Talk:Denver Snuffer Jr.

RfC: Is the following paragraph and resource relevant?
.... here is the entire RfC discussion... Given the guidelines: "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Is the following paragraph and resource acceptable and relevant?

Snuffer claims Passing the Heavenly Gift promotes loyalty to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Mormon religion. "

Brianzang (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. It seems somewhat self-serving, given that LDS Church leaders have evaluated the book and have determined the opposite and have excommunicated him for not retracting the book. Rather than phrasing it as the confrontational "he claims it promotes loyalty", perhaps rephrasing it to describe Snuffer's intent in writing the book would be appropriate: "Snuffer intended that Passing the Heavenly Gift promote in its readers loyalty to the LDS Church", or similar. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Snuffer intended" and "Snuffer claims" sounds synonymous to me. The removal of the text of the quotes allows for any unintended topic inclusion to be relegated to a footnote, and the same sentiment was included in the secondary source from Peggy Flethcer Stack: "'I have loved every minute of being a Mormon since I joined the church in September 1973 in New Hampshire,' [Snuffer] says. 'I am actually advocating activity and fidelity to the Mormon church.'" Users please note, the beginning of this article is by User:Good Olfactory whose page designates him as Canadian with a picture similar to Gregory Smith, who is also Canadian, on the Mormon Interpreter Journal source that appeared as the only reference, which has a strong whiff of self-serving interests for the promotion of that journal and that particular interpretation of the events surrounding Snuffer's book Passing the Heavenly Gift, which in my view, taints the unbiased slant of this Encyclopedic forum, if this user is in fact Gregory Smith. Brianzang (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not Gregory Smith; nice try at trying to delegitimise me, though. You're going to have to have more evidence than shared nationality to demonstrate bias. The "picture similar to Gregory Smith" at User:Good Olfactory is there as a bit of a joke: it is a picture of Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari Veerendra Heggade. I don't know what Gregory Smith looks like, but since he is a Latter Day Saint I'd be surprised if he dresses like a Jain.  Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Good Olfactory exposes his bias when he says above "It seems somewhat self-serving, given that LDS Church leaders have evaluated the book and have determined the opposite and have excommunicated him for not retracting the book." Somewhat self-serving is not unduly self-serving, and the quotes merely show the author's stated intent for the book. Given that the September Six article includes perfectly sound inclusions with both LDS Church interpretations of events and excommunicant's interpretation of events in the following on Paul Toscano: "He was excommunicated from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on September 19, 1993; the reasons for his excommunication, as reportedly given by church leaders, were apostasy and false teaching. According to Toscano, the actual reason was insubordination in refusing to curb his sharp criticism of LDS Church leaders' preference for legalism, ecclesiastical tyranny, white-washed Mormon history, and hierarchical authoritarianism that privilege the image of the corporate LDS Church above its commitment to its members, to the teachings and revelations of Joseph Smith its founding Prophet, and to the gospel of Jesus Christ,[12]" it stands within reason that this entry can include Snuffer's stated intent for the book from the book itself and from his blog, in addition to the resource from The Salt Lake Tribune that quotes him from a supposed interview. User:Good Olfactory's continuous challenges to my edits seem to display a bias towards the LDS Church by not allowing legitimate resources that he apparently may be thinking discredit the process of excommunication used in Snuffer's case, or to allow the resources from Snuffer himself explaining his side of the events. Brianzang (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * After you have misrepresented my identity, now you have misrepresented my position. Since you are new, I think it may be useful to set out how things work best on WP in discussions of this type: you state your own positions and opinions, and then you leave it to others to explain their positions and opinions. You don't need to try to tear others down or allege secret identities or open biases in others.
