Disciplinary Council Unless Passing The Heavenly Gate Is Withdrawn From Publication

[ERayR]

Mr. Duffer comes across in his latest post like someone who (figuratively) would stab you in the back, all while smiling to your face and telling you how sorry he is about it.

 

He seems to be either delusional or very two faced.

 

I vote for delusional.

[smac97]

Mr. Duffer comes across in his latest post like someone who (figuratively) would stab you in the back, all while smiling to your face and telling you how sorry he is about it.

 

He seems to be either delusional or very two faced.

 

Yes, public declarations that his is being monitored in some sinister fashion by the Brethren is not a sign of a healthy perception of the Church.  Neither is a church member referring to the Lord's anointed as "you guys downtown."

 

 

-Smac

Edited September 5, 2013 by smac97

[Alan]

As with you on the subject of Joseph and Polygamy.

 

Perhaps best to stay on topic.

[Alan]

I think Bro Snuffer's example in his latest blog regarding the church's attitude to those with same-sex attraction is a very good insight into his thought process. He quotes it as an example of the church moving with the social tide (as opposed to revelation), quotes scripture about "he who looks upon a woman to lust after her" as if merely looking at, or being attracted to, someone is the same as lusting after them. 

He also fails to point out how the church's policy has changed. There is no quote from Bro Joseph or Brigham et al about same-sex attraction to compare the current policy with, but he claims there has been a change on no greater authority than his say so.

 

I found his book to be full of this kind of logic.

Edited September 5, 2013 by Alan

[daz2]

This accounts for the difference between the reaction of the church to socially progressive Mormons (who are tolerated) and me. Those who advocate for the place the church has already decided to go are not a threat to their plans. What I write can create a good deal of difficultly in arriving there.

I need to add that the advocates of socially progressive Mormonism have been far more tolerate of my views than the church has. They (social progressives) are willing to be tolerant precisely because they've had their own view so marginalized in the past. For their kindness toward me I am appreciative. 

 

 

 

Count me among the socially progressive Mormons who believe that there should be room in the Church for those with Denver's views, even though I strongly disagree with them.  

[smac97]

Count me among the socially progressive Mormons who believe that there should be room in the Church for those with Denver's views, even though I strongly disagree with them.  

 

Even if those views include public accusations of the Church being in apostasy?  Publishing books to persuade others that the Church is in apostasy?  Publicly maligning the general authorities and his stake president?  Publicly comparing the Church to Babylon?

 

The LDS Church is a community of faith.  I am curious how you would propose that we maintain that community when one of its constituent members behaves in this way and refuses to turn from this course of action.  Are you saying that the Church should ignore those who break commandments and violate sacred covenants?

 

I certainly want Mr. Snuffer to remain in the Church.  I want everyone to be a member of the Church.  It is a remarkable force for good.  Its teachings make me a better person, and I am convinced that the world would be a much better place if there were more observant Mormons in it.  But being a Mormon requires belief.  Devotion.  Differentiation.  It requires adhering to precepts of faith.  Mr. Snuffer is now publicly speaking out against some of the most important of these precepts.  He is accusing the Church of being in a state of apostasy.  He is writing books and giving lectures with the calculated intent of persuading others to his point of view.  He is attempting to usurp the role of the Brethren.  His local leaders are attempting to work with him, but he appears to not be reciprocating.  Worse, he seems to be entrenching himself in his present course of conduct.  

 

If the Church is to be something more than some loosey-goosey social club, it has an obligation to protect its members from those who - from within or without - are attempting to undermine it.  If Mr. Snuffer's actions constitute apostasy, and if he refuses to repent (the assessment as to either of these issues is not before us), how can there be room for him in the Church?  Would not the Church, in ignoring such apostasy, be abdicating its responsibilities to the members of the Church and to God?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited September 5, 2013 by smac97

[Stone holm]

Even if those views include public accusations of the Church being in apostasy?  Publishing books to persuade others that the Church is in apostasy?  Publicly maligning the general authorities and his stake president?  Publicly comparing the Church to Babylon?

 

The LDS Church is a community of faith.  I am curious how you would propose that we maintain that community when one of its constituent members behaves in this way and refuses to turn from this course of action.  Are you saying that the Church should ignore those who break commandments and violate sacred covenants?

 

I certainly want Mr. Snuffer to remain in the Church.  I want everyone to be a member of the Church.  It is a remarkable force for good.  Its teachings make me a better person, and I am convinced that the world would be a much better place if there were more observant Mormons in it.  But being a Mormon requires belief.  Devotion.  Differentiation.  It requires adhering to precepts of faith.  Mr. Snuffer is now publicly speaking out against some of the most important of these precepts.  He is accusing the Church of being in a state of apostasy.  He is writing books and giving lectures with the calculated intent of persuading others to his point of view.  He is attempting to usurp the role of the Brethren.  His local leaders are attempting to work with him, but he appears to not be reciprocating.  Worse, he seems to be entrenching himself in his present course of conduct.  

