Disciplinary Council Unless Passing The Heavenly Gate Is Withdrawn From Publication

[Freedom]

In extreme cases a higher authority can reverse an action taken by a bishop or stake president. I recall on instance when an endowed woman was excommunicated for adultery but a regional representative advised the stake president on the mental/emotional condition of the woman and she was re-instated. I also recall in instance when a stake president strongly advised a bishop to take a certain action against a person but after prayerful consideration, the bishop did not take the action. General Authorities are far more inclined to show mercy in my experience.

 

When I have been an employee I do as my boss advises unless it is illegal. I do not assume he or she is an idiot, I give my suggestions and after I have said my peace, I always did as I was told. This former member of the church assumed that these historical changes in direction were wrong, as if he knows what lead to the changes. his own stubbornness and arrogance, coupled with real world ignorance, caused him to leave the church.  

[sethpayne]

It seemed to me they ask the Stake President to hold off while they did a review of the charges then gave the SP the go ahead to hold his disciplinary council.  More like they were making sure the SP was on solid ground.

 

Thanks, ERayR.  That makes sense.

 

I do hope this thing blows over as, at least from my perspective, DS seems pretty harmless.  He is, after all, encouraging people to stay with the Church and argues that the Lord will work through the LDS Church in the future.  I've only read snippets of his book and got the impression that it was a more spiritually-focussed version of Armand Mauss' "The Angel and the Beehive."  

 

I go back and forth on the issue Smac raised about publicly sharing this information as it *should* be a private matter.  However, I would probably do the same thing were I in DS' position.  I can't think of a single instance -- off the top of my head -- where an excommunication received media attention but was actually followed through on.  Making this public seems like one of the few way Snuffer can play "defense."  I don't blame him.  He obviously values his Church membership but has his own particular viewpoints that ruffle feathers.  

 

In any case, I would be surprised if DS is exed.  Too much bad press for the Church and really no upside.  The Stake President could read a letter to his Stake stating that Snuffer's work is problematic and does not represent Church doctrine and that would seem to enough to "protect" stake members from Snuffer's ideas.

 

Lots of ways to work through this without exing the guy.  But hey .... that's that SPs are for.  I'm glad I don't have to make these calls.

[daz2]

I can't think of a single instance -- off the top of my head -- where an excommunication received media attention but was actually followed through on.

 

  Do you mean since Sonia Johnson, the September 6, and David Wright?

[Calm]

I do hope this thing blows over as, at least from my perspective, DS seems pretty harmless.  He is, after all, encouraging people to stay with the Church and argues that the Lord will work through the LDS Church in the future.  I've only read snippets of his book and got the impression that it was a more spiritually-focussed version of Armand Mauss' "The Angel and the Beehive."  

My concern comes less from what he's said and more from the responses I've read from those responding to his work.  Whatever his intent, the fruits of his labours seem to be somewhat corrupt, sad as I am to say that, from my POV.

[Calm]

  Do you mean since Sonia Johnson, the September 6, and David Wright?

These days it seems like most who take it to the media that are likely to be excommunicated resign first once they've pushed it as far as they could.

Edited September 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

argues that the Lord will work through the LDS Church in the future

 

I think a lot will depend on how he visualizes this happening.  From his recent blogging about what he is going to be teaching about in the future now that the fourth generation from the cursing has passed, thus allowing for positive change in the Church to occur.....he seems to think that he will be teaching those who will bring about the change how to bring that change about.  Considering he seems to think it will take a number of lectures to get his ideas across, this seems likely to be more complicated than simply praying for the Lord's intercession and the openness of the leaders to it as well as being the best example as possible of one who is led by Christ or even actively seeking a visitation from God in order to strengthen the overall spiritual level of the Church.

 

The Stake President could read a letter to his Stake stating that Snuffer's work is problematic and does not represent Church doctrine and that would seem to enough to "protect" stake members from Snuffer's ideas.

 

It is not just his stake though that is at issue.  There are first his books that can be had by anyone and then he is going around giving a series of lectures (the current ones are in Boise, Idaho) that are being recorded and then will be sold again to whomever purchases them.  I believe he has actually stated he is not speaking up in church all that much, so it looks to me that those in his stake are in less danger of apostate ideas (if his ideas are such) than those outside of it.