 * Anyway, here is my position: I'm open to any information being included that has been discussed in reliable, secondary sources. What I object to is WP users trying to implement what they regard to be "balance" through the use of their own original research amounting to selected quotations primary sources. This is not a personal blog; it is an encyclopedia. I prefer to rely on the reliable, secondary sources rather than users' own judgments. I also suggest that we focus on this article rather than get sidetracked into discussions of what exists in September Six. (And as you have noted, I never claimed the proposed addition was "unduly self-serving". I chose my words carefully, and supported the inclusion of your proposed addition, subject to a slight wording change. Since you apparently cannot see any difference in meaning between your version and the phrasing I proposed, I had expected that you would embrace my openness to your edit proposal. I am interested in what other users think, but I'm not even sure that there is any dispute at all on the proposed content.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Users, don't be fooled by User:Good Olfactory's double talk.My additions do not qualify as original research since they are valid autobiographical resources per the guidelines above, and the sources validly suggest the straightforward summaries I included, and providing balance is not to be vilified because potential bias on the part of an editor removing valid content must be contended against to ensure proper reporting of facts. The third party response above alluded to what he thought my biases were in his response, and User:Good Olfactory invited me to show more evidence supporting his bias. Potentially playing the hypocrite, User:Good Olfactory has seemed to try to tear down a new user with what appears to be content bullying. Regardless, there have been enough acceptances of changes to help him fly under the radar to cover the potential bias. You decide. There is more danger in the overly rigid policing tactics of this user than in adding more content. He does not speak for Wikipedia accurately, as I perceive this site's intent is to garner more knowledge and content, although responsibly, and my additions have been responsible. Reject the self-proclaimed Wikipolice when they go overboard. What User:Good Olfactory would have you believe is that secondary sources are more reliable, but the reason there are guidelines on primary sources is so they CAN be used appropriately, not thrown under the bus de facto. In context, with secondary sources supporting if available, primary sources can be more reliable. As long as an article is not made up primarily of primary sources, so balance can be provided and potential bias avoided, secondary sources should also inform the article, but not every fact needs to be brought in with attending secondary sources, they can be brought in under proper primary sources on their own merits and despite my concessions so far, more of my edits would be valid. Brianzang (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The comments above are a bit over the top. Whatever ... if it makes you happy to spend most of your comment content ripping on another editor, go for it. You don't seem to want to take "yes" for an answer, so it has become clear to me what you're interested in. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. We simply have a disagreement on the definition of original research. Good job on your recent edits. Brianzang (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, but The primary source is fine for this sort of statement. When you're saying "Joe Johnson claims" and linking to Joe Johnson making that claim, that's pretty straightforward. However, if he's espousing a minority viewpoint, it's best to put this into context. So maybe something to the effect of "Snuffer claims the book promotes Mormonism; the LDS Church disagrees, and has excommunicated him" with references on both claims would be best. To clarify, I don't think the text of the article now is misleading. Perhaps this dispute has been settled—I was just sent here by WP:FRS. --BDD (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we're all largely in agreement on the current form now. I didn't want to remove the RFC template because it was added by the other editor who was concerned with my position. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that a third party has chimed in with a good overall response, I believe the issue is resolved sufficiently. I was the one who posted it. Brianzang (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Snuffer's "chart bubble" a source
ChristianPost link quoting 1st Amend. atty Randazza.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC) WaPo terms Snuffer on an alleged "enemies list" (see link)-?--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Put it here: MormonLeaks.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Miscellany

