Blah Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 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.I think the Church is better off making it clear that he is not a member in good standing, so that there's no question about the Church's position on what he's teaching. He is separate from the Church, both in membership and in doctrine.As for Mister Snuffer, I think he's slightly less likely to utterly destroy himself now that he's relieved of the responsibility of his covenants.
WmLaw Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 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.htmlLatest 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.Tom P. has been Called and Elected. Ex-communication would have no effect on him.
Calm Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) Tom P. has been Called and Elected. Ex-communication would have no effect on him.CFR please. The second part. Edited September 12, 2013 by calmoriah
Calm Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 (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. )From what I've seen of his posts, smac is generally quite willing to leave the judgment of someone's membership worthiness up to the people 'on the ground' so to speak and I suspect if his leaders were willing to accept him, smac would not hesitate to do so. 1
bluebell Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 From what I've seen of his posts, smac is generally quite willing to leave the judgment of someone's membership worthiness up to the people 'on the ground' so to speak and I suspect if his leaders were willing to accept him, smac would not hesitate to do so. I second this. 2
WmLaw Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 CFR please. The second part.It follows, then, that when the law has been lived to the full, the promised blessing is guaranteed. "I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise." (D&C 82:10.) Accordingly, when a man lives the law that qualifies him for eternal life, the Lord is bound by his own law to confer that greatest of all gifts upon him. And if by a long course of trial and obedience, while yet in this life, a man proves to the Lord that he has and will abide in the truth, the Lord accepts the exhibited devotion and issues his decree that the promised blessings shall be received. The calling, which up to that time was provisional, is then made sure. The receipt of the promised blessings are no longer conditional; they are guaranteed. Announcement is made that every gospel blessing shall be inherited.Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3:325-353.
Senator Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 From what I've seen of his posts, smac is generally quite willing to leave the judgment of someone's membership worthiness up to the people 'on the ground' so to speak and I suspect if his leaders were willing to accept him, smac would not hesitate to do so. After the thorough thrashing smac has given Bro Snuffer, I'd have to see it to believe it.
USU78 Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 Why then would the church feel the need to posthumously reinstate his membership? Belt and suspenders . . . better to be sure than to leave any doubt about what the Church's position was vis-a-vis Helmuth. Besides, there's the added benefit of the Church being able to do publicly what they'd wanted to do once Helmuth's story became generally known: Honor him and his friends as the heroes they were without risking pi$$ing off the Stasi and their masters in Moscow and putting members behind the Iron Curtain at further risk. The Sovs hated heroes who weren't Russian. 2
MormonMason Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 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.That is what the appeals process is for. One can appeal an excommunication all the way to the First Presidency, and it doesn't have to be made public. People who make such proceedings public really seem to have as their goal the embarrassment of the Church. 1
cinepro Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 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. I'm not calling for "open disciplinary" councils, where they are played out in the chapel for any interested parties to come and sit and watch. I'm simply saying that there seem to be situations where the subject of the council wants the record to be public, and it would be to the Church's benefit to have that record made public, so with the consent (and support) of the subject of the discipline, there should be a means for it to be made public. Since, in these cases, the subject has usually told their side in as much detail as possible, it could only be to the Church's benefit to do the same. But if the Church isn't interested, then I don't care.
