Disciplinary Council Unless Passing The Heavenly Gate Is Withdrawn From Publication

[strappinglad]

I had to chuckle about the " cult of personality"  statement concerning the latest prophets. That might have applied to Joseph and perhaps to Brigham, but the rest....please !

[Calm]

If they meant teaching false doctrine, then for heaven's sake, why didn't he SAY that and cite the false doctrine?   

 

It was a private letter, not a public one and he had apparently talks with him before.  Why should he have to repeat himself in the letter if he had already told him?

 

Seems to me that we all know that any book is the author's interpretation.  

 

Not according to some of the commentary by his fans that I've read.....plus the author seems pretty certain he's conveying the Word of God as called by God to do according to what I've read of his own comments and not just providing personal interpretation.

 

You may also know by that sign that He has given to me the words I have faithfully taught as His servant.

 

Edited August 24, 2013 by calmoriah

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

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

Wow, you can tell others when your calling and election is made sure?

Let me tell you bout ,one...

It was the 3rd of September,

A day I'll always remember.

Pa Pa was a rolling stone,

Where ever he laid his was home.

What that is another story about Pa Pa... sorry guys now try getting that one out of your head.

Edited August 24, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Bernard Gui]

This will not end well.

[Deborah]

If they meant teaching false doctrine, then for heaven's sake, why didn't he SAY that and cite the false doctrine?  

 

You don't think that teaching that past and present prophets called by proper authority and sustained by the church are fallen prophets isn't false doctrine? Or that putting himself in the position of teaching correct doctrine while the anointed prophet doesn't, isn't making him a false prophet .

 

I am very familiar with what these people teach and they are apostate in every sense of the word. They may claim they want people to stay in the church but they are intent on undermining their testimonies.

[mercyngrace]

This is just a sad turn of events. Like Kate, I used to read Denver's blog and I found his commentary on scripture thought provoking, even when our interpretations were at odds. This action was certainly predictable. I haven't read the blog in ages and last time I did, Denver was talking about how when the Lord corrected the course of His kingdom it would be from within the LDS church as that was the last place He interacted with man (or something along those lines). However he meant that, it certainly sounds like he's describing the current church as being in apostasy. 

[iamse7en]

Have several of his books, enjoy reading his blog and been following his story. Rumor has it that Elders Rasband and Christofferson have been reading his books and reported backkto his SP. Given his popularity, I'm sure the decision to move to disciplinary council came from above. I disagree with his views on church history, but not sure this is a wise decision. Liberal NOMs are much more destructive than Snuffer, but I think the real difference here is that Snuffer has a very passionate following. The Church is probably worried about people who coalesce around an individual, particularly when these "Snufferites" regard him as a prophet. Perhaps they want to nip this in the bud. This won't be pretty.

[Bernard Gui]

Have several of his books, enjoy reading his blog and been following his story. Rumor has it that Elders Rasband and Christofferson have been reading his books and reported backkto his SP. Given his popularity, I'm sure the decision to move to disciplinary council came from above. I disagree with his views on church history, but not sure this is a wise decision. Liberal NOMs are much more destructive than Snuffer, but I think the real difference here is that Snuffer has a very passionate following. The Church is probably worried about people who coalesce around an individual, particularly when these "Snufferites" regard him as a prophet. Perhaps they want to nip this in the bud. This won't be pretty.

Nothing like those good old faith-promoting rumors.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Perhaps so, but (as non-Mormon scholars like Jan Shipps correctly point out) this has to do with boundary maintenance.  He has already published a series of books and has made specific comments on his blog.  His leadership clearly wants him to cancel his speaking tour, or to be an excommunicated non-Mormon while he delivers those speeches.  They also want him to withdraw his book.  I see no reason for them to wait until he does more damage.  They have a responsibility to protect innocent members from being taken in by his foolishness while claiming to be a member in good standing.  Those on the margins will naturally interpret all such actions in accord with their preconceptions.

 

This sort of thing has certainly happened before, and it is always messy, but it cannot be avoided.

[ZelphtheGreat]

If mischaracterizing doctrine is the same as teaching false doctrine Gordon Hinckley with "polygamy is not doctrinal" and 'I don't think we teach that' on eternal progression was teaching false doctrine.

 

LDS leadership would do well to let the man publish what he will, leave him to his testimony as he has stated it and quit trying to be censors. As with most LDS leaders they seem incapable of reading and understanding critical analysis, commentary an conclusions so attack what they are not able to understand.

