Disciplinary Council Unless Passing The Heavenly Gate Is Withdrawn From Publication

smac97 · August 26, 2013

I have spent some time reviewing Bro. Snuffer's blog. A few thoughts:

1. I agree with the majority of what he has to say. He appears to be quite erudite.

2. In one post he states: "We're losing the battle with many of these souls. The more honest and intellectually open of our members are being taken in traps precisely because their greatest strengths (confidence and openness) allow the critics to show them our weaknesses. This should not be allowed to happen. Narrow-mindedness and dogmatism, as a result of fierce and unrelenting loyalty to an institution, should not rule the day."

I question his criticism of "fierce and unrelenting loyalty to an institution," both because he characterizes this as a bad thing in and of itself, and also because he claims that it results in "narrow-mindedness and dogmatism." I don't agree with either of these sentiments.

I have a "fierce and unrelenting loyalty to an institution" in my life. That institution is my family. That does not mean I am "narrow-minded" and "dogmatic" about my family, or that I am unaware that we have much to work and improve on. To the contrary, I am quite aware of my shortcomings and try hard to address and overcome them. However, I do not address and overcome the weaknesses in my family by publishing a book about them and proclaiming them to the world. That's simply not a healthy or helpful mechanism for affecting change in my family.

One sure way to weaken my family would be to distance myself from it and its faults, to abandon the sense of "fierce and unrelenting loyalty" to it which I now have. There are many voices and vices in the world which could tear my family apart, and my loyalty to my family is nothing but a virtue in terms of shoring up my family against the attacks against it.

I submit that the same concept applies to the LDS Church. Because I believe it is what it claims to be, it deserves, and will receive, my "fierce and unrelenting loyalty." I am not blind or indifferent to the problems in the Church and the flaws of its constituent members and leaders. But I will not use those problems/flaws as justification to weaken my loyalty or to the Church or to betray its trust by publicly speaking out against it.

3. A review of the Amazon readers' reviews of Bro. Snuffer's book, "Passing the Heavenly Gift," yields some interesting observations from readers. For example, some reviews impute the idea that Bro. 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."

I think that a Latter-day Saint who writes a book which results in reactions such as these would need to engage in some serious introspection.

4. Bro. Snuffer seems to be saying what I think are the right things throughout his blog:

"There is really no reason to complain about the church. That is a role I would never want to assume.

...

I think avoiding the role of "accuser" and filling the role of patient forbearance with others' shortcomings is the only wise course in life."

(http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2010/03/accuser-of-our-brethren.html)

"I sustain today’s church leaders as prophets, seers and revelators. The scriptures give them the right to use those titles (D&C 107: 92). They preside, and it is their right to do so.

...

They carry heavy burdens and have my sympathy, not my judgment, for any human frailties they display.

...

It is utterly untrue that I have said the church is apostate."

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

"The role of accusing is left to 'the accuser of the brethren' or Satan. (Rev. 12: 10.) When we accuse others we interfere with their salvation."

(http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2010/08/2-nephi-30-2.html)

I wonder how Bro. Snuffer reconciles these statements with reader reactions to his book.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 26, 2013 by smac97

daz2 · August 26, 2013

There are two possible bases as I see it here:

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.

As to 1, what does it mean to be in clear, open and deliberate opposition to the Church and its leaders?

Does supporting same sex marriage clearly, openly and deliberately constitute #1? Does openly, deliberately and clearly stating a view that the BofM or BofA are nonhistorical documents (albeit inspired)? Does clearly, openly, and deliberately opposing a zoning waiver for the MTC to build a higher building? Liquor by the drink? Advocating an enforcement only position on immigration? What about clearly, openly and deliberately advocating a rewrite of youth manuals? Or opposing city creek? Or claiming that the Church's prior practice on race/lineage was human rather than God inspired, and was wrong? Or criticizing correlation as stifling of spiritual development or creating boredom?

What is it that Denver has written or said that it is in "open, clear and deliberate opposition"--particularly given his clear statements that he sustains the Brethen as having the keys?

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.

