Passing the Heavenly Gift

This is the second book by Mr. Snuffer that I have read in the past month, with the "Second Comforter" being the first. I was referred to these books by a good friend, who highly recommended them. I understand from Mr. Snuffer's blog that he recommends people read his books in the order he published them. Admittedly, I'm taking a short cut because of my interest in Church History. Ironically, Mr. Snuffer was the second counselor in the Bishopric in our BYU Wyview Park Ward while I was an undergraduate; I was struck by his introspective valedictory talk in sacrament meeting where he spoke of his personal "phases" from his conversion, one of which was called a "mystic" phase.As a "proud descendent of Nauvoo" (Zera Pulsipher is called to be a president of the Seventy in D&C 124:138, of all places--note the Section 124 commentary below) and as one who has always been fascinated by history, I probably have read more than most regarding Mormon history. I find Mr. Snuffer's observations and analysis enlightening and--for the most part--credible. I have not been exposed to a Church history viewpoint which effectively maintains that the current "phase four" church approximately compares to apostate Israel after Moses with the higher priesthood was taken from their midst. I am acquainted with D. Michael Quinn's works tracking potential gaps in claimed Priesthood secession and keys...and had wondered at troubling statements made by the Savior during his visits with the Nephites regarding the "Gentile Church" (for example, 3 Nephi 16:10). I always have been alarmed at the direct question posed by Moroni in Mormon 8:38 "...why have ye polluted the Holy Church of God?" (George Pace, BYU Religion Professor who taught BoM classes and was also my LTM Branch President, replied unconvincingly to my frantic querry at the time that Mormon 8:38 didn't pertain to the restored church...). So generally, Mr. Snuffer's analysis rings credible. As a "proud descendent...", I appreciate learning from his perspective.Mr. Snuffer starts his book explaining that "History is comprised of pretty rough stuff." As explained in previous reviews in this forum, Mr. Snuffer divides Mormon Church History into four phases; phase one under Joseph is represented as being the most dynamic and promises a restoration of literal Zion. Instead of separating phases one and two (Brigham to the Manifesto), I believe there are few--if any--differences between these two phases aside from the personalities...after reading the Prince biography of David O. McKay, I agreed with the notion there were three phases.I find there are some inconsistencies with Mr. Snuffer's analysis, many of which involve measuring Joseph Smith with one standard and Joseph's successors with another. I believe that almost every criticism leveled towards Joseph's successors had its roots in what Joseph himself did or said. I think Mr. Snuffer views Joseph exceptionally favorably through "rose-colored glasses" while Brigham Young and others perhaps are viewed too skeptically...at least from my perspective. Giving Joseph the benefit-of-the-doubt but not Brigham or others for similar circumstances I believe is a weakness in his analysis. Mr. Snuffer might presumably justify this bias with the fact that Joseph had seen and conversed with the Lord, while Brigham and others did not...this based on reading Mr. Snuffer's blog and "The Second Comforter".For example, Mr. Snuffer states that "The first phase of Mormonism had opportunities for organized violence. In the two instances which involved Joseph Smith directly (Zion's Camp and Joseph's standing-down the Nauvoo Legion just before Carthage), the only violence was inflicted on Joseph and the saints. None was returned (p. 127)." Mr. Snuffer then goes on to chronicle how he thinks this changed in second phase Mormonism. Brigham's "blood oath" (wasn't that also new doctrine??) is cited, along with examples in second phase Mormonism where violence was perpetrated. Specifically cited are the 1857 Parrish-Potter and Aiken party murders...attributed indirectly to Brigham, though deniability is duly noted. In his discussion of Missouri, Mr. Snuffer notes in passing that the involvement of Joseph with Sampson Avard and the "Danite" violence is murky. But if phase one is distinguished from phase two by noting aforementioned 1857 violence, how can Mr. Snuffer notably fail to cite the famous attempted assassination of former Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs, which likely was attempted by Joseph's faithful bodyguard, Porter Rockwell?? Nor does Mr. Snuffer consider the violence perpetrated personally by Joseph as the Nauvoo Expositor was destroyed in the street and printed material burned, which effectively would be charged now-days as felony malicious destruction of property and perhaps arson. Joseph's intolerance of dissent (correlation, anyone?) led to this "abatement of a public nuisance" using (abusing??) his position as Nauvoo Mayor, which precipitated the events leading directly to Carthage. (Recall the Saint's outrage at the 1833 Independence, Missouri mobbing that destroyed W.W. Phelps printing press and the Book of Commandments...) Utah Territorial Governor Brigham Young tolerated the very critical Salt Lake Tribune and other anti-Mormon papers, much to his credit. (Brigham never had a "Nauvoo Expositor" type crisis...though the Utah War had the potential...) So again, if there is a first phase Mormonism distinguished from a second phase as proposed by Mr. Snuffer, much of the distinguishing criteria he cites I believe falls short.Though I find Mr. Snuffer's analysis of BoM prophecies regarding the "Gentile Church" well founded, I find the pivotal use of D&C 124 in furthering his hypothesis to be problematic. It is in D&C 124 that the hitherto "irrevocable" site of Zion in Jackson County, Missouri is effectively "revoked". Zera and John Pulsipher both worked on the Kirtland Temple (abandoned shortly after completion), as well as the