 

If the Church is to be something more than some loosey-goosey social club, it has an obligation to protect its members from those who - from within or without - are attempting to undermine it.  If Mr. Snuffer's actions constitute apostasy, and if he refuses to repent (the assessment as to either of these issues is not before us), how can there be room for him in the Church?  Would not the Church, in ignoring such apostasy, be abdicating its responsibilities to the members of the Church and to God?

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

I have not read, and don't intend to read his books, but "apostasy" is a strong term -- does he specifically argue that the Church is in "apostasy", or merely that the Church isn't functioning as it should.  As for publicly maligning General Authorities -- that tends to be a matter of degree,  disagreeing with or finding a GA's conduct or statements disagreeable should be tolerated, speaking evil of the Lord's Annointed is not tolerated -- question is to what extent do we want to allow members to hold GAs accountable for their acts and statements?  It would be a dangerous situation to say no mere members can hold a GA or Stake President publicly accountable, but if it is pure maliciousness that is something else.

[Calm]

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2012/06/trick-to-apostasy.html

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2012/06/trick-to-avoiding-apostasy.html

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2012/06/salvation-and-signs.html

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2012/06/gods-people.html

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2012/06/prophetic-and-priestly.html

Edited September 6, 2013 by calmoriah

[smac97]

> I have not read, and don't intend to read his books, but "apostasy" is a strong term 

 

====I agree that "apostasy" is a strong term.  But it appears to be the charge against Mr. Snuffer by his stake president.

 

> -- does he specifically argue that the Church is in "apostasy", or merely that the Church isn't functioning as it should.  

 

==There have been ample citations to Mr. Snuffer's writing on this point.  Many of his readers have come to the conclusion that this is his thesis (witness the many reviews of his book on Amazon).  This thread includes many statements which seem to be nigh-unto-impossible to explain away as anything other than an accusation that the Church is in apostasy.

 

==Personally, I kinda like the way disciplinary actions work.  The issue Mr. Snuffer's status is not before us, and I do not think we should venture into much speculation about it, and should instead let the disciplinary process take its course.  But when it comes to his public declarations about the Church, I think we are free to assess them and draw reasonable conclusions.

 

> As for publicly maligning General Authorities -- that tends to be a matter of degree,  disagreeing with or finding a GA's conduct or statements disagreeable should be tolerated, speaking evil of the Lord's Annointed is not tolerated -- question is to what extent do we want to allow members to hold GAs accountable for their acts and statements?  

 

==Mr. Snuffer's accusations are that the Church is in a state of apostasy, and that this state of affairs is being both perpetuated by current GAs and deceitfully hidden from the church membership by current GAs.

 

> It would be a dangerous situation to say no mere members can hold a GA or Stake President publicly accountable, but if it is pure maliciousness that is something else.

 

==I respectfully disagree.  I do not think it is the place of members to publicly accuse GAs of apostasy and to call them to repentance.  Frankly, I am hard pressed to define a situation where a freewheeling church member making public accusations of apostasy at another would ever be appropriate.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[ksfisher]

  It would be a dangerous situation to say no mere members can hold a GA or Stake President publicly accountable, but if it is pure maliciousness that is something else.

 

How would one go about holding his Stake President publicly accountable?  In what instances do you believe this would be appropriate?

[rpn]

You seriously think that God cannot hold Bro. Snuffer accountable, all by Himself if He chooses to do so?   He doesn't need fallible members who get all upset at the words someone says when no  one has complained of being led astray, to do so.   If the church "protects" itself and the faith of its members by "shooting down" or "cutting off" those that criticize their leaders, how does that help the Lord's cause at all?  

 

Yes, Bro. Snuffer's latest post may be silly (and even stupid when it comes to boy scouts and ssa).   But it is not paranoia to believe that his blog posts are being monitored by church leaders and members.  

 

I just think if Church leaders want to excommunicate members for specific behaviors, they ought to identify what that is so that church members have notice before being in trouble.   Specifics, not "we don't like what he says about the church or the brethern"  "we'll know it when we see it".  They defined apostasy quite narrowly.    Bro. Snuffer's second to last post might have gone there, but nothing else I have read does.   But in any case there should be a public bright line about what things affect a member's membership in the church, not this really dim and changing line that PPs infer affirmatively warrant loss of church membership.

[smac97]

RPN,

 

> You seriously think that God cannot hold Bro. Snuffer accountable, all by Himself if He chooses to do so?   

 

==I am not sure if you are directing this question at me, but I'll answer: I never suggested God cannot hold Mr. Snuffer accountable.  Certainly He could do so.  God could also run the Church all by himself.  And yet, He chooses not to.  He works through servants, who are fallible.  