As long as a person--like Taylor Petry--makes clear that their speculations or theories about theology are their own opinions or thoughts, and not the Church's, how can one violate this? My guess is that Denver also makes clear that what he writes are his own interpretations and do not represent the Church's.

Has his stake president annotated the book in question--in a similar way that the first edition of Mormon Doctrine was annotated by a reviewing committee?

ZelphtheGreat · August 26, 2013

The problem with the sections below is simple. Selective enforcement.

Mario Rubio is a practicing Catholic.

"a young Rubio had an unusual control over his family's religious identity, helping bring them to the Mormon faith and then back to Catholicism.

"He really convinced his whole family to switch religions," says cousin Michelle Denis.

As I wrote, Selective enforcement.

What compounds this as an evil thing is the sad fact that The Brethren too often direct those below them to take action against these members. If they had an ounce of courage and honor they would do so themselves and take the heat for it. Joseph Smith and his Apostles did so. For all their faults they did have the strength of their convictions.

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.":

Calm · August 26, 2013

I wonder how Bro. Snuffer reconciles these statements with reader reactions to his book.

To the point...as always.

Scott Lloyd · August 26, 2013

What compounds this as an evil thing is the sad fact that The Brethren too often direct those below them to take action against these members. If they had an ounce of courage and honor they would do so themselves and take the heat for it. Joseph Smith and his Apostles did so. For all their faults they did have the strength of their convictions.

A moment's rational consideration is enough to bring the realization of how foolish it would be in a church of 14-plus million members to expect the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve to deal personally with each and every matter that comes up for disciplinary action. Joseph Smith and the (not "his") apostles administered the Church at a time when it was a miniscule fraction of the size it is today.

And CFR that the Brethren "often direct those below them to take action against ... members." It is a long-established policy that discipline in the Church is a matter delegated to local priesthood leaders who are in the closest and best position to consider the circumstances surrounding the infraction, whatever it may be. For affairs that fall within their pastoral watch care, they are as entitled to divine guidance as any Church leader above them in hierarchy.

And I submit that, not being privy to the individual circumstances, you are not in a position to judge whether or not there is "selective enforcement."

Edited August 26, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

Deborah · August 26, 2013

However, I do not address and overcome the weaknesses in my family by publishing a book about them and proclaiming them to the world. That's simply not a healthy or helpful mechanism for affecting change in my family....

I submit that the same concept applies to the LDS Church. Because I believe it is what it claims to be, it deserves, and will receive, my "fierce and unrelenting loyalty." I am not blind or indifferent to the problems in the Church and the flaws of its constituent members and leaders. But I will not use those problems/flaws as justification to weaken my loyalty or to the Church or to betray its trust by publicly speaking out against it.

This to me is the key to disciplinary action and the issue I have with all these groups and individuals who are seeking to open the eyes of others. It is one thing to speak privately to an indivdual but to publicize the problems is very harmful. If the church is so wrong why does someone want to remain part of it in any case. I'm not blind or indifferent either but one doesn't air his dirty laundery in a public venue.

Avatar4321 · August 26, 2013

This is exactly what my sister and her husband believe and preach. There is a growing number of people who seem to believe this; they have nothing to offer instead but insist everyone else embrace their beliefs or they are also fallen.

I have such a hard time seeing their point of view because I believe that Pres. Woodruff did receive a revelation showing him what would happen to the church if plural marriage were continued as he was determined to have it continue. Also I believe the revelation on the Priesthood was exactly at the right time and in the right circumstances. The Lord lets things happen when they need to.

I'm glad I am not the only one who believes that PResident Woodruff did recieve the revelation showing him what would happen. I think many have.

When I was first investigating whether the Church was true or not, the Spirit testified to me that a number of Prophets were prophets. Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff. J F Smith. and some others. I dont think I've had a direct revelation on every one but most of them and I believe the rest are Prophets as well. I dont think the Spirit would have revealed that to me otherwise. I am not sure all have recieved such witnesses in the Church so I can understand how some can be lead astray.

Avatar4321 · August 26, 2013

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.