Edited September 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[smac97]

It has to do with priesthood keys.   GA's have general church administrative keys, but they don't have individual stewardship ones.

I'm not sure that's correct. My understanding is that priesthood keys are delegable. That is, a stake president has all the keys of those within his stewardship (the bishops in his stake, for example), but that the bishop is generally responsible for the utilization of those keys. That does not mean, however, that the higher priesthood office is without authority to use those keys. For example, if excommunication of a Melchizedek priesthood member is possible, then a disciplinary matter will be transferred to the stake president for adjudication.

In other words, priesthood keys pertaining to disciplinary matters appear to be held concurrently in the priesthood line of authority, not exclusively by the bishop. If that is the case, then it may well be possible for those keys to be held concurrently by those above a stake president, up to and including general authorities. This would not appear to be a novelty. President Ezra Taft Benson told us that "the prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual." Is it possible, then, that other general authorities have similar (but not identically plenary) authority? It would seem so, hence their designation as general authorities.

When the Ency of Mormonism refers to GAs and MP as sometimes having judicial authority, it means that in specific cases they may step into the roles given to bishops/SP and thus have such authority.  There is an explanation of this in either the biography of David O McKay or Spencer W. Kimball when the issue came up earlier in the church, and the President told the GA's to back off.  Unfortunately, I do not recall now which of the books, nor the exact citation.

Please let me know if you recall it. I would like to study this in further detail.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

I do hope this thing blows over as, at least from my perspective, DS seems pretty harmless.

What are your thoughts about those who have read his books and concluded that his thesis is that the Church is in a state of apostasy? Is that harmless? Take a look at some of the Amazon reader reviews of his book:

A review of the Amazon readers' reviews of Mr. Snuffer's book, "Passing the Heavenly Gift," yields some interesting observations from readers.  For example, some reviews impute the idea that Mr. Snuffer is declaring the Church to be in a state of apostasy (emphases added):

 

"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."

 

"Snuffer sees this period as time {beginning in 1845} 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."

"He sees all these factors have paved the way {starting in 1952} 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."

"Snuffer remains active in his local Mormon congregation and continues to defend the Church, even in his view of its apostasy."

"Snuffer draws heavily on the standard works, Church History, biographies and personal diaries as he builds a convincing case that the Church established by Joseph Smith has undergone fundamental changes that have significantly altered the gospel he restored."

"Not for the faint of heart or the weak of faith..."

"Faithful Mormons will find Denver Snuffer's book a challenging read."

"The book was not about staying loyal to a church, it was about seeking Christ and relying on Him to save you and not an institution."

"I must seek my own individual way to Christ regardless of the vehicle of the Church."

"There are still opportunities for an individual to enter into the Lord's presence, regardless. For those who do, it is usual for the Lord to grant them a calling that takes their peace, and sometimes their lives. Call Israel to repentance.  This record is nothing more than that."

What are investigators to think of a Church when they read a book which results in reactions such as these?

What about new members who read the book. Might they make similar conclusions about Mr. Snuffer's thesis?

Does Mr. Snuffer's thesis - that the Church is in apostasy - make people more or less likely to join the Church and remain active in it. That seems pretty much like a rhetorical question, but I have to ask it since you are saying that Mr. Snuffer is "harmless."

 

He is, after all, encouraging people to stay with the Church and argues that the Lord will work through the LDS Church in the future.

He is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. I think that makes him more dangerous, not less.

 

I go back and forth on the issue Smac raised about publicly sharing this information as it *should* be a private matter.  However, I would probably do the same thing were I in DS' position.  I can't think of a single instance -- off the top of my head -- where an excommunication received media attention but was actually followed through on.

You may be right. But what does that say about Mr. Snuffer? He has resorted to publicly maligning the Church, general authorities and local authorities as a pressure tactic. It may work, it may not. Regardless, it's a repellant thing to do.

Celebrities and politicians use this sort of tactic all the time. It is unbecoming a member of the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

Making this public seems like one of the few way Snuffer can play "defense."