 

==So your point is ... what, exactly?

 

> He doesn't need fallible members who get all upset at the words someone says when no  one has complained of being led astray, to do so.   

 

==And yet He has put "fallible members" in positions of authority, and given them instructions to protect the Church from adversaries within and without.  Do you deny this?

 

==By the way, how do you know that no one has complained about Mr. Snuffer's writings as having a detrimental effect?  

 

> If the church "protects" itself and the faith of its members by "shooting down" or "cutting off" those that criticize their leaders, how does that help the Lord's cause at all?

 

==First, whom are you quoting when you use the phrases "shooting down" and "cutting off?"

 

==Second, are you suggesting that excommunication for apostasy is not appropriate?  If so, then why are we commanded in the scriptures to do just that?

 

==Third, do you really need an explanation as to the harm an unrepentant apostate can inflict, on himself and on others, by remaining in the Church?

 

> I just think if Church leaders want to excommunicate members for specific behaviors, they ought to identify what that is so that church members have notice before being in trouble.   

 

==What evidence do you have that indicates Mr. Snuffer is not on notice as to the charges against him?  Have you read his blog?  The SP letter?  This thread?

 

> Specifics, not "we don't like what he says about the church or the brethern"  "we'll know it when we see it".  

 

==How do you know such specifics have not been provided to Mr. Snuffer?

 

> They defined apostasy quite narrowly.    Bro. Snuffer's second to last post might have gone there, but nothing else I have read does.   

 

==And if you have not read it, it doesn't exist?

 

==Also, is it possible for reasonable minds to disagree about what specific actions may constitute "apostasy?"

 

> But in any case there should be a public bright line about what things affect a member's membership in the church, not this really dim and changing line that PPs infer affirmatively warrant loss of church membership.

 

==First, "bright lines" are few and far between in the Restored Gospel.  We usually are governed by general principles which are to be reasonably interpreted and applied, with the Spirit guiding the entire process.

 

==Second, I can think of many ways a "bright line" rule like you propose would create problems.  Church members could engage in inappropriate behavior, then resort to pharisaical nitpicks to say "Hey, I just walked up to the line, I didn't cross it."  That's not the mindset the Restored Gospel is intended to foster.  I also would point out that many of the controversial comments made by Mr. Snuffer exhibit this type of pharisaical nitpicking.  He is somewhat circuitous in his denigrations of his stake president, the General Authorities, and the Church in general.  "Plausible deniability" is the phrase that comes to mind.

 

==Third, I don't think the situation created by Mr. Snuffer involves ambiguities which could be remedied by a "bright line" rule.  

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited September 6, 2013 by smac97

[Calm]

He doesn't need fallible members who get all upset at the words someone says when no  one has complained of being led astray, to do so. 

 

And when members do complain?  Write letters and talk to their leaders about their family members and friends that have left the Church because of Snuffer's stuff?  Is it appropriate then?

[Deborah]

I just think if Church leaders want to excommunicate members for specific behaviors, they ought to identify what that is so that church members have notice before being in trouble.  

 

Obviously this was done between the church and Snuffer, which is how it should be.

[Calm]

Obviously this was done between the church and Snuffer, which is how it should be.

I believe the letter stated they had been having discussions for about 18 months and that doesn't count the time he spent with his former stake president.

[ksfisher]

You seriously think that God cannot hold Bro. Snuffer accountable, all by Himself if He chooses to do so?   He doesn't need fallible members who get all upset at the words someone says when no  one has complained of being led astray, to do so.   If the church "protects" itself and the faith of its members by "shooting down" or "cutting off" those that criticize their leaders, how does that help the Lord's cause at all?  

 

 

 

Before every disciplinary council in our stake, the Stake President explains that the purpose of such councils are:

 

1) To save the soul of the transgressor.

 

2) To protect the innocent.

 

3) To safeguard the purity, integrity, and good name of the church.

 

It seems as though all parties involved: Mr Snuffer, his present and future readers, and the church could benefit from this council.   

[smac97]

Before every disciplinary council in our stake, the Stake President explains that the purpose of such councils are:

 

1) To save the soul of the transgressor.

 

2) To protect the innocent.

 

3) To safeguard the purity, integrity, and good name of the church.

 

It seems as though all parties involved: Mr Snuffer, his present and future readers, and the church could benefit from this council.   

 

I have been involved in several disciplinary councils (stake and ward level, mostly stake), and I can attest that these guidelines are expressed and followed in our stake as well.  I can also attest that I have never witnessed any untoward or acrimonious feeling by any participant, and that such proceedings are solemn, then are serious, they are conducted so as to allow the spirit's guidance, and the well-being of the individual is the principal focus.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[rpn]

Personally I don't think that the letter gives notice of the things that violate church laws.   And I think it is supposed to.  

