Disciplinary Council Unless Passing The Heavenly Gate Is Withdrawn From Publication

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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

It's my understanding that you can bring member witnesses to testify one at a time.  Non-member witnesses must be approved by the stake president.

[ksfisher]

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.

Very good point. Many times the names of children, spouses, others involved in the sin are discussed. If confidentiality could be waved then it would seem only fair that they have a say as well.

[USU78]

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 couldn't disagree more:  just because somebody's presently in a snit doesn't mean he'll be in a snit next year.  The proceedings must remain confidential whether or not the owner of the confidentiality right "waives" it today.

[USU78]

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

Huebener was never exed, regardless what the paperwork said:  no branch president Elder ever had the authority to ex anybody.

[smac97]

> 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.

"No control?" No control at all? That's just not so.

> Sometimes it matches my intent and sometimes it doesn't.

So you do have some control. Clarity from the writer helps, opacity 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 question the significance of those parallels (what are they, by the way)? In any event, I don't think anyone ever read statements by Ezra Taft Benson and came away with the impression that he thinks the LDS Church is in a state of apostasy. In contrast, many people have that impression based upon their reading of Mr. Snuffer's statements.

> I am sure we will disagree on this but I believe that a relationship with God is more important than membership in the Church.

Oh, I agree with you there. But I reject the notion that one can get closer to God by antagonizing His Church. That's what Mr. Snuffer has been doing, and I do not think it will work.

> 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. He was exed for opposing Hitler's regime but after he was executed by the Nazis and after the war, his blessings were reinstated.

The excommunication of Helmut Hubener was by his local LDS leader, Arthur Zander, who was a fervent anti-Semite and a member of the Nazi Party, and who excommunicated Hubener immediately after his arrest by the Nazis for distributing anti-Nazi materials. And all this happened in the epicenter of World War II, the most destructive war in the history of the world. And Hubener's membership was posthumously reinstated immediately after the war.

I concede that it is possible for a person to be excommunicated improperly. That's what happened Hubener. But Mr. Snuffer's excommunication was not by a compromised and isolated church leader in the middle of a war and operating under the Nazi regime. The two situations are not remotely comparable.

> Something similar with John D. Lee.

Another extremely unusual excommunication, with no reasonable comparative value to Mr. Snuffer's situation.

> The fact is, the Church is fallible. God isn't. Sometimes the Church makes mistakes and maybe it did in this case.

I haven't seen a basis for second-guessing the stake president.

> 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.

That's an exaggeration.

> 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.

Mr. Snuffer has stated that the Church has been in a state of apostasy since 1845. He has said that its leaders have "sold" the Church for money (he even quoted Satan). He has compared the Church to "Babylon" and his stake president to "Pharoah in Egypt" who is motivated by a desire to "get ahead" in the Church. He has recently accused stake presidents of Idaho of using Satan-inspired "fear" to counsel their flocks. He has done all of this and much more publicly.

I guess we will disagree.

> 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.

There is a difference, IMO, between not speaking evil of the Lord's anointed and "hav{ing} to put a halo on the GAs."

> Again, I'm not advocating disrespectful criticism but sometimes productive dialogue includes the expression of disagreement.

Agreed. In the proper time and place. See my previous metaphor about the hypothetical dispute with my wife.

> 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.

I think Church members should generally give the acts of the Church the benefit of the doubt. I believe that God "will make everything right," too, but meanwhile I will have to decide whether to attend a talk by Mr. Snuffer or not, or read his book, or not. He has been excommunicated. I have read quite a bit of his stuff, and I find ample cause for concern in my own mind. Mr. Snuffer's stake president has apparently been working with him for 18 months, and the previous stake president worked with him before that. Mr. Snuffer's blog entries have generally indicated rebelliousness, significant contempt for his stake president and other leaders of the Church, and other repellant attributes.

We are not called upon to remain agnostic about such things. We are given gifts of insight, analysis and discernment and are expected to use them and proceed based on the conclusions derived from what we perceive.