He could have participated in the disciplinary process, but he chose not to. He could have explained his position to rebut the charge against him (he is an attorney, after all, so this would not seem to have been too foreign a concept to him), but he didn't.

He could have appealed the result of the disciplinary council, but that becomes difficult when he did not participate in the council itself.

He could have refrained from speaking evil of the Lord's anointed, but he chose to do so anyway.

He had a lot of options open to him, and he chose one of the more repellant ones.

 

I don't blame him.

I do. Publicly maligning the Church and its leaders is not an acceptable course of action for anyone claiming fidelity to the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

He obviously values his Church membership but has his own particular viewpoints that ruffle feathers.

I question the nature of that valuation. If I have a dispute with my wife, I have a few option available to me. I could talk to her about it in private and try to sort it out. If we could not resolve it that way, we would seek out help from trusted sources (our parents, a marriage and family therapist, priesthood leaders, depending on the nature of the dispute). In the alternative, I could write a book about the problems I have with my wife. I could point out what I perceive to be her faults and defects. I could also publicly pick apart every perceived flaw in our marriage and family, publicizing the problems for the world to see. And if she continued to speak with me privately in an attempt to resolve the dispute, I could start a blog where I would publicize her private comments to the world, and I could malign her character and integrity while doing so. I could even compile my blog entries into a book, and I could schedule a speaking tour where I could travel the region talking about all of the problems with my marriage and all of the flaws and defects my wife has. I could also do all of these things while simultaneously claiming that I love my wife and value my marriage, and that my calumnies against my wife and my profanations against my marriage are all intended to help.

Would you buy that line of reasoning? I wouldn't.

I think a familial relationship is the best analog to the relationship between church members and the church. Unfortunately, people like Mr. Snuffer apparently feel it appropriate to treat the church like some sort of social club or political entity, where smearing people with whom you disagree is how things are done. But in my view, that's not how things should be done in the Church of Jesus Christ.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 11, 2013 by smac97

[Calm]

 I can't think of a single instance -- off the top of my head -- where an excommunication received media attention but was actually followed through on.  

 

Well, now you will be able to unfortunately (I don't disagree with the finding, I just find it sad that it came to this).

[Calm]

In any event, having children - particularly minor children - attend the disciplinary hearing of their father is very unusual. I've never heard of such a thing. 

Apparently his children are all adults and none living at home, one at college if I understand his latest blog correctly.

 

PS:  on his blog (there are lots of links to it already on this thread so I won't put up another one), he claims that the Church is teaching fear by telling/warning people he is an apostate.

 

I don't see how that is any different than his warning people of his belief that the Church has altered doctrine, no longer has real priesthood power though it still possess the authority, etc.  Is he creating/promoting fear by telling people he teaches the "real" history and not the falsified one the Church does?

Edited September 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[smac97]

Well, now you will be able to unfortunately (I don't disagree with the finding, I just find it sad that it came to this).

 

Have I missed something?  Was Mr. Snuffer excommunicated?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

Apparently his children are all adults and none living at home, one at college if I understand his latest blog correctly.

 

I understood his youngest to be 12 years old.  Perhaps I was in error.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Tacenda]

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013/09/yesterday.html

I guess he's been excommunicated. Funny I just listened to both parts of his mormonstories.org podcast with John Dehlin and he seemed like a pretty stand up guy. If you care to listen here they are.

http://mormonstories.org/321-322-denver-snuffer-a-progressive-fundamentalist-non-polygamist-mormon-who-claims-to-have-seen-christ/

[Calm]

I understood his youngest to be 12 years old.  Perhaps I was in error.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Perhaps he is just not mentioning all of them:

 

Inasmuch as the kids are scattered, (Kylee went back to school this morning at 4 a.m., Benjamin and Kalisa live hours away and can't return because of work commitments

 

[ERayR]

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013/09/yesterday.html

I guess he's been excommunicated. Funny I just listened to both parts of his mormonstories.org podcast with John Dehlin and he seemed like a pretty stand up guy. If you care to listen here they are.

http://mormonstories.org/321-322-denver-snuffer-a-progressive-fundamentalist-non-polygamist-mormon-who-claims-to-have-seen-christ/

 

It seems he is spreading his apostasy.  Across Southern Idaho at least.  Speaking engagements in Boise and Idaho Falls.