Im not particularly familiar with this guy, but why are people following him if he is not doing anything as he claims?

Avatar4321 · August 26, 2013

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.

Is that what he is doing? He really says he has had personal appearances from Jesus?

Im not an expert on Christ appearing to people. But I understand we aren't to be liberal with sharing such experiences.

Avatar4321 · August 26, 2013

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.

How on earth is it satanist to bring a disciplinary court on a person if they are publishing false doctrine? If the publishing of the book is promulgating false doctrine, wouldn't part of the repentence process by refraining from future publication.

Orson Pratt was nearly excommunicated over HIs publications in The Seer. He stopped publishing it. How can you repent of promulgating false doctrine if you continue to publish that doctrine to the world?

iamse7en · August 27, 2013

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013/08/current-events.html

This is a done deal. (Tone of that post + pressure from above = goodbye Brother Snuffer)

Avatar4321 · August 27, 2013

The link to his blog doesnt load for my browser for some reason.

Calm · August 27, 2013

Avatar, since there may be copyright issues, I did not post the blog here, but did send you via PM the relevant text. Let me know if you didn't get it.

bluebell · August 27, 2013

Where Denver says-"There are laws ordained before the foundation of the world. The church must act in accordance with one law, and I must act in accordance with another for the purposes of the Lord to be fulfilled. Don't think you can foresee what the Lord has already ordained. It will follow His pattern, and there will be consequences."-is very creepy.

He's basically set himself up as a prophet who is above the church. Like someone else said, this isn't going to end well.

Calm · August 27, 2013

When we (meaning church members) caused or contributed to his death, we offended heaven in a way that required three and four generations to pass before we receive another opportunity from the Lord.

Why would the actions of a few men have placed condemnation on the entire church?

Seems to contradict the 2nd AofF:

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression [or anyone else's].

There is so much that needs to happen in these last days that our time must be spent anxiously engaged in things that matter. There's just no time to waste on trivial matters. Hopefully, the upcoming talks will allow you to see what the Lord would like done, and provide a framework and understanding for you to do something about it.....

With the recent passing of Eldred G. Smith, we have a milestone representing the end of those required generational passings. Now is the first time it is possible for the Lord to recommence the restoration. But it won't commence again without us knowing what we lack. Conceit and arrogance will never redeem us from our fallen state. But contrition and repentance might.Passing the Heavenly Gift is intended to inspire those who are downfallen in their faith, and to help those who are prepared to hear it, that we (all of us, including me) are in a fallen state from which we must awake and arise.

It appears he believes he is there to lead people to correct the error of the Church.

He told me a great deal at the start about what was going on behind the scenes, which matched what the former Stake President had been telling me during his tenure. Those details are unimportant, and I have no intention of making them public.

Yes, much better just to let people imagine the worst once you've set the wheel of gossip in motion with vague accusations.

Avatar4321 · August 27, 2013

Where Denver says-"There are laws ordained before the foundation of the world. The church must act in accordance with one law, and I must act in accordance with another for the purposes of the Lord to be fulfilled. Don't think you can foresee what the Lord has already ordained. It will follow His pattern, and there will be consequences."-is very creepy.

He's basically set himself up as a prophet who is above the church. Like someone else said, this isn't going to end well.

No. It's not going to end well. Thank you cal for helping me read it for myself.

When I read what he wrote, it was his total lack of concern for his standing before the Lord that I found odd. I am always concerned about my standing before the Lord. When I am not, it's usually because I've done something stupid or been neglectful and taken myself from the Lord.

The Lord has called people to preside over us. To teach and rebuke us, if necessary. Even if I was totally convinced what I was doing was right, I would be concerned that those the Lord has put in to my life to help are trying to bring me back. It would make me question what I was doing. I've found that even if I don't exactly agree with what a local leader might do, the Lord is seeing whether we will be humble or not. Especially when that local leader's motivation is purely out of love for us.

Pride is an easy sin to see in others and a difficult one to recognize in ourselves. I am praying that this brother wakes up before he cuts himself off from the priesthood authority he claims to hold and yet not hold. (Which is weird).