I perceive that Mr. Snuffer is an apostate and in a state of rebellion against the Church. I will not listen to him. I will also not second-guess the decision of his stake president to excommunicate him.

> 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.

Funny how often this comes up. I was reading just yesterday some speculation that Mr. Snuffer would not be excommunicated because the Church only operates on what counts as "good" PR. Now that it has excommunicated him, you are calling that a "mistake."

So which is it? The Church is faulted regardless of what it does in situations like this.

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

Same here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Senator]

Huebener was never exed, regardless what the paperwork said:  no branch president Elder ever had the authority to ex anybody.

 

Why then would the church feel the need to posthumously reinstate his membership?

[Calm]

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.  

 

I would agree that there are some people out there who no matter what you write or say will choose to interpret it in only one way....in fact I have a near relative like that and no matter how we tried, we couldn't convince her she was wrong in what she thought about our feelings etc.

 

OTOH, I think most people are open to being corrected if they've misunderstood you if you take a little time and effort.

 

And if there is a significant portion of your audience that is taking you the wrong way, I think if the subject is important that it is imperative that you try and figure out how to share your comments in a more accurate way and not just ignore the misinterpretations and go on blithely saying things however you want to say them no matter the outcome.  If we put ourselves in the position of teacher, then we better ensure that what we are trying to teach is what we are actually teaching.

[sethpayne]

> 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.

"No control?" No control at all? That's just not so.

> Sometimes it matches my intent and sometimes it doesn't.

So you do have some control. Clarity from the writer helps, opacity 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 question the significance of those parallels (what are they, by the way)? In any event, I don't think anyone ever read statements by Ezra Taft Benson and came away with the impression that he thinks the LDS Church is in a state of apostasy. In contrast, many people have that impression based upon their reading of Mr. Snuffer's statements.

> I am sure we will disagree on this but I believe that a relationship with God is more important than membership in the Church.

Oh, I agree with you there. But I reject the notion that one can get closer to God by antagonizing His Church. That's what Mr. Snuffer has been doing, and I do not think it will work.

> 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. He was exed for opposing Hitler's regime but after he was executed by the Nazis and after the war, his blessings were reinstated.

The excommunication of Helmut Hubener was by his local LDS leader, Arthur Zander, who was a fervent anti-Semite and a member of the Nazi Party, and who excommunicated Hubener immediately after his arrest by the Nazis for distributing anti-Nazi materials. And all this happened in the epicenter of World War II, the most destructive war in the history of the world. And Hubener's membership was posthumously reinstated immediately after the war.

I concede that it is possible for a person to be excommunicated improperly. That's what happened Hubener. But Mr. Snuffer's excommunication was not by a compromised and isolated church leader in the middle of a war and operating under the Nazi regime. The two situations are not remotely comparable.

> Something similar with John D. Lee.

Another extremely unusual excommunication, with no reasonable comparative value to Mr. Snuffer's situation.

> The fact is, the Church is fallible. God isn't. Sometimes the Church makes mistakes and maybe it did in this case.

I haven't seen a basis for second-guessing the stake president.

> 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.

That's an exaggeration.

> 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.

Mr. Snuffer has stated that the Church has been in a state of apostasy since 1845. He has said that its leaders have "sold" the Church for money (he even quoted Satan). He has compared the Church to "Babylon" and his stake president to "Pharoah in Egypt" who is motivated by a desire to "get ahead" in the Church. He has recently accused stake presidents of Idaho of using Satan-inspired "fear" to counsel their flocks. He has done all of this and much more publicly.

I guess we will disagree.

> 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.

There is a difference, IMO, between not speaking evil of the Lord's anointed and "hav{ing} to put a halo on the GAs."

> Again, I'm not advocating disrespectful criticism but sometimes productive dialogue includes the expression of disagreement.

Agreed. In the proper time and place. See my previous metaphor about the hypothetical dispute with my wife.

> 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.