 * 1) Believes in latter-day Restoration (to be). See, e.g. : "There will be a latter-day Zion. The scriptures give little description, and the smallest of criteria for Zion. "The Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them." (Moses 7:18.) That is the list: -one heart -one mind -dwelt in righteousness -no poor among them. Seems simple. The list is so short it begs the questions: Why haven't we done this? Why aren't WE doing this?" LINK Sept. 20, 2014. Therefore it is incorrect to put Snuffer in Category:Former Latter Day Saints?--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Believes LDS Apostles have audiences with Christ only when they say the same. "When someone in a position of Church leadership has an audience with Christ, we hear about it.  Joseph Smith told us.  Oliver Cowdrey told us.  Sidney Rigdon told us.  So did President John Taylor, President Joseph F. Smith and David B. Haight.  Their calling is to bear a witness of Him.  When they have an actual audience, I believe they tell us. The calling of the Twelve is to "bear witness" of Christ.  (D&C 107: 23.)  Because of that calling, they must proclaim they have a "witness" even if it could be more correctly described as a testimony born of the Spirit.  I accept their "witness" of Christ and believe it is authoritative.  However, I do not read into their testimony what they do not put there themselves. I accept the "witness" of the living Apostles, although it is a rare exception when one has an audience with Christ." LINK March 28, 2010--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) Interesting tidbit:
 * Denver Snuffer (April 7, 2016) "Signs of the Second Coming": "[...W]hen the pole star moved from one to the next, the change was said anciently to be 'a new heaven.' Both Aquarius and Polaris represent a change to a new heaven and a new earth...." link
 * John P. Pratt (September 2, 2017) "Heavenly Witnesses of Covenant": "... Remember David the Servant said something like, 'It’s important to know when the Age of Aquarius started.' ... "
 * link
 * "On the 10 th day of September, 2011 the word of the Lord said to me, You shall no longer be called Denver, but your name shall be called David. ..." link
 * Daniel H. Ludlow's (1992) Encyclopedia of Mormonism, "David, David, Prophetic Figure of Last Days": "... The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that "the throne and kingdom of David is to be taken from him and given to another by the name of David in the last days, raised up out of his lineage" (TPJS, p. 339). ... link (Hat tips: here, here.)--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) Some LDS missionary baptisms OK."The LDS Church is not led by men authorized to offer baptism, but it includes many men who could offer baptism. But the form of baptism is strictly prescribed by the Lord in 3 Ne. 11. He explains His doctrine and then directs that anything more or less than this cometh of evil. The missionaries are required to compel a confession from prospective converts before baptism that they acknowledge Thomas S. Monson as a prophet. This is in Preach My Gospel. It is the second question asked in the baptismal interview. As long as a missionary conforms to the Lord’s direction in 3 Ne. 11, I see no reason why their baptism would not be acceptable to the Lord. But if they follow the direction in Preach My Gospel, then the baptism would need to be redone. Not because of a lack of authority, but because the ordinance has been corrupted. link"--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) March 26, 2017 Faith-Promoting Rumor on Patheos.com, "From the BYU New Testament Commentary to Denver Snuffer’s revelation," by gwesley: "[Joseph Smith...] reworked the opening of John chapter 1 in his revelations, where it was promised that 'the fulness of the record of John' would one day be had, thus creating a door for [John] Hall and Snuffer to walk through; see D&C 93:1-18." [ “the fulness of the record of John” would one day be had, thus creating a door for Hall and Snuffer to walk through; see D&C 93:1-18.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) GWesley on Snuffer's working from BYU's John Hall's translation of the Gospel John in "Restoration-edition" scripture's "Testimony of St. John": "There’s also a certain amount of convenience to it all for the purposes of anticipating any possible question of plagiarism and the BYUNTC’s intellectual property rights. But I tend to think that Snuffer, like many religious charismatics, is being sincere in this account." LINK--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Moving "'Remnant' fellowships" to another page
It seems to me that the section on "'Remnant' fellowships" would fit better either on its own page or among the Restorationism page. If it fits on the Restorationism page, it would likely work best within the "20th century and contemporary groups" section. If it's too long for that page, though, moving it to its own separate page would work, along with a link to the new page in the Restorationism page.

Mainly, the "'Remnant' movement," while Snuffer had a hand in it, is not exclusively "his," so I don't think it's needed on his biographical page. If I'm mistaken, please let me know. Thanks in advance. :)

Hylian-Metalmind (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "wp:BOLD"-ly moved the fellowhips section here: Doctrine of Christ fellowships (Latter Day Saint). Thanks.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)