Disciplinary Council Unless Passing The Heavenly Gate Is Withdrawn From Publication

[Alan]

So is he saying that he thought his children might not believe him? That maybe they would think their father was really disciplined for something else? Even after the SP came out and confirmed to them that he was being disciplined because of the book and for no other reason?

If this was the case, surely the SP's assurances would have removed this concern and he would have gone into the room. But he didn't.

I don't buy it.

[smac97]

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.

Yep. "Bupkus" was my assessment. I suspect that he wanted an excuse to not attend the disciplinary council, so he brought along his children and conditioned his attendance on theirs, knowing full well that their attendance would not be allowed.

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.

Mr. Snuffer knew what he was doing, I think. He either wanted to turn the council into a circus or else create an excuse for not attending.

Another oddity is his remark that the outcome of the council was a "non-issue." Really? Membership in the Church is a "non-issue?" That's the message he wanted to send to his children?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Senator]

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

 

Pbbb...

[smac97]

Pbbb...

I think the proper spelling is "Thpbbb."

In any event, this thread isn't about me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[WmLaw]

Yep. "Bupkus" was my assessment. I suspect that he wanted an excuse to not attend the disciplinary council, so he brought along his children and conditioned his attendance on theirs, knowing full well that their attendance would not be allowed.

Mr. Snuffer knew what he was doing, I think. He either wanted to turn the council into a circus or else create an excuse for not attending.

Another oddity is his remark that the outcome of the council was a "non-issue." Really? Membership in the Church is a "non-issue?" That's the message he wanted to send to his children?

Thanks,

-Smac

You're getting a lot of mileage from the 'non-issue' quote.  If you read his account carefully, I think that you're taking it out of context.

[Senator]

I think the proper spelling is "Thpbbb."

In any event, this thread isn't about me.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I prefer Pbbb,  it produces more spittle on the screen, and hence more satisfying

[LordUther]

CFR please.  The second part.

This actually an interesting conundrum. Having your calling & election made sure guarantees you entry into the CK no matter what you do, unless you commit the unpardonable sin. If you commit grievous sins you will be turned over to the buffetings of Satan until you have paid the price, but then you will achieve your exaltation. So in theory excommunication should be no permanent obstacle to Phillips gaining entry into the CK, but the 2nd anointing, which is the ordinance which seals upon you your calling & election, is a temple ordinance and as all temple ordinances are revoked at excommunication does this reverse your calling & election being made sure...?

[MormonMason]

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.

It is not a matter of time or lack thereof on the part of the apostles or that more people would want it, etc..  It is more a matter that you must be called up and chosen to receive it.  "Many are called but few are chosen."  Those who have received it and live their covenants don't speak of it because it is most sacred, but everyone who pays attention to the temple endowment ceremony already knows of the existence of the ordinance.  S/he who has ears to hear let him/her hear.

[Calm]

 I suspect that......

While we all are driven to attempt to understand why people do the things they do, I am not sure what benefit comes from going to much depth in the process....and I admit I do it in my head constantly, it is a subject that obsesses me...especially when it deals with someone I see as manipulative (which we all are to some degree, but I mean people who do it more consciously to get gain and not so much to protect themselves).  I have just found that sometimes putting something in print makes it more real than it should be...both for me and anyone I am discussing something with.  I need to constantly remind myself that other people are in essence a 'black box' and the moment I start assigning reasons to why they behave the way they do, I am creating a persona that may be total fantasy so I try to limit myself doing so to the circumstances where someone else's behaviour impacts myself or the social groups I belong to...if it is something that is not really relevant to those, I think it is, in most cases, probably wisest to attempt not to go there.  

 

This is hardest when it is essential to do some investigation and analysis in order to protect where it is needed or to prepare ourselves to protect, identifying how far one needs to go  and the line where one needs not to go over is sometimes hard to do because they are so very close together.

 

I am saying this counsel I tell myself out loud because I have this feeling that the conversation is getting very close to the line where I shouldn't be crossing over it and while it may not be that way for others, I feel like it is appropriate enough to suggest that it would be a good thing to consider that it might be.

[Calm]

This actually an interesting conundrum. Having your calling & election made sure guarantees you entry into the CK no matter what you do, unless you commit the unpardonable sin. If you commit grievous sins you will be turned over to the buffetings of Satan until you have paid the price, but then you will achieve your exaltation. So in theory excommunication should be no permanent obstacle to Phillips gaining entry into the CK, but the 2nd anointing, which is the ordinance which seals upon you your calling & election, is a temple ordinance and as all temple ordinances are revoked at excommunication does this reverse your calling & election being made sure...?