[smac97]

Mr. Snuffer has a blog post in which he announced he has been excommunicated: http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013/09/yesterday.html

 

Yesterday was the 40th anniversary of my baptism into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I marked my gratitude by giving a talk in Boise, Idaho. On my way to the meeting, at 10:30 yesterday morning, President Hunt called to tell me I'd been excommunicated.

So there we are.  A sad end.  Nevertheless, hope endures.

 

He emailed me on Monday and asked if we would like to come to the stake center that night (with the children) to hear and discuss the outcome. I replied as follows:

 

"President Hunt,

 

For clarification, we weren't of the conviction that the children should be at the disciplinary counsel to hear the "outcome." We had already discussed that at length in our family beforehand. We all were prepared for any outcome. What we are absolutely certain of was that they should be allowed to see the process as it took place.

Well, that "absolute certainty" seems to run up against the authority of the stake president. I think it also has scant precedential support.  I also think the stake president was amply justified in his decision about who should attend a disciplinary hearing. That is is a matter clearly within his discretion.

 

In our discussions with them we talked of the Spirit that attends a disciplinary council. We discussed the format and the procedure. We reviewed the scriptures and what they say about disciplinary councils. We were certain this would offer them an opportunity to hear from people who disagree with their father and hear how other people interpret the scriptures and how they relate to the history of the church.

 

Well, that's just wrong.  A disciplinary council is not intended to be classroom.  If they were to attend, it would have been as witnesses.  Otherwise, their presence would be inappropriate.

 

Of course, none of this can be news to Mr. Snuffer.  He was trying to create a circus.  He was trying to frustrate the disciplinary process.  And he exploited his children to do it.  Yuck.

 

We were looking forward to the opportunity for them to see the scriptures used by me and then by the members of the high council testify of gospel truths.

First, a disciplinary council is not the place for Mr. Snuffer's children to learn about how such things operate.

 

Second, I simply don't believe Mr. Snuffer when he says he wanted his disciplinary council to be a learning "opportunity" for his children.  He wanted to disrupt and frustrate it.

 

Third, think about the precedent Mr. Snuffer hoped to set by dictating who would attend the council - which is a church meeting under the direction of his stake president.  The SP was, I think, entirely correct - even prescient - to say that including Mr. Snuffer's children would make the council a "circus."  Mr. Snuffer would have been the ringmaster.

 

The Spirit witnessed to Stephanie this would be a faith promoting meeting for them to attend. The outcome was a non-issue.

 

"The outcome" of a disciplinary council, the excommunication of a longstanding member of the Church and the father of the children involved, was "a non-issue."

 

Ruminate on that, folks.  What kind of statement is that?  What does it say about Mr. Snuffer and his views on the value of membership in the Church?

 

In any event, again we would like to thank you for your service. We know this has been difficult and bear no resentment for you or anyone involved.

 

After all the smears Mr. Snuffer has made against his stake president, it is galling to see him say such a thing.

 

I am saddened, even ashamed that there wasn't an open process which allowed my children to have this important opportunity.

 

This is absurd.  Disciplinary councils are not open to the public.  They are, by design and intent, not "an open process."  They are intended to be conducted confidentially to protect the subject of the proceedings.  Mr. Snuffer apparently proposes that the Church should turn all of this on its head and make a spectacle of disciplinary councils.  In fact, he is "saddened, even ashamed" that the Church would be so dastardly as to . . . treat his disciplinary proceedings with confidentiality and reserve.

Black is white.  Night is day.

 

I've prized the underlying principles of the gospel which involve persuasion, knowledge, meekness and avoid control, compulsion and dominion.

Golly, no veiled insult there.

 

I wanted my children to witness this glorious process in which men of good faith and belief come together to work through an important disagreement.

 

In all candor, I call this bupkus.  The disciplinary council was not about whether his children could attend.  It was about an adjudication of his standing in the Church - which issue he characterizes as "a non-issue."

 

Moreover, he has taken numerous steps to avoid the "glorious process" he describes, and instead resorted to publicly maligning the Church, its general authorities, and his local priesthood leaders.  And in a last-ditch effort, he exploited his wife and children in an attempt to disrupt or frustrate the disciplinary council.