Calm · August 27, 2013

I would love to know the side of the story from his former SP and his current one. Of course we will never know because they won't be sharing it publicly which allows him to say pretty much anything he wants to about what happened or is happening.

The letter sent by the SP certainly didn't have the tone I would expect from the picture that Snuffer is painting though.

Calm · August 27, 2013

When I read what he wrote, it was his total lack of concern for his standing before the Lord that I found odd. I am always concerned about my standing before the Lord. When I am not, it's usually because I've done something stupid or been neglectful and taken myself from the Lord.

Reminds me of the Brother of Jared and how he was scolded for not calling on the Lord for so long.

Bernard Gui · August 27, 2013

I would love to know the side of the story from his former SP and his current one. Of course we will never know because they won't be sharing it publicly which allows him to say pretty much anything he wants to about what happened or is happening.
The letter sent by the SP certainly didn't have the tone I would expect from the picture that Snuffer is painting though.

Kind of a passive/aggressive approach to criticizing Church leaders...going right up to the precipice, but "Aw shucks"ing on the step back. Comparing the new stake president to a "New Pharaoh in Egypt" and himself with Joseph is a step over the edge...Pharoah, of course, being a pretender to the true priesthood and Joseph being sent to save him and the Egyptians and everyone else. This will not end well. Edited August 27, 2013 by Bernard Gui

Avatar4321 · August 27, 2013

Reminds me of the Brother of Jared and how he was scolded for not calling on the Lord for so long.

What I've always found interesting about that account is the Lord gives Him a great rebuke before giving him some of the greatest revelations in the history of the world. Some so great, we still don't have an account of them.

That gives me hope that the Lord can help this brother return.

Let's pray for him. Perhaps the Lord will let our prayers work for his benefit.

Bernard Gui · August 27, 2013

What I've always found interesting about that account is the Lord gives Him a great rebuke before giving him some of the greatest revelations in the history of the world. Some so great, we still don't have an account of them.

That gives me hope that the Lord can help this brother return.

Let's pray for him. Perhaps the Lord will let our prayers work for his benefit.

Amen to that.

Calm · August 27, 2013

You have a good heart, Avatar. You too, Bernard.

Avatar4321 · August 27, 2013

You have a good heart, Avatar. You too, Bernard.

Well, I seriously don't want to see him fall away from the Church. Ive been noticing lately that I just want to shout it from the rooftops that the Gospel is true and invite people to come to Church. The Spirit is downright powerful. It makes me happy. I suppose it's probably because ive been much more consistent with Church attendence and studying scriptures.

smac97 · August 27, 2013

Okay, I've given Bro. Snuffer's most recent post a solid read. In the main, it is saddening. A few thoughts (">" denotes quotes from his post):

> The church must act in accordance with one law, and I must act in accordance with another for the purposes of the Lord to be fulfilled.

==This is troubling. I do not think the Lord operates this way. I do not think He commands the leaders to obey one set of laws and then commands individual members of the Church to act crosswise to those laws. God's house is a house of order. This would be like me telling one of my children to obey the Law of Chastity but then telling another to violate it. It just does not compute for me.

==I am also reminded of similar remarks made by Richard Dutcher when he was exiting the Church a few years back. Specifically, he said "The past few years have been very difficult for me. I’ve been trying to continue my journey toward God while carrying a boat on my back. I hope no one will take offense at this metaphor. I’m not saying that all of us have to leave the boat of Mormonism behind. Many of you will arrive Home in these boats, I’m sure. But, for some unknown reason, our mutual Father in Heaven requires that I take another route." Uh . . . no. I don't think God works this way. (Another brief observation: Elsewhere in his parting letter, Mr. Dutcher extols the virtues of "really expensive Irish beer" and Lapsang Souchong tea. I suppose God gave him his own unique Word of Wisdom. Convenient, that.)

==This sort of special pleading and justification coming from a person who is exiting the Church gives me some serious pause. This pause relates to the person exiting, not the Church. This pause is in response to the sentiment reflected above, which essentially consists of A) publishing statements to the world which B) aggrandize the exiting individual while C) trying to make the Church look bad and D) excuse the exiting individual from observance of the commandments and E) instead explains that God has given the exiting individual a unique / different / better / higher path to proceed on rather than staying in the Church.