My problem with the way people present this ordinance is that all other ordinances are essentially conditional on the person being truly and sincerely committed at a level that is acceptable and only knowable by God.  One can go through one' endowment and sealing, etc. but it is with the understanding that such may not be fully valid if the person isn't sincere or fully aware of implications of the choice (accountable) or various other conditions we attach.  In the end we say "it is up to God to judge".  And we say this even with one of the conditions being that we believe that the Priesthood binds on earth and in heaven.  While there are some blessings people receive immediately, aren't there some blessings that aren't given until the whole process has been gone through and judgment given to each ordinance we undergo?

 

Why would this ordinance be different?  Why would we assume that in this case the binding on earth is such that there are understood to be no other conditions applied?  That if the rite is gone through, it is fully efficacious no matter what?  We don't not believe in infallibility, right?  So why would this ordinance be seen in any way to be infallible...

 

Is it not possible that a mistake was made in giving the ordinance to Mr. Phillips? (not placing blame on him or anyone else, speaking in the abstract here using him as an example because I don't know of anyone else who has claimed to gone through it)  What would that mean in regards to his situation (or anyone else who had received such and then lost faith/left the Church)?

[WmLaw]

My problem with the way people present this ordinance is that all other ordinances are essentially conditional on the person being truly and sincerely committed at a level that is acceptable and only knowable by God.  One can go through one' endowment and sealing, etc. but it is with the understanding that such may not be fully valid if the person isn't sincere or fully aware of implications of the choice (accountable) or various other conditions we attach.  In the end we say "it is up to God to judge".  And we say this even with one of the conditions being that we believe that the Priesthood binds on earth and in heaven.  While there are some blessings people receive immediately, aren't there some blessings that aren't given until the whole process has been gone through and judgment given to each ordinance we undergo?

 

Why would this ordinance be different?  Why would we assume that in this case the binding on earth is such that there are understood to be no other conditions applied?  That if the rite is gone through, it is fully efficacious no matter what?  We don't not believe in infallibility, right?  So why would this ordinance be seen in any way to be infallible...

 

Is it not possible that a mistake was made in giving the ordinance to Mr. Phillips? (not placing blame on him or anyone else, speaking in the abstract here using him as an example because I don't know of anyone else who has claimed to gone through it)  What would that mean in regards to his situation (or anyone else who had received such and then lost faith/left the Church)?

It does make you ponder, doesn't it.  

[smac97]

While we all are driven to attempt to understand why people do the things they do, I am not sure what benefit comes from going to much depth in the process....

I think you are right. I have probably gone too far in my comments. Thanks for the wake-up call. It is appreciated.

-Smac

[Calm]

Thank you for taking it that way, it is always a major debate for me whether to say something or not since I have often been chided for being too cautious.

[ksfisher]

This actually an interesting conundrum. Having your calling & election made sure guarantees you entry into the CK no matter what you do, unless you commit the unpardonable sin. If you commit grievous sins you will be turned over to the buffetings of Satan until you have paid the price, but then you will achieve your exaltation. So in theory excommunication should be no permanent obstacle to Phillips gaining entry into the CK, but the 2nd anointing, which is the ordinance which seals upon you your calling & election, is a temple ordinance and as all temple ordinances are revoked at excommunication does this reverse your calling & election being made sure...?

 

All blessings are predicated upon obedience.  If you don't obey then their goes the promised blessings.  Saying that no sin or disobedience can stop someone who has received their second annointing seems sort of akin to someone saying they've been born again, and hence, saved.

[cinepro]

Instead of disciplining him, it would be cool if the Church came out publicly and asked any members who were interested in Denver Snuffer and his books to read his books carefully, and to then pray and ask if his claims are true. 

 

That should stop the problem right there.  He'll end up with a public storage locker full of books no one wants, and no discipline needed.

[LordUther]

My problem with the way people present this ordinance is that all other ordinances are essentially conditional on the person being truly and sincerely committed at a level that is acceptable and only knowable by God.  One can go through one' endowment and sealing, etc. but it is with the understanding that such may not be fully valid if the person isn't sincere or fully aware of implications of the choice (accountable) or various other conditions we attach.  In the end we say "it is up to God to judge".  And we say this even with one of the conditions being that we believe that the Priesthood binds on earth and in heaven.  While there are some blessings people receive immediately, aren't there some blessings that aren't given until the whole process has been gone through and judgment given to each ordinance we undergo?

