.*)\n\|T +{{H1\n|L\1\n|H1\2\n\3\n\4\n|T)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:51, 10 June 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{FairMormon}}		{{FairMormon}}
	{{H2		{{H1
	\|L={{check}}		\|L={{check}}
	\|H2=Response to ''Passing the Heavenly Gift''		\|H1=Response to ''Passing the Heavenly Gift''
	\|S=		\|S=
	\|L1=		\|L1=

FairMormonBot: Bot: Automated text replacement (-}}\n{{FAIRAnalysisHeader\n\|title=(.)\n\|author=(.)\n(.)\n(.)\n\|previous=(.)\n\|next=(.)\n(.*)\n}} +|T=\1\n|A=\2\n|<=\5\n|>=\6\n}})

2017-06-10T02:11:19Z

Bot: Automated text replacement (-}}\n{{FAIRAnalysisHeader\n\|title=(.*)\n\|author=(.*)\n(.*)\n(.*)\n\|previous=(.*)\n\|next=(.*)\n(.*)\n}} +|T=\1\n|A=\2\n|<=\5\n|>=\6\n}})

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:11, 10 June 2017
Line 5:		Line 5:
	\|S=		\|S=
	\|L1=		\|L1=
	}}		\|T=''Passing the Heavenly Gift''
	~~{{FAIRAnalysisHeader~~		\|A=Denver C. Snuffer
	\|~~title~~=''Passing the Heavenly Gift''		\|<=[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Passing the Heavenly Gift\|Main table of contents]]
	\|~~author~~=Denver C. Snuffer		\|>=[[../Claims_about_priesthood_ordination\|Claims about priesthood ordination]]
	\|~~noauthor=~~
	~~\|section=~~
	~~\|previous~~=[[Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Passing the Heavenly Gift\|Main table of contents]]
	\|~~next~~=[[../Claims_about_priesthood_ordination\|Claims about priesthood ordination]]
	~~\|notes={{AuthorsDisclaimer}}~~
	}}		}}

FairMormonBot: Bot: Automated text replacement (-{{Resource Title\|(.*)}} +{{H2\n|L={{check}}\n|H2=\1\n|S=\n|L1=\n}})

2017-06-09T17:01:23Z

Bot: Automated text replacement (-{{Resource Title\|(.*)}} +{{H2\n|L={{check}}\n|H2=\1\n|S=\n|L1=\n}})

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:01, 9 June 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{FairMormon}}		{{FairMormon}}
	{{~~Resource Title~~\|Response to ''Passing the Heavenly Gift''}}		{{H2
			\|L={{check}}
			\|H2=Response to ''Passing the Heavenly Gift''
			\|S=
			\|L1=
			}}
	{{FAIRAnalysisHeader		{{FAIRAnalysisHeader
	\|title=''Passing the Heavenly Gift''		\|title=''Passing the Heavenly Gift''

FairMormonBot: Bot: Automated text replacement (-{{Articles(.*)}} +)

2017-06-09T01:21:18Z

Bot: Automated text replacement (-{{Articles(.*)}} +)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:21, 9 June 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{FairMormon}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}		{{FairMormon}}
	{{Resource Title\|Response to ''Passing the Heavenly Gift''}}		{{Resource Title\|Response to ''Passing the Heavenly Gift''}}
	{{FAIRAnalysisHeader		{{FAIRAnalysisHeader