==Well, I don't buy it. I don't think God operates that way.

> I put the notice up so no one is misled about my status

==The "notice" he is referencing here is the letter from his stake presidency.

> I do not want anyone to think one thing of me when the truth is contrariwise. If someone would be disinclined to attend one of the talks had they known what the church was up to, I do not want them to attend thinking all is well between me and the powers in control of the church. There were two choices. Be criticized for hiding it because I'm not being forthright with people. Be criticized for putting it up because I'm divulging a private matter.

==This is, in a word, bupkus. First, I really doubt that anyone would have doubted Bro. Snuffer if he had simply said something like "I am facing disciplinary action because of a book I have written." Prospective attendees to his talks could then determine whether they want to attend a talk given by a person in such circumstances. So his justification for publishing the stake president's letter just doesn't wash. My initial surmise - that he did so defiantly and to figuratively "flip the bird" at his stake president and the Church generally - seems warranted in light of the above-referenced bupkus explanation.

> Third, my former Stake President defended me against complaints from the Strengthening the Members Committee.

==This committee is involved? And it's making complaints? Of what nature? To whom? In what setting? When? About what?

==Of course, we have no way of verifying any of this, because his former and current stake presidents would not breach the privacy that should surround such proceedings. This leaves him at liberty to say whatever he wants, and to have his say-so unrebutted.

==Moreover, there is no discernible reason to make such a public claim, except to flip the proverbial bird at his current stake president - the one who is considering disciplinary action and who wrote the gentle letter so crassly published by Bro. Snuffer - by pitting against him his former stake president. Not cool.

> His last Sunday as Stake President eighteen months ago he called me in and we talked for several hours about the events that began years before his release. He had defended me continually during his presidency, but he explained there was going to be a new Pharaoh in Egypt who would not know Joseph (so to speak) and he couldn't vouch for what was coming.

==Wow. So now he's claiming that his former stake president preemptively smeared the incoming and current stake president by comparing him to Pharoah. Not only is this not facially plausible, but again, there is no discernible reason to publicize such a claim except to smear his current stake president, to flip the proverbial bird. Not cool.

> The new Stake President has investigated, delayed, discussed this with me, pushed back against downtown, been called in for "training," and received input from the top leadership in the church.

==Wow again. Not only is his current stake president a "new Pharaoh in Egypt" who is not in communion with God and needs guidance from a prophet (Joseph in the old story, Bro. Snuffer in the new), but he is also a puppet being manipulated by The Brethren (note the scare quotes around the word "training"). Again, there is no purpose to saying any of this, except to make the Church look bad and to make Bro. Snuffer look like a victim. Not cool.

> He told me a great deal at the start about what was going on behind the scenes, which matched what the former Stake President had been telling me during his tenure. Those details are unimportant, and I have no intention of making them public.

==Right. Bro. Snuffer (Mr. Snuffer would seem to be more appropriate at this point) is only going to scintillate us with these conspiratorial goings on. "I won't make them public, I'll just announce to the world that there is a conspiracy against me involving my Pharoah-like stake president and shadowy, unnamed 'top leadership' figures. Having said that, however, I have no intention of making these details public, except to say that my stake president is just a puppet in all of this, because this is all being orchestrated by those 'above' at 47 East South Temple. Fortunately, I, being like Joseph the prophet in ancient Egypt, have no axe to grind about any of this."

Sign In

Disciplinary Council Unless Passing The Heavenly Gate Is Withdrawn From Publication

Recommended Posts

smac97

daz2

ZelphtheGreat

Calm

Scott Lloyd

Deborah

Avatar4321

Avatar4321

Avatar4321

Avatar4321

iamse7en

Avatar4321

Calm

bluebell

Calm

Avatar4321

Calm

Calm

Bernard Gui

Avatar4321

Bernard Gui

Calm

Avatar4321

smac97

smac97

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse