Talk:Denver Snuffer Jr.

Sources

I don't think that we should be citing Snuffer's books or his blog posts for stuff that has not been reported on by the media or other reliable, secondary sources. (The recent edits have a strong whiff of autobiographical self-defense.) We should write based on what secondary sources have written and not solely based on what Snuffer has written in his primary sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The biographies user guide allows for posts from an author's direct blog:

"Avoid self-published sources

Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.[5] See below for our policy on self-published images.

Using the subject as a self-published source

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.

" Brian Zang ^(talk) 4 November 2013

The Wikipedia guidelines also say "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves." I am not Denver Snuffer, and I am the source of those edits. I simply didn't know I needed an account. But here I am. The paragraph I wrote: "Snuffer claims Passing the Heavenly Gift promotes loyalty to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Mormon religion. Snuffer says, “I am a lawyer, not a 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. . . . In histories written to date, important context given by God through revelation has been ignored," and "Even if our history reflects the passing of the heavenly gift at Joseph Smith’s death, there is still every reason to believe the Lord remains involved in the destiny of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," and finally, “If properly understood, Mormon history allows believers to foresee how these scriptures will be fulfilled. It [Mormon history] is still a marvelous work and a wonder, just as Isaiah foretold.”" Is clearly advanced by the source material itself.

The other paragraphs are valid and relevant under all the guidelines listed above: "In the October 2013 General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, just one month after Mr. Snuffer's excommunication, Dieter Uchtdorf, Second Counselor in the church's First Presidency, the highest ranking body in the church, conceded that ". . . there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine."

Despite his excommunication, Snuffer continues to promote activity in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in a speaking tour in various Western states that began in fall of 2013 concerning his forty years as a latter-day saint. The speaking tour was planned before he received notice of disciplinary action and was a contributing factor in his excommunication because it was believed he would be promoting his controversial book.

Deletion of valid source materials from the author's credible material about themselves could be construed as libelous when those source materials fit the guidelines above. I concede on the paragraph that claims third party claims. Brian Zang ^(talk) 4 November 2013. —Preceding undated comment added 19:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Be careful—don't make statements that could be construed as a legal threat. There is nothing that has happened to this article that could or should be regarded as "libelous". I just don't think that the information is particularly relevant for an encyclopedia. The information addressed in the media is, however. In particular, using the Uchtdorf quote is a prime example of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-sense, the information is relevant and similar biographical responses have been added to the September Six article on excommunication of those LDS church members to provide balance. The Uchtdorf quote is a relevant response from a church leader regarding the issues taken up by Snuffer's controversial book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianzang (talk • contribs) 20:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Please re-add the paragraphs listed above or un-protect the article and it would be appropriate to change the Uchtdorf reference to be more clear by saying something like, "In the October 2013 General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, just one month after Mr. Snuffer's excommunication and in response to similar concerns brought up by Snuffer's book, Dieter Uchtdorf, Second Counselor in the church's First Presidency, the highest ranking body in the church, conceded that ". . . there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine."" so it doesn't seem too much like Uchtdorf specifically conceded to Snuffer personally. Brian Zang ^(talk) 20:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC).

It's not "non-sense", and just because something exists on another article doesn't make it appropriate. There is nothing at all in any of the relevant sources for this article that mention the Uchtdorf quote. Why would we include it—because some WP editor has done some research or is aware of the quote and he or she thinks it adds "balance" to the article or that he was somehow referring to Snuffer and his research? That is what amounts to nonsense—because that's not how WP works. That's called original research. If you can prove that secondary sources have made the connection—prove it with reliable sources—but don't just speculate and/or pull things out of your own hat of knowledge to make the connection that you want made. (I've removed the protection from the article because the suspected edits were not autobiographical.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Where you are coming from makes sense, but not as applied to the paragraphs in question. My intent was not to imply that Uchtdorf was referring to Snuffer and his research directly, hence the changes suggested. The Uchtdorf quote is not to add balance, but relevance. The balance comes through with the author's sources and statements, which I've added back for edits to be reviewed (thanks for taking off the protected status, btw). I left out the Uchtdorf quote while it is still in question and called for third party input. I'll remove the third party input request if we can resolve it here. The Uchtdorf quote, I believe, is highly relevant because it is a response to similar claims. Snuffer's book is one approach to responding to accusations of mistakes in LDS history while the LDS church leader's quote is the official response. The timing of both responses is relevant showing that this issue is large enough at this period in time to elicit a lay-member book speaking on the subject, which gets him excommunicated, and a highly ranked officer responding to the same subject. Brian Zang ^(talk) 22:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Please also remove the pending changes settings, remembering that: "Pending changes protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against violations that have not yet occurred, nor should it be used to privilege registered users over unregistered users in content disputes. . . . Like semi-protection, PC protection should never be used in genuine content disputes, where there is a risk of placing a particular group of editors at a disadvantage." Brian Zang ^(talk) 22:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Snuffer has made the connection himself, and his resource still fits the acceptable guidelines: "President Uchtdorf's general conference address suggests the church welcomes different ideas. Whether that is true or not, our individual application of charity towards differing opinions and views should be broad, friendly and welcoming. On BOTH sides." Denver C. Snuffer, Jr. "Next Talk November 2", from the desk of Denver Snuffer, October 8, 2013. A valid paragraph tying in this reference to the address by Uchtdorf should be considered. Brian Zang ^(talk) 22:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Denver Snuffer Jr. and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." I fully agree that the material removed in this edit is inappropriate for Wikipedia for the reasons stated by Good Olfactory. My recommendation to Brian Zang would be to go and edit some other articles of less specific interest to you to get a better feel for how Wikipedia works, then come back in a couple of months to take a second look at what you want to do here.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 22:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Is the following paragraph and resource relevant?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

.... 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Snuffer's "chart bubble" a source

ChristianPost link quoting 1st Amend. atty Randazza.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC) WaPo terms Snuffer on an alleged "enemies list" (see link)-?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Put it here: MormonLeaks#2017_Apostasies_PowerPoint.--Hodgdon'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'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'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'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'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'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'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's secret garden (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)