I think Church members should generally give the acts of the Church the benefit of the doubt. I believe that God "will make everything right," too, but meanwhile I will have to decide whether to attend a talk by Mr. Snuffer or not, or read his book, or not. He has been excommunicated. I have read quite a bit of his stuff, and I find ample cause for concern in my own mind. Mr. Snuffer's stake president has apparently been working with him for 18 months, and the previous stake president worked with him before that. Mr. Snuffer's blog entries have generally indicated rebelliousness, significant contempt for his stake president and other leaders of the Church, and other repellant attributes.

We are not called upon to remain agnostic about such things. We are given gifts of insight, analysis and discernment and are expected to use them and proceed based on the conclusions derived from what we perceive.

I perceive that Mr. Snuffer is an apostate and in a state of rebellion against the Church. I will not listen to him. I will also not second-guess the decision of his stake president to excommunicate him.

> 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.

Funny how often this comes up. I was reading just yesterday some speculation that Mr. Snuffer would not be excommunicated because the Church only operates on what counts as "good" PR. Now that it has excommunicated him, you are calling that a "mistake."

So which is it? The Church is faulted regardless of what it does in situations like this.

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

Same here.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Forgive me for not knowing how to use the quote functionality ....

 

I should forward you some of the hate mail I received based on this year's FAIR presentation.  It's baffling.  Some people clearly understood what I was trying to convey.  Others  attacked me and accused me of saying something when in fact, I clearly stated the opposite.  Very odd.  I've learned that people bring a lot of baggage with them when they read.  

 

Having said that, I agree that DS could/should have been more tactful, sensitive and respectful.  I, like you, am uncomfortable with some of thing things he has said which appear to elevate him to the level of, well, I don't know what to call it.  

 

You make a good point about giving the Church the benefit of the doubt but I believe both parties should be given that same benefit.  Unfortunately, when once is facing excommunication it is the individual members vs. the Church (local, general, whatever ...).  The only recourse a member feels they may have is to go public.  Is that right or wrong?  I suppose it depends on the situation.  Personally I didn't see anything antagonistic in DS' latest posts regarding his SP.  He stated pointed disagreement.  He didn't call his SP an [fill in the blank].  To me, DS did not "speak evil of the Lord's anointed" so much as giving his opinion that the Church has some struggles to overcome.  President Benson said as much when he was serving.  He said the Church is still under condemnation as described in the D&C.  Was ETB calling the Church apostate?  Nah.  He was just pointing an area that concerned him.  Now, I know that the Church certainly is not under DS stewardship but like I said before, it sounds like he wrote things similar to Armand Mauss but made the mistake of taking aim at specific Church leaders and practices.  

 

I'm puzzled by your statement that you will not read his books because he has been exed and is in "rebellion" against the Church.  First off, how can he be in rebellion when on his blog, books, and elsewhere he encourages people to stay active in the Church?  Never mind the fact that he, himself, plans to remain active.  Anyway, why have you ceded your critical thinking skills to a SP in Utah?  Aren't you capable of reading DS work and drawing your own conclusions?  What you have said sounds eerily similar to what a HS friend of mine said when I asked her to read the BoM.  She said she wouldn't read it because she already knew it was bad.  Why?  Because her pastor said so and it wasn't the Bible.  You are obviously a very smart guy, Smac.  I'm sure you could read his books, if you were so inclined, and make quality arguments against those of Snuffer.  Perhaps I have misread you.  I personally chose not to read his books because I have a long list of books to get to first.

 

Regarding PR, my position has been consistent.  I can't speak for anyone else.  I think it is a bad PR move.  Maybe I'm wrong.  I'm wrong a lot.

 

In any case, I wish DS well.  He seems to have a positive attitude and has his family priorities straight.  He seems like a good man.

 

Seth

[sethpayne]

I would agree that there are some people out there who no matter what you write or say will choose to interpret it in only one way....in fact I have a near relative like that and no matter how we tried, we couldn't convince her she was wrong in what she thought about our feelings etc.