Nauvoo Temple. Kirtland Temple construction was expedited for an expected endowment of power; many at its dedication reported marvelous visions, including Zera Pulsipher. Kirtland Temple construction imperatives were then followed by addition temples (never completed) in Independence and Far West, Missouri. (Deja Vu all over again??) Ironically, D&C 124 spends more ink speaking of potential stockholders in Joseph's "Nauvoo House" than it does on building the Nauvoo Temple. So which was the priority...the Temple, or the commercial boardinghouse (isn't that a hotel??) for strangers? Why would the Lord muddle or dilute His (from Mr. Snuffer's perspective) imperative on the Temple with boardinghouse shareholder discussions? Regrettably, verses 16-17 speaks of John C. Bennett, who unknown to Joseph previously had abandoned a wife and family and who shortly thereafter proved to be an utter scoundrel. D&C 124 obviously has chaff that needs to be discerned from the wheat.Further, Joseph had the Mansion House built, in addition to the Red Brick Store (where he reportedly "gave away the store"). He put considerable time and money into the 'Maid of Iowa', the Homestead, and other real estate ventures. And I've already mentioned the "Nauvoo House". Was everyone else (such as Zera and John Pulsipher, who by all accounts sacrificed much building the Nauvoo Temple and who subsequently lost almost everything in the exodus) supposed to put their homes and lives further on hold to expedite construction when it appeared that Joseph didn't exactly practice what he preached?? (Yes, Joseph already had received The Lord with the associated endowments of power that implies...but did he take D&C 124 as seriously as Mr. Snuffer suggests the church should have at the time??) Perhaps this is the "proud descendent..." rearing its ugly head, but these issues beg to be addressed in light of Mr. Snuffer's pivotal emphasis on D&C 124.Mr. Snuffer maintains that plural marriage was Joseph's "Abraham sacrificing Isaac on Mt. Moriah" moment used by the Lord to prove Joseph's heart. I respectfully disagree. Joseph lost the first 116 manuscript pages of the BoM because he kept pestering the Lord to give it to Martin Harris. The Lord relented with a sort of "you'll be sorry" reply. I think the same thing happened with plural marriage. Except for D&C 132:34-35, nowhere in scripture is anyone commanded to practice plural marriage. (A "custom" the Lord condemned in Jacob 2...with narrow justification as enunciated in D&C 132.) I suspect Joseph indulged, brought his "inner circle" into the web, and found that it became his undoing because its "fruits" were so caustic. The Nauvoo Expositor's purpose was to expose plural marraige, among other supposed abuses. This "you'll be sorry" interpretation I think better accounts for the polygamy fiasco than the explanation Mr. Snuffer profers.Following Mr. Snuffer's line of thought, one could reason that there were five distinct phases of Mormonism. This could address some of the inconsistencies in Mr. Snuffer's approach that I articulate above. First phase would encompass the Kirtland Church, which is fairly similar in structure and doctrine (excepting the BoM and the opening of the heavens) to mainline Protestant churches. Effectively, this amounts to a restoration of a "New Testament" church as propounded by Sidney Rigdon and the Campbellites. The second phase would be the Nauvoo Church, which was characterized by tremendous innovation such as plural marriage and doctrines propounded in the King Follet sermon. This could be characterized as an attempt at re-creating another "City of Enoch" or Zion church. Prophecies of the BoM regarding creeping corruption in the "Gentile Church" (i.e. Boggs assasination attempt and encroaching priestcrafts) could be said to be more pronounced during this phase. Dividing Mr. Snuffer's phase one into two phases further explains differences between various splinter factions that didn't follow Brigham to Utah, such as the "Reorganized Church" (a Nauvoo Church without plural marraige) and the "Temple Lot" church (effectively a Kirtland Church which held Joseph to be a "fallen prophet" with his later innovations of First Presidency, High Priests, and of course plural marraige among others.)In conclusion, I appreciate the depth of thinking Mr. Snuffer has engaged in to bring us this enlightening perspective. Personally, I'd like to see Mr. Snuffer address the inconsistencies noted above in a second edition. But obviously, the central message is that all is not well in Zion, and that theme--previously propounded in fourth phase Mormonism by Hugh Nibley--is once again taken to heart. The Church should not be afraid or paranoid of its history...truth is truth and it is sustained in the end. If slanderous or bad history is published (see Will Bagley or the Tanners), counter it by publishing good history "warts and all" (see Leonard, Turley and Walker on Mountain Meadows or Bushman's "Rough Stone Rolling")...the church has many historians who are perfectly capable of this kind of work. In the New Testiment, Peter obviously is portrayed as a fallible human; that doesn't at all detract from the importance of his calling and mission from the Lord. I agree with Davis Bitton's observation cited by Mr. Snuffer that we don't need to have a testimony of Church History...but we absolutely need to have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (fourth Article of Faith...). For "...the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel, and He employeth no servant there" (2 Nephi 9:41). The Church's job is to introduce us to Christ through its ordinances so we can "work out (our) own salvation with fear and trembling before Him" (Mormon 9:27). And we know more regarding the Lord Jesus Christ and how to work out that personal salvation because of Joseph Smith--that "Rough Stone Rolling"--than from any other single source, both ancient and modern.Thanks, Denver, for sharing your valuable perspective on the Heavenly Gift.

I was introduced to Mr. Snuffer's writing by a friend who gifted me a copy of his first book entitled, "The Second Comforter." The message I found in that book agreed with what the scriptures and the Spirit had told me on the topic, and suggested some straightforward and scriptural answers to lingering questions I had, which were affirmed by the Spirit. I then proceeded to read his other books in order as quickly as I could get through them, having more or less the same experience. That is, until I read "Passing the Heavenly Gift."In the spirit of full disclosure, I was not a novice in church history when I first read this book. I had read the seven volume "The History of the Church," "Joseph Smith's Diaries and Journals," "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith," "History of Joseph Smith by His Mother," as well as the faith-promoting survey histories, such as "Our Heritage." I was also well steeped in the well-published internet history "problems."Despite my exposure to what I thought was the history of the Church, I was quite jarred when I read "PTHG." I felt extreme discomfort. Snuffer makes and exceedingly cogent, logical, and coherent argument for his thesis: that the church's doctrine does not reconcile with history. It was not the smoothness of his argument that rattled me (it is, in my opinion, his best-written book). It was not even his thesis that bothered me. It was the fact that the scriptures he uses to make that argument were clear and seemed to support it, and the Spirit did not tell me that what I was reading was false (as has often been the case with other writings). The book did not affect my testimony of Christ: it only caused me to ask "Lord, is it I?", convincing me that I could possibly have been victim to trusting in the arm of the flesh by making an institution the object of my faith instead of the Savior---showing plainly that one consequence of this would be missing the boat about my personal responsibility regarding my own salvation.Now, I really wish I could have put that book down while reading it. It made me very uncomfortable. But, I tend to follow Joseph Smith's advice to "try the spirits." I decided that I would postpone judgment on the book until I had read it through, and then conducted enough prayer and study on the topics brought up by Snuffer to have God's witness to me about it. I decided that, no matter what, I would not close my mind to the thesis until God had given me revelation on it.So, I set about reading and praying. I re-read the D&C, then I re-read the Book of Mormon. I got my hands on all the sources in the book I had not yet read, and then read some more on top of that. Among what I read were Quinn's "Heirarchy" books, Greg Prince's "David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism" and "Power from On High: The Development of Mormon Priesthood," Devery Anderson's "Development of LDS Temple Worship," and Buerger's "The Mystery of Godliness: A History of Mormon Temple Worship."At the conclusion of my prayers and study, which took about a year to complete, I re-read this book. I had found that in the ensuing year, my views had been informed by study and many spiritual experiences to conform to those espoused in the book. More importantly, being willing to suspend certain biases regarding God and his work, I was able to see the scriptures in clearer ways than I ever had before, which made possible my own repentance and a much-improved relationship with Jesus Christ.People will ask, "but can't that all be done without casting dirt on the church?" I don't think that this book casts any dirt on the church. I think it merely empowers those who are members to think of it in a way that is more beneficial to their salvation. In terms of necessity of the book, I believe the following scripture makes it very clear:"And behold, ye do know of yourselves, for ye have witnessed it, that as many of them as are brought to the knowledge of the truth, and to know of the wicked and abominable traditions of their fathers, and are led to believe the holy scriptures, yea, the prophecies of the holy prophets, which are written, which leadeth them to faith on the Lord, and unto repentance, which faith and repentance bringeth a change of heart unto them--" (Helaman 15:7)Finally, I think that besides putting "The Second Comforter" into context, explaining why the fullness of the gospel is not preached at church, this book is a stark warning to all members that any principled boundaries in doctrine shift that were extant in Joseph's life and shortly thereafter are no longer in place. This is quite important, as we will see in future events.

It's great to find someone who can say clearly what I've been thinking for years now - cant recommend it enough