 

 

[David T]

He's not just publishing historical analyses. He's claiming heightened spiritual knowledge, personal appearances by Jesus to him to bolster his appearance of rightness in the sight and of God, and then suggesting the Leadership have lost the ability to take people where he is training them to go. Denials or not, his behavior, without stewardship or authority, is setting up a group of disciples who view him as a more pure or enlightened prophet. The Church has seen this before, is telling him to stop this behavior.

Edited August 25, 2013 by David T

[Duncan]

He's not just publishing historical analyses. He's claiming heightened spiritual knowledge, personal appearances by Jesus to him to bolster his appearance of rightness in the sight and of God, and then suggesting the Leadership have lost the ability to take people where he is training them to go. Denials or not, his behavior, without stewardship or authority, is setting up a group of disciples who view him as a more pure or enlightened prophet. The Church has seen this before, is telling him to stop this behavior.

 

 

That actually sounds like Joseph Smith, with some exception of course! hhahahaha!

[David T]

That actually sounds like Joseph Smith, with some exception of course! hhahahaha!

I actually think that's the point.

[Duncan]

I actually think that's the point.

touche!

[Questing Beast]

 

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

 

 

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

 

How are four phases of church history, with each succeeding phase further away from JS, not apostasy? Isn't this called talking out of both sides of your mouth at once?...

Edited August 25, 2013 by Questing Beast

[rpn]

 

It was a private letter, not a public one and he had apparently talks with him before.  Why should he have to repeat himself in the letter if he had already told him?

Disciplinary letters are the equivalent of the initial pleading in a court case --- designed to give the member formal notice of the specific issues, about which they will be defending themselves.   It is not a private letter, nor can it fairly short circuit what has been said before (even though, of course it is private in the sense that the church would not publish it outside the confines of the council).  But it is part of the record of the council AND part of the appeal process.  Failure to give adequate notice would be grounds for overturning the action, in the appeal process.

 

And for those who argue that this has to be coming from up above, in the David O McKay biography, it is clear that  general authorities have attempted to interfere with the disciplinary council process, and that it IS interfering as GA's have no such authority.   (Not to say that a stake pres might not HEAR pressure even if the GA was intending to inform not to influence.)

 

For the one who talk about how utterly ugly his words are about former prophets (can't find the exact quote again in the time I have), that is "historical analysis"  no matter how ugly the depictions are.    Criticizing people or what people say is not and cannot be false doctrine because people and their behavior cannot be DOCTRINE, however snippy or churlish or ego driven the analysis is.

Edited August 25, 2013 by rpn

[ZelphtheGreat]

The man can be judged by the leaders who called the excommunication hearing.

 

The idea that they can push him to censor the book is as Satanist as anything around. Using their church callings to do so is wrong.

 

They are confusing their responsibilities here.

 

 

[Calm]

The idea that they can push him to censor the book is as Satanist as anything around. Using their church callings to do so is wrong.

 

You don't think teaching apostate doctrine might be a problem that they have a duty to attempt to stop and call the individual to repentance?

[Bernard Gui]

The man can be judged by the leaders who called the excommunication hearing.

 

The idea that they can push him to censor the book is as Satanist as anything around. Using their church callings to do so is wrong.

 

They are confusing their responsibilities here.

His leaders are Satanists? Or just their ideas are Satanist? Are you a Snuffer follower?

[ZelphtheGreat]

The leaders are Judges for the Church and as such have the responsibility for The Church. Their putting 'censor or be kicked out' is wrong and always will be.

 

The Judge his worthiness as a member and that is it. He has the free choice to publish what he believes or wants. This is too much like excommunicating historians for writing history one does not like.

 

I had never heard of the man until this was posted online and a friend emailed me on it.

 

LDS leadership is, I some instances, promoting a modern inquisition against members who question. It is shameful and reeks of the plan proposed by Satan - to force everyone and not let them freely choose. People like this would probably destroy a printing press because they did not like what was printed on it. They do not really believe the Constitution of the US  and especially not that it was divinely inspired.

 

Church stuff stays in church and using ones church authority to beat someone over the head and attempt censoring books is evil, wrong and should never happen.

[David T]

So we're clear and on the same page, here is the Church's definition of Apostasy (from Handbook 1, 6.7.3), as it concerns disciplinary action. If there is evidence that the individual's behavior fits one of the below categories, "A disciplinary council must be held.":

 

As used here, apostasy refers to members who:

l. Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.

2. Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

3. Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or a higher authority.

4. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.

