Disciplinary Council Unless Passing The Heavenly Gate Is Withdrawn From Publication

[daz2]

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013/08/dont-call-me-yes-that-means-you-too_23.html

[bluebell]

Without having any idea what PHG is about, it's really difficult to have an opinion on this.

[David T]

It's about announcing how the Church and its leaders have been increasingly in Apostasy since Nauvoo. Really not a surprise that hes being called out on it.

Especially since he also wrote a how-to book on having ones calling and election made sure, because, of course, he already has.

Edited August 24, 2013 by David T

[Calm]

I posted this on another thread:

 

Blurb attached to the book on amazon...

Quote

Mormonism has undergone four distinct phases. The first began in 1820 and ended with Joseph Smith’s death in 1844. The second began upon Joseph Smith’s death and ended with abandonment of plural marriage, publicly in 1890 and privately in 1904. In the third phase Mormonism denounced as apostasy its practice of plural wives, marking the first time an orthodox practice became grounds for excommunication. The fourth phase began with David O. McKay and is still underway. In it Mormonism has adopted corporate management techniques to consolidate and direct central church decision-making. The first phase was innovative and expansive, continually adding doctrine, scripture, teachings and ordinances. Subsequent phases have curtailed, abandoned, even denounced earlier teaching and doctrine. Phases two through four have all abandoned doctrine. Growth in these subsequent phases has been defined in terms of political influence, financial gains, cultural inroads, and population growth; while the underlying religion has been curtailed. Today, marketing the institution has become more important to Mormon success than preserving the original religious content. The changes from phase to phase have completely transformed Mormonism, sharing a vocabulary but redefining the terms. Modern Mormonism has now institutionalized change. For the first time in this book Mormonism is candidly described in terms which track the changes by examining doctrine, teachings and practices. Interestingly, the passing of the heavenly gift was anticipated by Joseph Smith’s prophecies and the Book of Mormon.

 

 

A review posted by someone who loved the book:

Quote

 

 In the present book he takes these topics and overlays them on a historical overview of the LDS Church. Essentially, he theorizes that the Mormon Church has been in an expanding state of apostasy ever since leaving Nauvoo, Illinois, in 1845.

He divides the church's history into four phases. The first corresponded to the life of Mormonism's founder, Joseph Smith. Smith desired to bring his followers literally into the Lord's presence, the same as Moses did at Mount Sinai. According to a revelation given to Smith, Mormons were to be given this transcendent opportunity in the Nauvoo Temple, but only if they completed the building within a certain time frame. Otherwise the Lord would reject them, drive them from Nauvoo, and pour out his divine judgments on them. Snuffer demonstrates that the temple was unfinished when the Mormons fled Nauvoo in 1845, and, having failed to follow the Lord's commandment, he claims that the renown Mormon trek west was not the commonly portrayed heroic struggle of Mormon pioneers overcoming adversity, but as evidence of the Lord's displeasure and judgment on them. He questions the accepted narrative developed by Nauvoo's successors of Mormon history and presents a radically alternative view.

His second phase, which begun in 1845, ended when Wilford Woodruff signed the so-called manifesto ending Mormon polygamy in 1890, in order to find accommodation with American society. Snuffer sees this period as time in which the church's Twelve Apostles, under Brigham Young's leadership, expropriated unwarranted power as the chief governing body of the church, as well as the beginning of the abandonment of some Smith's all-important teachings. He is particularly critical of the church's institutionalizing plural marriage, which he thinks was contrary to Joseph Smith's desire.

In his second phase, which ended with the death of church president Joseph F. Smith in 1918, he sees the Church further abandoning the founder's teachings. He finds it ironic that the church reversed its position on polygamy after 1904, making it an excommunicable offense, when it had been previously regarded as necessary for exaltation. He feels that under President Heber J. Grant, the church became so heavily engaged in commercial businesses, that the meetings of church's First Presidency and Twelve Apostles, devolved into meetings more like a board of directors, rather a than ecclesiastical body dealing with the spiritual needs of the church. He is further critical of the church's Apostles, who were once charged to seek a visitation of Jesus Christ, so they could personally testify as his special witnesses, writing that there is evidence that few, if any of them, have made such claims since 1900, and that such a charge is no longer required.

In his fourth phase, which he sees as on-going, began with the presidency of David O. McKay in 1952. He is particularly critical of the church leadership's fostering a cult of personality around the church's president, which regards him as an almost infallible prophet. He also deplores the church's correlation program that centralizes all governance in the church leadership in Salt Lake City, including a growing and powerful, unaccountable bureaucracy at church headquarters. He finds the church's adoption of corporate management practices, including its use of focus groups and polls, very problematic. He sees all these factors have paved the way for church leaders to make sweeping changes that have homogenized the gospel and created a highly centralized authoritarian church, which has abandoned in the process many of the weightier doctrines of the church's founder, Joseph Smith.

 

http://www.amazon.co...r/dp/0615528961

• 0

•  

Edited August 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

Hey Cal, did you write the things in quotes in the above post, or did you quote someone else in a previous post and are just reposting the quotes here? 

 

I think I know the answers to those questions because I know you, but I'm wondering if others who read the above post who don't know you might be confused about who is speaking. 

[Calm]

Hey Cal, did you write the things in quotes in the above post, or did you quote someone else in a previous post and are just reposting the quotes here? 

 

I think I know the answers to those questions because I know you, but I'm wondering if others who read the above post who don't know you might be confused about who is speaking. 

I will add explanations to make it clear, thanks for pointing that out.

 

Haven't read the book myself so must depend on what is reported by others...don't know if the blurb is from Snuffer or his publisher though.

Edited August 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[bluebell]

It's about announcing how the Church and its leaders have been increasingly in Apostasy since Nauvoo. Really not a surprise that hes being called out on it.

Especially since he also wrote a how-to book on having ones calling and election made sure, because, of course, he already has.

 

Yeah, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch that someone would be threatened with being kicked out of an organization for telling everyone that the organization is corrupt.

[halconero]

Why would anyone be worried about being excommunicated from a Church in apostasy?

It's like being concerned that the Catholic Church doesn't recognize the validity of LDS baptisms.

[Calm]

Apparently he encourages people to stay in the faith because it is still the most correct one and in time, as he did to Ancient Israel, God will offer correction and draw the Church back to him. 

 

And apparently he's available to point out what the true faith and true path is, but he doesn't want any disciples...

 

When the Seed of the Woman was born, a new star appeared in the heavens. In like manner, when the Lion of Judah returns, as with his first coming, there will be a new star seen. All the world will note its appearance and shall be troubled at its meaning. When it makes its appearance, you may know His return is soon upon the world. You may also know by that sign that He has given to me the words I have faithfully taught as His servant.

 

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-sign.html

 

Seems to me he is setting himself up as prophet here, in a couple of ways.

Edited August 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[The Nehor]

So buy his book and venerate him. Pretty textbook priestcraft

[Kate]

Apparently he encourages people to stay in the faith because it is still the most correct one and in time, as he did to Ancient Israel, God will offer correction and draw the Church back to him. 

 

And apparently he's available to point out what the true faith and true path is, but he doesn't want any disciples...

 

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-sign.html

 

Seems to me he is setting himself up as prophet here, in a couple of ways.

I agree. I read his first book The Second Comforter and have read his blog over the years out of interest to see what other books he would write, but had that gut feeling he was getting such a following that pride would eventually set him up for this fall.

[Robert F. Smith]

..............................................don't know if the blurb is from Snuffer or his publisher though.

His Passing the Heavenly Gift is self-published.

Denver C. Snuffer Jr is apparently a graduate of BYU Law School, and author of eight books so far, in addition to his blog which has been in operation for several years.  So Snuffer didn't just fall off the turnip truck.  He knows very well what he is doing and undoubtedly believes in it.  By the same token, his stake presidency has no choice but to engage in boundary maintenance.

 

Historical appraisals of LDS history are not uncommon, but are best produced as descriptive rather than prescriptive and judgmental.  Otherwise they might be seen as violating one's temple covenant not to speak ill of the Brethren.

[Calm]

Well, even though the reviews I read of his book obviously thought he was teaching the Church was in apostasy, he denies it:

 

First, I believe in the restoration of eternal truths through the prophet Joseph Smith. My testimony of this truth is rock solid. My purpose, and all that I seek to accomplish by writing, is to further this work and be a small contributor to development of God’s work. 

 
To be clear: 

1.     I sustain today’s church leaders as prophets, seers and revelators.  The scriptures give them the right to use those titles (D&C 107: 92). They preside, and it is their right to do so. They have our common consent and ought to be upheld by our “confidence, faith and prayers” (D&C 107: 22). I uphold them in this way. They carry heavy burdens and have my sympathy, not my judgment, for any human frailties they display.  

2.     It is utterly untrue that I have said the church is apostate. I reject the accusation. If the narrative I suggest in PTHG is true, then the Lord’s post-Nauvoo ire is evidence the Lord is still watching over and intends to further His work with the members of this church. Those whom He loves, He chastens. (Heb. 12: 5-11; Helaman 12: 3;D&C 95: 1.) Mine is not a faithless, but a faith filled history.  I’ve reiterated this before and reiterate it again. (See my post: The Traditions of Men, Part 1, April 21, 2010.) 

3.     I believe the church possesses the right to seal on earth and seal in heaven, and have agreed with President Eyring’s general conference talk on the subject. 

4.     I believe that all organizations, including the church, tend to characterize their history in a light most favorable to them. They have that right. I take no issue with it and think it should be expected. That does not change the divine origin and mission of the church.  

5.     The church provides ordinances required to see and enter into the kingdom of heaven, in addition to providing us with the necessary scriptures. Through the church, we  receive the foundation of faith, repentance, baptism and enduring to the end. I hope to endure to the end myself and I seek to help others do so.   

 

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-ongoing-battle.html

[volgadon]

 

Historical appraisals of LDS history are not uncommon, but are best produced as descriptive rather than prescriptive and judgmental.  Otherwise they might be seen as violating one's temple covenant not to speak ill of the Brethren.

 

Right, something like Greg Prince's David O. McKay biography can be critical of church leaders, but it is descriptive. It is not saying you all are in apostasy!

[bluebell]

 

Well, even though the reviews I read of his book obviously thought he was teaching the Church was in apostasy, he denies it:

 

 

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-ongoing-battle.html

 

If his thesis was not to teach that the church is in apostasy, but that's what readers believe his thesis is, then he has failed as an author and should do something to fix the misconceptions.

[Antoni]

Posting the letter on his blog is not a particularly wise move. It almost come across that he wants people to rally round his cause. 

 

I've enjoyed what I've read of his, but have never been convinced by his denigration of the current church or his dislike of the correlation of the church.

 

Will be interesting to see what happens. I feel he has forced the churches hand on the matter though. Whether that's intentional or not only the Lord knows.

[volgadon]

 

Well, even though the reviews I read of his book obviously thought he was teaching the Church was in apostasy, he denies it:

 

 

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-ongoing-battle.html

 

 

I find it interesting that despite his denials, he considers things like D&C 110 inauthentic, and that is one of the central narratives establishing the presence of keys in the church.

[Calm]

 he considers things like D&C 110 inauthentic

How does he determine this?

[volgadon]

How does he determine this?

 

 

The manuscript being in Warren Cowdery's handwriting. Very flimsy grounds, honestly.

[Calm]

The manuscript being in Warren Cowdery's handwriting. Very flimsy grounds, honestly.

We could throw out the vast majority of church material then, could we not?  Including the BoM...didn't JS get scribes to write most of his stuff?

[volgadon]

We could throw out the vast majority of church material then, could we not?  Including the BoM...didn't JS get scribes to write most of his stuff?

 

 

Sleep deprivation, I forgot that it was also in the third person, but this is a report by Warren COWDERY, in an official capacity.

[Deborah]

It's about announcing how the Church and its leaders have been increasingly in Apostasy since Nauvoo.

 

This is exactly what my sister and her husband believe and preach. There is a growing number of people who seem to believe this; they have nothing to offer instead but insist everyone else embrace their beliefs or they are also fallen.

 

I have such a hard time seeing their point of view because I believe that Pres. Woodruff did receive a revelation showing him what would happen to the church if plural marriage were continued as he was determined to have it continue. Also I believe the revelation on the Priesthood was exactly at the right time and in the right circumstances. The Lord lets things happen when they need to.

[rpn]

I get that "mischaracterized doctrine, denigrates prophets, and places the church in a negative light"  would irritate those who are their subject.   And I certainly don't see them helping foster faith (though there are those who would argue they help like thinkers to stay in the church in spite of their belief that things aren't exactly as they would like).   What I don't get is why it matters that a lay person with no callings in the church (I assume this is his current status only since I wouldn't be assigning him to do anything in behalf of the church given his current situation) does what he is accused of doing?     

 

If the definition of apostacy is acting In clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders more than once (as a pattern?), or teaching AS church doctrine things that are not, after being told not to by their bishop, then I don't see how what the letter alleges as the basis for the disciplinary council is sufficient.

 

Now, if the bishop had told him not to go on the tour, and then he went on the tour and in the course of the tour he had preached false doctrine and trashed current leaders, they might have a case.  

 

My great concern with these matters is that when the guidelines are not strictly followed by church leaders, it makes it much harder for those on the edge of church membership to trust church leaders, and that undermines faith.

[Calm]

mischaracterized doctrine

 

Isn't this the pretty much the same as teaching false doctrine?

 

What difference does it make whether he does it in a book or on a tour?

 

If I understand the letter and the commentary about the book (which was published two years ago), the leaders have been studying the case for the past 18 months, sounds like they've met with him and discussed what he's been teaching as the real history and doctrine of the Church in contrast to what the Church is currently teaching and they gave him instructions on what he would need to do to avoid church discipline...he did not abide by the instructions and therefore the court was called.

 

The letter states the book's thesis is in "direct conflict with church doctrine", that the continuing publication of the book is the reason for the potential judgment of apostasy.

 

It also says "I ask you, again" when speaking of what he needs to do to avoid discipline...so this is not the first time he is challenged to do so.

 

How does this not fill all the conditions you described as appropriate?

Edited August 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[rpn]

If they meant teaching false doctrine, then for heaven's sake, why didn't he SAY that and cite the false doctrine?    And if one of the components is teaching AS church doctrine, then how does writing a book reach that?  Seems to me that we all know that any book is the author's interpretation.  

 

And my point wasn't that the tour would be a better case than the book, it was that if what he says really is false doctrine and he teaches it (as in the tour) as church doctrine, that is different from publishing his interpretations.