 

OTOH, I think most people are open to being corrected if they've misunderstood you if you take a little time and effort.

 

And if there is a significant portion of your audience that is taking you the wrong way, I think if the subject is important that it is imperative that you try and figure out how to share your comments in a more accurate way and not just ignore the misinterpretations and go on blithely saying things however you want to say them no matter the outcome.  If we put ourselves in the position of teacher, then we better ensure that what we are trying to teach is what we are actually teaching.

 

Good points, as always, Cal.  The folks I am referring to are those who are NOT open to being corrected.  I always try to respond to hate mail by referencing what I've written or clarifying my position.  Some get back to me and say "Oh!  I see."  Perhaps they missed a detail in a footnote or, as Smac suggests, my writing could have been more crisp.

 

Others simply ignore any correction or clarification and follow up with further hate mail.  Those guys usually receive a polite and short reply thanking them for their input.

[Stone holm]

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.

I agree we certainly don't need for disciplinary councils to become public spectacles. Unfortunately, there is some truth in what Cinepro says in some few cases they may become a cloak.

[smac97]

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

I believe so, provided the testimony is relevant.

Mr. Snuffer did not want to bring his children in as witnesses.

Thanks,

Smac

[smac97]

Having said that, I agree that DS could/should have been more tactful, sensitive and respectful.

Publicly accusing his stake president of being like "Pharaoh in Egypt" and having improper motives is not a matter of tact.

Accusing the Brethren of selling the Church for "money" is not a matter of tact.

In any event, he was not disciplined for these behaviors.

 

You make a good point about giving the Church the benefit of the doubt but I believe both parties should be given that same benefit.

I think Mr. Snuffer was given the benefit of the doubt. He worked with his previous stake president, then his current stake president, for an extensive period of time. He was not summarily excommunicated. He was instead given an opportunity to address the charge against him.

 

Unfortunately, when once is facing excommunication it is the individual members vs. the Church (local, general, whatever ...).  The only recourse a member feels they may have is to go public.

I'm not sure how you can say that. He could have attended the disciplinary proceeding.

And then I still go back to the dispute-with-the-wife analogy. Publicizing such a dispute is simply not a viable option in my view.

 

Is that right or wrong?  I suppose it depends on the situation.  Personally I didn't see anything antagonistic in DS' latest posts regarding his SP.  He stated pointed disagreement.  He didn't call his SP an [fill in the blank].  To me, DS did not "speak evil of the Lord's anointed" so much as giving his opinion that the Church has some struggles to overcome.

So characterizing his stake president has a "Pharaoh in Egypt" was a compliment?

Accusing other stake presidents of using satan-inspired "fear" to keep their flocks in line was a compliment?

 

President Benson said as much when he was serving.  He said the Church is still under condemnation as described in the D&C.  Was ETB calling the Church apostate?  Nah.  He was just pointing an area that concerned him.

And note that Ezra Taft Benson, unlike Mr. Snuffer, was the presiding High Priest, and hence in a position to make such declarations.

 

Now, I know that the Church certainly is not under DS stewardship but like I said before, it sounds like he wrote things similar to Armand Mauss but made the mistake of taking aim at specific Church leaders and practices.

I concede that whether Mr. Snuffer engaged in "apostasy" is something of a judgment call. But that judgment call falls to his stake president, not us.

 

I'm puzzled by your statement that you will not read his books because he has been exed and is in "rebellion" against the Church.  First off, how can he be in rebellion when on his blog, books, and elsewhere he encourages people to stay active in the Church?

He has been excommunicated for apostasy. If that were not sufficient, his blog entries evince rebelliousness.

 

Never mind the fact that he, himself, plans to remain active.  Anyway, why have you ceded your critical thinking skills to a SP in Utah?

No. But I have ceded to him the determination of whether Mr. Snuffer is an apostate.

 

Aren't you capable of reading DS work and drawing your own conclusions?