 

The Church does indeed have a "glorious process in which men of good faith and belief come together to work through an important disagreement."  That process does not involve publicly speaking evil of the Lord's anointed and publicly accusing the Church of being in a state of apostasy since 1845.

 

I had wanted them to behold the Spirit leading to unity.

Unity is not to be found in the tactics employed by Mr. Snuffer.  He has been singularly hostile and divisive in his behavior.

 

I do not believe Mr. Snuffer.

 

Inasmuch as the kids are scattered, (Kylee went back to school this morning at 4 a.m., Benjamin and Kalisa live hours away and can't return because of work commitments), we see no need to meet to discuss the outcome.

Inasmuch as the outcome - his excommunication - could be discussed without his children, and inasmuch as Mr. Snuffer has previously dismissed that outcome as "a non-issue," his continued refusal to cooperate with his stake president seems to only further entrench the sense of rebelliousness which pervades his comments.

 

Please send the letter announcing my excommunication so we can end this tragic ordeal.

I'm not sure that a letter "ends" anything. I certainly hope not. If anything, I hope his excommunication is a beginning, not an end.

 

The paperwork will arrive sometime later. It was certainly symmetrical to have the news given exactly on the 40th anniversary of the occasion. Almost like a sign, really.

 

I saw another sign yesterday. A dove was waiting for me on the lawn at work. She didn't stir as I walked by her. But she did take note of me (and I of her).

 

Boise was a wonderful experience. Beautiful day. Great occasion. I returned home about 1:48 a.m. Joyful day, and gave me an opportunity to talk about the faith I very much believe in and will continue to practice.

 

The next talk will be in Idaho Falls. There are stake presidents there "warning" people in the church to not listen to me. They are preaching fear.

And he is apparently preaching apostate views.  There's no flaw in warning the sheep of the wolf amongst them.

 

Now that Mr. Snuffer has been excommunicated for apostasy, he puts at risk the standing of those who associate with him (their temple recommends, anyway).  And yet he continues with his speaking tour.

 

Christ instructed us not to fear. (D&C 68: 6.) Fear is the motivation of hell itself. (Moses 1: 20.)  If you are fearful, then don't attend the talks.

So now he's accusing stake presidents in Idaho of "preaching fear," which he says is "the motivation of hell itself."

 

More evil speaking of the Lord's anointed from Mr. Snuffer.

 

I rejoice in liberty, because freedom to believe in Christ is liberty itself. (2 Cor. 3: 17.) 

 

I am grateful to the LDS Church for providing to me the instructions, ordinances and scriptures. I believe the faith which was restored through Joseph. That hasn't, indeed can't, be taken away from me.

So his excommunication is "a non-issue."  And now it appears that he is immune from what we understand to be the effects of excommunication (loss of priesthood, loss of temple blessings, etc.), since these things "can't be taken away from" him.

 

Well, except they can.  Christ gave unto His servants the power to "bind" in earth and in heaven, but also the power to "loose" on earth and in heaven (see D&C 128:8-10).  Mr. Snuffer's excommunication "loosed" him.

 

I expect we have not heard the last of Mr. Snuffer, and that is unfortunate.  He appears to be in a state of rebellion, and that is unfortunate.  I wish him the best.  Perhaps his time outside the fold will help him realize that being inside the fold is not, as he put it, "a non-issue."

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited September 11, 2013 by smac97

[smac97]

Perhaps he is just not mentioning all of them:

 

I think he has nine children.  He appears to be referencing those of his children who are no longer in the vicinity.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[cinepro]

If the purpose of the confidentiality is to protect the person being disciplined, the Church should have a provision to waive the confidentiality at the request of the defendant. 

 

Because it's also possible for "confidentiality" to become a cloak for the Church to hide behind, and perhaps it shouldn't.

[smac97]

If the purpose of the confidentiality is to protect the person being disciplined, the Church should have a provision to waive the confidentiality at the request of the defendant.

Why? As we have so amply seen in this case, the individuality can waive confidentiality if he/she chooses.

In any event, there are many reasons why disciplinary councils are run as they are, confidentiality being one of them - but not the only one.

Are you suggesting that the person under disciplinary scrutiny should be able to dictate who attends a disciplinary council? Wouldn't that run the risk of a rebellious person sabotaging the proceedings?

Because it's also possible for "confidentiality" to become a cloak for the Church to hide behind, and perhaps it shouldn't.

I think the problems associated with disregarding considerations like confidentiality, decorum, etc. are far greater than the hypothetical concern you express.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

If the purpose of the confidentiality is to protect the person being disciplined, the Church should have a provision to waive the confidentiality at the request of the defendant. 

 

Because it's also possible for "confidentiality" to become a cloak for the Church to hide behind, and perhaps it shouldn't.

 

I disagree.  A person may, in the heat of the moment, waive the confidentiality.  Then, years later after repenting, see the wisdom of the confidentiality.  Also, the knowledge that the proceedings may become public may have the effect of hindering discussion.  The members of the council should be focused more on finding the Lord's will in the matter than making sure they say the right thing for the public record.

[Calm]

I disagree.  A person may, in the heat of the moment, waive the confidentiality.  Then, years later after repenting, see the wisdom of the confidentiality.  Also, the knowledge that the proceedings may become public may have the effect of hindering discussion.  The members of the council should be focused more on finding the Lord's will in the matter than making sure they say the right thing for the public record.

Also in many cases, especially ones that deal with morality issues, there are others involved.  Simply because one person wants to remove the confidentiality aspect doesn't mean all who are involved (not in the sense of being on the council, but rather being involved in the actions that led to the council) want it to be public.

[bluebell]

I find his excommunication sad (apparently more sad that he does), but given what people are coming away from his book with, it seemed inevitable. 

[Senator]

Are you suggesting that the person under disciplinary scrutiny should be able to dictate who attends a disciplinary council? Wouldn't that run the risk of a rebellious person sabotaging the proceedings?

 

 

Is the accused allowed to bring forth their own witnesses in these proceedings?

[Calm]

I wonder if there is anyone who was hoping that they would eventually get back into full fellowship that wanted their council to be made public.  I find it hard to believe that one would want to have it public if one's intent was to maintain or get back one's membership with all blessings intact.

 

Now if one was intending to leave the Church and never come back and it was not a moral issue, then sure why not?  But at that point the Church would look forward in hope and plan for the possibility that someday that person might change their mind and based on the more common desire of those who wish to continue in the faith to keep things private and confidential, they would maintain the confidentiality....even if the hope was a very, very, very small one.

[sethpayne]

What are your thoughts about those who have read his books and concluded that his thesis is that the Church is in a state of apostasy? Is that harmless? Take a look at some of the Amazon reader reviews of his book:

A review of the Amazon readers' reviews of Mr. Snuffer's book, "Passing the Heavenly Gift," yields some interesting observations from readers.  For example, some reviews impute the idea that Mr. Snuffer is declaring the Church to be in a state of apostasy (emphases added):

 

"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."

 

"Snuffer sees this period as time {beginning in 1845} 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."

 

"He sees all these factors have paved the way {starting in 1952} 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."

 

"Snuffer remains active in his local Mormon congregation and continues to defend the Church, even in his view of its apostasy."

 

"Snuffer draws heavily on the standard works, Church History, biographies and personal diaries as he builds a convincing case that the Church established by Joseph Smith has undergone fundamental changes that have significantly altered the gospel he restored."

 

"Not for the faint of heart or the weak of faith..."

 

"Faithful Mormons will find Denver Snuffer's book a challenging read."

 

"The book was not about staying loyal to a church, it was about seeking Christ and relying on Him to save you and not an institution."

 

"I must seek my own individual way to Christ regardless of the vehicle of the Church."

 

"There are still opportunities for an individual to enter into the Lord's presence, regardless. For those who do, it is usual for the Lord to grant them a calling that takes their peace, and sometimes their lives. Call Israel to repentance.  This record is nothing more than that."

What are investigators to think of a Church when they read a book which results in reactions such as these?

What about new members who read the book. Might they make similar conclusions about Mr. Snuffer's thesis?