 

Priesthood leaders must take disciplinary action against apostates to protect Church members.  The Savior taught the Nephites that they should continue to minister to a transgressor, "but if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people" (3 Nephi 18:31; see also Mosiah 26:36)

 

Edited August 26, 2013 by David T

[Duncan]

So we're clear and on the same page, here is the Church's definition of Apostasy (from Handbook 1, 6.7.3), as it concerns disciplinary action. If there is evidence that the individual's behavior fits one of the below categories, "A disciplinary council must be held.":

 

 

that's interesting about the last point, joining another Church, I wonder if a disciplinary council meeting would be held if you were less active or were 'active' and simply joined another Church and just never came back. I know a few people who did that. I know a High Councilor wife is a member of our church but still weekly attends her Catholic Church, as does he but she has given talks and prayed that said some stuff that , I dunno maybe fine in the Catholic Church but doesn't jive in our Church. She is never hostile or said Mormons are wrong or anything

 

the other thing is sometime church leaders don't know much Church doctrine. What if someone just knew more about it then they did, like the Givens' or a Truman Madsen-they obviously aren't anti Mormon but would some Stake Pres. call them on something? Bro. Madsen would have eaten them alive if he believed he knew the truth. To me anyways that point is a little subject to interpretation

[Vance]

The leaders are Judges for the Church and as such have the responsibility for The Church.

 

 

Their putting 'censor or be kicked out' is wrong and always will be.

These two sentences are in total conflict with each other.  You can't have it both ways, so which is it?

Edited August 26, 2013 by Vance

[smac97]

rpn,

 

> Disciplinary letters are the equivalent of the initial pleading in a court case --- designed to give the member formal notice of the specific issues, about which they will be defending themselves.   

 

==I respectfully disagree.  There is no equivalency here.  Initial pleadings in a court case are, in almost all cases, intended for public consumption.  The letter to Mr. Snuffer was not (it was addressed solely to him, it was hand-delivered to him, the Church intended it to be a private communication, etc.).

 

> It is not a private letter, nor can it fairly short circuit what has been said before (even though, of course it is private in the sense that the church would not publish it outside the confines of the council).  

 

==This is patently incorrect. It is nothing but a private letter.

 

> But it is part of the record of the council AND part of the appeal process. 

 

==All of which is an entirely private proceeding.

 

> Failure to give adequate notice would be grounds for overturning the action, in the appeal process.

 

==Which appeal process is entirely private in nature.

 

> For the one who talk about how utterly ugly his words are about former prophets (can't find the exact quote again in the time I have), that is "historical analysis"  no matter how ugly the depictions are.

 

==I am not sure I understand how labeling his words as "historical analysis" renders them something other than what they are alleged to be: "evil speaking."  These are not two mutually exclusive categories.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited August 26, 2013 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

The leaders are Judges for the Church and as such have the responsibility for The Church. Their putting 'censor or be kicked out' is wrong and always will be.

I could scarcely disagree more strongly with your characterization of it as censorship. The man is not being censored. He is free in any event to say or write anything he can get a publisher to publish -- or publish it himself, if necessary. What he is not free to do is to choose the consequences of his public statements. No one enjoys that kind of license. With the very act of writing this post, I face the consequences of incurring the displeasure of you and others who disagree with me. That's life. It's the price one pays for speaking one's mind in public.

  

The Judge his worthiness as a member and that is it.

 

You are overlooking the fact that worthiness entails refraining from engaging in apostasy as it has been defined in the Church of Jesus Christ and as it has been cited by David T on this thread.

 

He has the free choice to publish what he believes or wants.

 

 

He is not being deprived of that choice. What you are arguing for is license to escape any consequences that might flow from such a choice. See above.

 

This is too much like excommunicating historians for writing history one does not like.

 

It's actually quite a bit different. It is taking an advocacy position that allegedly undercuts the Church of Jesus Christ and its leaders. Hardly what garden-variety historians do.

 

 

I had never heard of the man until this was posted online and a friend emailed me on it.

 

Which is neither here nor there as it pertains to the discussion at hand.

 

 

LDS leadership is, I some instances, promoting a modern inquisition against members who question. It is shameful and reeks of the plan proposed by Satan - to force everyone and not let them freely choose. People like this would probably destroy a printing press because they did not like what was printed on it.

 

 

And I think your histrionics here are absurd.

 

They do not really believe the Constitution of the US  and especially not that it was divinely inspired.

 

 

The Constitution in no way precludes citizens from forming societies or associations and setting conditions for membership in said societies. Such a preclusion would be despotic and antithetical to the principles upon which the Constitution was framed.

 

Church stuff stays in church and using ones church authority to beat someone over the head and attempt censoring books is evil, wrong and should never happen.

 

Conditions for membership in the Church of Jesus Christ have long been established. It is neither evil nor wrong to enforce said conditions by withdrawing membership and its privileges from one who fails or refuses to conform to those conditions. And it is definitely not censorship nor deprivation of one's freedom to speak or write.

Edited August 26, 2013 by Scott Lloyd