I usually do not read a book to determine if its author is an apostate. If I know ahead of time that he is, then the priority of reading his book falls. Big time.

 

What you have said sounds eerily similar to what a HS friend of mine said when I asked her to read the BoM.  She said she wouldn't read it because she already knew it was bad.  Why?  Because her pastor said so and it wasn't the Bible.

Except she is speaking out of ignorance. I'm not. She was relying wholly on the judgment of someone else. I'm not. She was relying on someone who lacks priesthood authority and discernment. I'm not.

 

You are obviously a very smart guy, Smac.  I'm sure you could read his books, if you were so inclined, and make quality arguments against those of Snuffer.

To what point and purpose? If President Benson, as you pointed out, has told us that we aren't paying enough attention to The Book of Mormon, then how can I justify devoting time and energy to reading the views of an excommunicated apostate? There are so, so many other books that merit more attention that Mr. Snuffer's.

 

Perhaps I have misread you.  I personally chose not to read his books because I have a long list of books to get to first.

Same here. I have also read his blog quite a bit, so it's not like I am treating his book as contraband. It's just that I see virtually no merit to reading a book which resulted in the excommunication of its author.

 

Regarding PR, my position has been consistent.  I can't speak for anyone else.  I think it is a bad PR move.  Maybe I'm wrong.  I'm wrong a lot.

And yet the Church made this "bad PR move." This suggests that decisions in the Church are guided by something other that "PR." The Spirit, perhaps. Jesus Christ was not politically correct, either.

 

In any case, I wish DS well.  He seems to have a positive attitude and has his family priorities straight.  He seems like a good man.

His various disparaging remarks about the Church, and about general and local leaders, have been repellant and disappointing.

His publicizing his disciplinary matters has been unseemly, unfair to his stake president and to the general authorities, and altogether unbecoming a member of the Church of Jesus Christ.

His contradictory statements about the Church appear to be dissembling to the point of wolf-in-sheeps-clothing deceitful.

His exploitation of his wife and children in an attempt to frustrate and disrupt the disciplinary council was pathetic.

His open contempt for membership in the Church is saddening.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 12, 2013 by smac97

[strappinglad]

Actually ,being a Pharaoh in Egypt was not always a bad thing. Note Abraham 1:26 . However, DS is referring to the Pharaoh who arose in Egypt that ' knew not Joseph'. In other words, a new Stake President was called who ' knew not Snuffer'. Seems like an ego driven comparison.

[Tacenda]

How can DS get excommunicated but not people like Tom Phillips? Oh yeah, Tom was given the second anointing. But who still had the testimony, or belief in the church? Not Tom.

ETA:

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013/09/my-sympathy.html

Latest BlogSpot of DS mentions Russell M. Nelson's wife's book "The Not Even Once Club" having much criticism, as his book has.

*Cal, I ran out of posts, I guess he did resign but don't know for sure. But still, up till he did why no church court etc.?

I think the church will wish they'd ex'd Phillips, according to NOM, something is cooking and is apparently going to surface in October. Something he is putting together, possibly a lawsuit. Not sure.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Tacenda

[Calm]

How can DS get excommunicated but not people like Tom Phillips? 

Didn't Phillips resign?  He's labeled as an "ex-mormon" on several sites I've seen.

Edited September 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[Deborah]

Who is Tom Phillips?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Who is Tom Phillips?

A former stake president in England who supposedly received his second anointing. He has since publicly apostatized and is the current head of the website mormonthink.

[bluebell]

Actually ,being a Pharaoh in Egypt was not always a bad thing. Note Abraham 1:26 . However, DS is referring to the Pharaoh who arose in Egypt that ' knew not Joseph'. In other words, a new Stake President was called who ' knew not Snuffer'. Seems like an ego driven comparison.

 

This is what I was going to say as well.

 

I don't think that DS meant the comparison to his stake president of a pharaoh in Egypt as an insult.  I think he was simply saying that the new stake president did not know him personally, like the old one did, and that that would likely cause him problems.  Such a comparison speaks more for DS's ego than it does against the new SP.