Does Mr. Snuffer's thesis - that the Church is in apostasy - make people more or less likely to join the Church and remain active in it. That seems pretty much like a rhetorical question, but I have to ask it since you are saying that Mr. Snuffer is "harmless."

 

He is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. I think that makes him more dangerous, not less.

 

You may be right. But what does that say about Mr. Snuffer? He has resorted to publicly maligning the Church, general authorities and local authorities as a pressure tactic. It may work, it may not. Regardless, it's a repellant thing to do.

Celebrities and politicians use this sort of tactic all the time. It is unbecoming a member of the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

He could have participated in the disciplinary process, but he chose not to. He could have explained his position to rebut the charge against him (he is an attorney, after all, so this would not seem to have been too foreign a concept to him), but he didn't.

He could have appealed the result of the disciplinary council, but that becomes difficult when he did not participate in the council itself.

He could have refrained from speaking evil of the Lord's anointed, but he chose to do so anyway.

He had a lot of options open to him, and he chose one of the more repellant ones.

 

I do. Publicly maligning the Church and its leaders is not an acceptable course of action for anyone claiming fidelity to the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

I question the nature of that valuation. If I have a dispute with my wife, I have a few option available to me. I could talk to her about it in private and try to sort it out. If we could not resolve it that way, we would seek out help from trusted sources (our parents, a marriage and family therapist, priesthood leaders, depending on the nature of the dispute). In the alternative, I could write a book about the problems I have with my wife. I could point out what I perceive to be her faults and defects. I could also publicly pick apart every perceived flaw in our marriage and family, publicizing the problems for the world to see. And if she continued to speak with me privately in an attempt to resolve the dispute, I could start a blog where I would publicize her private comments to the world, and I could malign her character and integrity while doing so. I could even compile my blog entries into a book, and I could schedule a speaking tour where I could travel the region talking about all of the problems with my marriage and all of the flaws and defects my wife has. I could also do all of these things while simultaneously claiming that I love my wife and value my marriage, and that my calumnies against my wife and my profanations against my marriage are all intended to help.

Would you buy that line of reasoning? I wouldn't.

I think a familial relationship is the best analog to the relationship between church members and the church. Unfortunately, people like Mr. Snuffer apparently feel it appropriate to treat the church like some sort of social club or political entity, where smearing people with whom you disagree is how things are done. But in my view, that's not how things should be done in the Church of Jesus Christ.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Smac,

 

I stand by my original position.  As I have learned over the past few years in just blogging and writing a few papers, I have no control as to how people choose to interpret what I write.  Sometimes it matches my intent and sometimes it doesn't.  Also, other authors have written similar things but have been a bit less pointed in their specific critiques.  There are some interesting parrallels between DS' views and those expressed by ETB about the Church *still* being under condemnation for not taking the BoM seriously.

 

I am sure we will disagree on this but I believe that a relationship with God is more important than membership in the Church.  That is not to say I believe Church membership or ordinances to be unimportant but I have faith that in the end, God will make everything right.  Take the case of Helmuth Hubener.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmuth_H%C3%BCbener

 

 He was exed for opposing Hitler's regime but after he was executed by the Nazis and after the war, his blessings were reinstated.  Something similar with John D. Lee.  The fact is, the Church is fallible.  God isn't.  Sometimes the Church makes mistakes and maybe it did in this case.

 

Generally speaking, I've always been a bit uncomfortable with the idea that members can't express their views on Church leadership unless it is strictly positive.  There is a difference, IMO, between calling a Church leader a nasty name and in suggesting that mistakes have been made and course corrections could be helpful.  We can easily see the missteps our Bishops and SPs make at times and I suppose I just don't get why we have to put a halo on the GAs.  Again, I'm not advocating disrespectful criticism but sometimes productive dialogue includes the expression of disagreement.  

 

Anyway, I have faith God will make everything right in the end and I'm certainly in no position to judge whether the excommunication was or was not appropriate.  However, I will say I think it is a huge PR mistake and that the blowback may end up producing more negative view of the Church and give more ammo to those critics who claim Mormonism is a "OBEY THE LEADER" cult.

 

Like I said, I'm sure we have different views on the subject and I respect where you are coming from.  

 

Seth