smac97 Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 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.) Certainly I would welcome Mr. Snuffer back into the fold. That's what repentance is all about. I currently serve in a bishopric as a counselor, and before that I was on my stake's high council. I have participated in many disciplinary proceedings. I have a fair bit of experience in associating with people who have been disciplined. We are all of us sinners, after all. Perhaps those who have been disciplined, who have had their sins brought forth in a confidential setting, and who are currently working through the repentance process, are in a better position than those of us who have undisclosed transgressions. Thanks, -Smac 2
Deborah Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 Everyone keeps talking about Tom Phillips calling and election made sure. I'm curious where the source of this is. Is it he himself? If some one does receive this and falls away he will have to suffer to the uttermost just as Christ suffered. He will come back but it is only after this suffering. 1
Deborah Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 Nevermind, I looked it up. I find it very interesting that on Mormon Think he states that he was told "very few people receive this blessing and it must be kept secret. He said if the general membership knew about it there would be problems. More would want to receive the ordinance than the apostles have time to accommodate and members would wonder why so and so had received it but they had not. I must not even tell my children. He said I should just tell them that their mother and I were going away for the day or weekend. He recommended I read all that Elder Bruce R. McConkie had written on the subject of making your calling and election sure." Then he proceeds to go into detail into how it all took place. Excuse my skepticism. 1
Anti-NOMunistJackMormon Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) I don't think this is really all that remarkable. There were rumors of a couple that had the Second Annointing in our stake as a teen-ager. I don't know what is so mind-blowing about this guy. The guy I had met in my stake seemed like a jerk the only time I had ever met him. It was fairly well rumored to have been going to the CK for sure. The more I've read of his story and the correspondence he exchanged with Elder Holland just seemed to be someone self-righteously starting a boxing-match. It seems to me Tom has had doubts and a stack of them well prepared long before his exchange with Holland. He proposed he needed answers to counter prospective scientific claims to opposition to the church history and the BoM. I honestly have a hard time buying this. As a well educated man he would have been aware of these issues before hand and possibly had struggles himself which I think is fine. It seems however this was pre-meditated well in advance and the axe has been ready to grind for a while. As someone with doubts myself it's not his doubting or his issues with those doubts. It the taking the position of innocent martyr when clearly there was an agenda at some point well before the exchange. Also it seemes he wants an ex-communication to me and wants it to be a show. Edited September 12, 2013 by Anti-NOMunistJackMormon
Anti-NOMunistJackMormon Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 Back on the OT, I find it amusing that many in the "DAMU" are acting as if Denver Snuffer is some kind of martyred saint. Considering the fact that much of what he's published is almost diametrically opposed to thier sometimes "culty" atittude toward anyone that has anything to say favoring JS or pro-LDS theology.
SamIam Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) Retracted Edited September 12, 2013 by SamIam
smac97 Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 After the thorough thrashing smac has given Bro Snuffer, I'd have to see it to believe it. I don't think my critique of Mr. Snuffer has been unduly harsh or uncharitable. And I have said nothing to indicate that I would not welcome him back. Thanks, -Smac 2
WmLaw Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 Nevermind, I looked it up. I find it very interesting that on Mormon Think he states that he was told "very few people receive this blessing and it must be kept secret. He said if the general membership knew about it there would be problems. More would want to receive the ordinance than the apostles have time to accommodate and members would wonder why so and so had received it but they had not. I must not even tell my children. He said I should just tell them that their mother and I were going away for the day or weekend. He recommended I read all that Elder Bruce R. McConkie had written on the subject of making your calling and election sure." Then he proceeds to go into detail into how it all took place.Excuse my skepticism.His account of this and other background given in the podcast seemed sincere and credible.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) I second this. And I third it. With rep points to you, cal and smac. Edited September 12, 2013 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 I think the Church is better off making it clear that he is not a member in good standing, so that there's no question about the Church's position on what he's teaching. He is separate from the Church, both in membership and in doctrine. Agreed. As for Mister Snuffer, I think he's slightly less likely to utterly destroy himself now that he's relieved of the responsibility of his covenants. It's not self-evident to me that he is thus relieved.
Alan Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 I must admit that I found Bro. Snuffer's account of how he and his wife wanted their children to attend the disciplinary council really quite odd. He explained how they had a FHE the night before and he explained the disciplinary council process etc to his kids. The SP refused them entry to the council as we know.Why do I find this odd? Because Bro. Snuffer is 59 years old and his kids are grown up and all live away from home. Some very far away. Suddenly that FHE looks a little different in my minds eye, and the motives for wanting these adult family members in the room aren't quite so clear.
Deborah Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 His account of this and other background given in the podcast seemed sincere and credible. I don't doubt it did; I do doubt his facts.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted September 12, 2013 Posted September 12, 2013 I must admit that I found Bro. Snuffer's account of how he and his wife wanted their children to attend the disciplinary council really quite odd. He explained how they had a FHE the night before and he explained the disciplinary council process etc to his kids. The SP refused them entry to the council as we know.Why do I find this odd? Because Bro. Snuffer is 59 years old and his kids are grown up and all live away from home. Some very far away. Suddenly that FHE looks a little different in my minds eye, and the motives for wanting these adult family members in the room aren't quite so clear.From his blog:I explained my fear that if anything happened behind closed doors, my children could always entertain doubts about the content of the council and charges raised. I told the stake presidency (the councilors came out and joined us in the hallway) that there are always rumors and those who will insist that a council was "really" about something else; immorality, dishonesty, or some serious moral transgression. The stake president clarified it was only about a book. I said I was worthy of a Temple Recommend, and he agreed. It was only about a book.We talked for an hour in the hallway and ended with me bearing my testimony to the children, pointing to President Hunt and telling them (my children) that I sustained him, pointing to my Bishop and telling them I sustained him.
Recommended Posts