 

For good or ill, we tend to be more understanding and merciful in our judgments when we disagree with someone that we know personally and are friends with.

Edited September 12, 2013 by bluebell

[smac97]

This is what I was going to say as well.

 

I don't think that DS meant the comparison to his stake president of a pharaoh in Egypt as an insult.  I think he was simply saying that the new stake president did not know him personally, like the old one did, and that that would likely cause him problems.  Such a comparison speaks more for DS's ego than it does against the new SP.

 

For good or ill, we tend to be more understanding and merciful in our judgments when we disagree with someone that we know personally and are friends with.

Thank you, Bluebell and Strappinglad, for your insights. I think you are correct that I misconstrued the "Pharaoh" label applied by Mr. Snuffer to his stake president. This does not really change my overall assessment of Mr. Snuffer's behavior, since there are many other instances where he behaved inappropriately toward his SP and other church leaders. But I think I incorrectly read too much into this particular point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Alan]

Having read his book I am personally of the opinion that Bro. Snuffer's excommunication was inevitable. He and the church are better off without each other.

[Alan]

Having read his book I am personally of the opinion that Bro. Snuffer's excommunication was inevitable. He and the church are better off without each other.

[Mark Beesley]

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.

Sorry for picking on your post to rant, but it was convenient.

 

All this crap we have been seeing in the past year or so about transparency in the Church, and things being hidden, etc., its just that -- a bunch of crap. 

 

Let's go back to the beginning . . . How many of you remember sitting in on any heavenly councils to make decisions about the creation of a world on which to test mortals?  Maybe we did, maybe we didn't, but I'm pretty certain none of us remembers being involved.  Why not?  Cause God made us forget, so all those eternity shaking decisions might just as well have been conducted in secret because we're only getting as much of the information about them as God wants to reveal.  I trust God had a good reason for making us forget our pre-mortal covenants.  I used to teach that it was so we could learn to walk by faith.  I think that answer may be simplistic.  What I do know is that I'm better off trusting God than trying to second-guess Him

 

In any event, God is a God of secrets.  He hides things all the time.

 

Why does anyone suppose that HIS Church should operate any differently than He does, with a healthy dose of secrecy?

 

Calls for open disciplinary councils, open financial records, open temple rituals, or anything else that is currently not "open" reveal a basic misunderstanding about why we are here and what is important in life.  They also reveal some confusion about who is in charge.

 

As for Mr. Snuffer's individual circumstances . . . No comment.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Mark Beesley

[Scott Lloyd]

Having read his book I am personally of the opinion that Bro. Snuffer's excommunication was inevitable. He and the church are better off without each other.

I'm tempted to agree with you here. However, I can't comfortably say that it's good the Church is rid of him. Nor, upon reflection, can I really assent to the idea that he is better off without the Church.

 

What I really want is for him to repent in all sincerity and to return to full fellowship.

 

When I see the comment "I wish him well" regarding someone who has apostatized or otherwise strayed from the fold, I reflect that, to me, "wishing him well" means wishing that there would be something to occur to motivate his repentance, even if it has to be a severe chastening such as was experienced by Saul of Tarsus, Alma the younger, or Thomas B. Marsh.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[SamIam]

Having read his book I am personally of the opinion that Bro. Snuffer's excommunication was inevitable. He and the church are better off without each other.

Is there an Echo in here?

[rpn]

I think the church part of the confidentiality of a disciplinary event has more to do with (a) not putting itself at risk for legal action (for violation of privacy, if not defamation, and perhaps some other claim); and (b) not creating new obstacles for the member to repent and rejoin.  (I picture for instance whether smac would be able to accept a rebaptized brother snuffer on September 10, 2014 as a full and faithful member, knowing what he now thinks he knows about bro snuffer.   The wider the conduct is known the more difficult the open arms to return can be, so wide dissemination of the result is only done when necessary to protect innocents.)

Edited September 12, 2013 by rpn