 

Why would this ordinance be different?  Why would we assume that in this case the binding on earth is such that there are understood to be no other conditions applied?  That if the rite is gone through, it is fully efficacious no matter what?  We don't not believe in infallibility, right?  So why would this ordinance be seen in any way to be infallible...

 

Is it not possible that a mistake was made in giving the ordinance to Mr. Phillips? (not placing blame on him or anyone else, speaking in the abstract here using him as an example because I don't know of anyone else who has claimed to gone through it)  What would that mean in regards to his situation (or anyone else who had received such and then lost faith/left the Church)?

 

I think the main difference is that all other ordinances that we receive are the beginning of the journey. We are baptised at either the age we become accountable, or if a convert the beginning of our church life, our endowment as we begin adult life. Our sealing marks the beginning of our own eternal family. This ordinance seals upon us the blessings of all those other ordinances, it's the one ordinance that we receive that tells we have done enough...at the end of the journey as it were. But that doesn't mean that there aren't conditions, we must still refrain from the sin against the Holy Ghost and according to section 132 this could also include adultery. Also that with any serious transgression the transgressee then has to suffer the buffetings of Satan until he has paid the price, which seems to suggest to me that they have to pay the price of their own atonement. So it's not like once they have received this ordinance they can do anything they want, and if Phillips has received the 2nd anointing and it hasn't been cancelled by his apostasy then the torment he is going to have to go through before being allowed to enter the CK...well I wouldn't want to be in his shoes.

 

The thing I find interesting is that all of the people who have received this ordinance in over 160 years of history that he's the first to fall away and reveal it...I have to ask myself did he actually receive it? There's plenty of historical evidence for him to have used to compile a story, and he knows the church wouldn't come out and call him a liar, if he is lying. But also saying that there have been higher than he that have fallen further...

[WmLaw]

All blessings are predicated upon obedience. If you don't obey then their goes the promised blessings. Saying that no sin or disobedience can stop someone who has received their second annointing seems sort of akin to someone saying they've been born again, and hence, saved.

One would certainly think so, huh.

[LordUther]

All blessings are predicated upon obedience.  If you don't obey then their goes the promised blessings.  Saying that no sin or disobedience can stop someone who has received their second annointing seems sort of akin to someone saying they've been born again, and hence, saved.

 

Yup, and this ordinance is the blessing received for living such a level of obedience that it can be said in this life "you have proven yourself worthy, you have done enough". No-one said that no sin can stop someone who has received their 2nd anointing, the sin against the Holy Ghost will most definitely stop them. There is nothing doctrinal unsound about being born again, all of us must be, and all of us must be saved through the atonement of Christ. The born agains are doctrinally unsound on the matter because they teach you are saved at the beginning of your journey, whereas we teach that it is the journey, and the 2nd anointing tells an individual they have achieved that end in this life.

Edited September 13, 2013 by LordUther

[Avatar4321]

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.

 

 

Who the heck is Tom Phillips?

[Avatar4321]

Sad to hear he was excommunicated. Though it seeed inevitable if he didn't repent and it sounds like he has no desire to humble himself before the Lord on the matter. I hope that he will quickly learn humility and come back and submit to Baptism.

 

Oliver Cowdery returned and he has much more amazing visions before falling that our friend here has claimed. It's not impossible.

[iamse7en]

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.

 

Interesting observation. Speculating now (I guess as practically everyone does on these boards). Perhaps to not make a make a story they don't want public at all even more public. Or perhaps because they conclude he didn't commit the 2 deadly sins. Or perhaps it just illustrates they really don't like people who have followers who in so many words believe he is a "prophet." Who knows.

[Stone holm]

You know most Mormons in the Church have never heard of this second anointing, and would doubt its existence if they were told of it.

[Tacenda]

You know most Mormons in the Church have never heard of this second anointing, and would doubt its existence if they were told of it.

I guess this guy might have something up his sleeve he's coming out with in October, according to another board. Then the members will know about it, possibly. Edited September 15, 2013 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

Interesting observation. Speculating now (I guess as practically everyone does on these boards). Perhaps to not make a make a story they don't want public at all even more public. Or perhaps because they conclude he didn't commit the 2 deadly sins. Or perhaps it just illustrates they really don't like people who have followers who in so many words believe he is a "prophet." Who knows.

It just dawned on me, several people get ex'd while still believing. For instance, adultery & murder. And I found out that the church handbook states apostasy as a cause for excommunucation

[Calm]

I guess this guy might have something up his sleeve he's coming out with in October, according to another board. Then the members will know about it, possibly.

I will believe that when I see it.  He is not the first that has claimed they had something to bring down the Church.