 

SMAC, it just seems so unseemly to attack people because they see things differently than you do.   I get that you think you are defending the faith.   I just don't  happen to agree that either the church or the person benefits from excommunication for matters that are not clearly delineated (which they were not in the the letter, where they should have been) and involve opinions (which have no  inherent capacity to damage anyone).    (And I have been excommunicated and rebaptized so I know about benefits/or no thereof.)  We don't defend the church by the response I've read from you.  We make the church seem close minded and revengeful and unwilling to examine its own faults --- none of which is supposed to be the case and most of which I'd suggest is otherwise out of character usually for the participants.  

 

Its kind of like the death of sir thomas more for opposing Henry the eighth's behavior, or tyndale for publishing a book ---- overreaction from the seat of power.   (Yes, I get that it is different because none of us think that 100 years from now people are going to applaud Bro. Snuffers positions.)  Throwing people out of the church (and yes, that is exactly what excommunication is, however it is lovingly wrapped by those who impose it and lovingly accepted by those on whom it is imposed) for thinking and writing and telling their views or opinions is just unconscionable, until or unless it involves actual teaching of false doctrine(s) that have been identified by a bishop and have been explicitly counseled to no longer teach.  Publishing a book is NOT, cannot be teaching false doctrine because it doesn't involve teaching members in any ecclesiastical way at all.   A tour in the secular world is the same.  And asking him to breach contracts isn't even consistent with the gospel (though I doubt the SP was thinking of the wrinkle of not being honest with one's fellow man by doing so.)

 

I don't think the church or its members need saving and protection from the stupid or even opposition of individual members of the church.  Stripping them of all the callings and duties, so that their views cannot be officially expounded is appropriate.  Telling the members that their views are inconsistent with church doctrine, to the extent that specific ones are, is appropriate (where are the apologists in the critique of his positions if they are so dangerous?)  

 

Kicking them out to punish them for having different ideas and for speaking ill of church leaders ends up  in things like the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Edited September 7, 2013 by rpn

[Calm]

rpn, have you read Snuffer's blog extensively?  It is available and doesn't take that long.

[rpn]

I did read it, some, though didn't like the spirit I felt and chose not to spend a lot of time there.  Plenty offensive.  Not what I would write as a member.   Perhaps the second to last apostate.  But also not putting the church or members at risk because opinions have no inherent power to do that.    The church can point out the flaws if it thinks that is important.  Church members can determine how they feel when they read it, and reject it on that basis or their own study.  

 

Surely it is easy to see how the official response gave this all legs that it wouldn't have had, that Snuffer wouldn't have had.

[Stone holm]

Okay, here's a fisking of Mr. Snuffer's most recent blog post:

 

> Compliance (So Far As Possible)

 

==This is the title of the blog post.  I find it somewhat misleading, as if Mr. Snuffer would like to comply with his stake president, but golly, it's just not possible.  His hands are tied.

 

> The problem with Passing the Heavenly Gift has not been its accuracy. The issue raised in the notice I received from the stake president does not say the book is false, contains errors or makes mistakes in history. Rather, it "contains content which must be withdrawn." That is not an indictment of the book's accuracy. 

 

==I disagree with this assessment.  The SP's letter does not address the book's accuracy one way or another.  There is no concession as to its accuracy, nor is there a condemnation of it because of its inaccuracy.

 

> It is considered subversive by those who want to control history to perpetuate a view of events that do not follow the pattern described by the Book of Mormon prophets, Joseph Smith's prophecies, and Christ's description of the conduct of the latter-day gentiles to whom the Book of Mormon would be given.

 

==Hmm.  "By those" refers to ... his SP, I think.  So he's now publicly accusing his SP of perpetuating "a view of events that do not follow the pattern described by {Christ}," which seems like a slick way of saying "a lie."

 

==So Mr. Snuffer is purveying "the pattern" set forth by the prophets and Jesus Christ, and his SP is not.  To be frank, I cannot categorically reject this as a possibility.  It is, after all, possible for a stake president to be wrong and an individual church member under his stewardship to be right.  However, what I can categorically reject is the way Mr. Snuffer is approaching his dispute with his SP.

 

> The first demand is that I cease publication; a task that would involve violation of agreements between me and others. To compensate me for that potential liability and permit me to violate the agreement, I was offered money to cease publication. 

 

==Huh?  Who offered him money?

 

> Offering money to help me violate agreements is not a satisfactory course of conduct. Therefore, I declined; but not before asking those with whom I have contracts if I could be let out of the publishing agreement.

 

==This is neither here nor there.  I don't think Mr. Snuffer would be under disciplinary review if his publication deal left him with his hands tied.

 

==Moreover, it was my understanding that Passing the Heavenly Gift was self-published.  Is that incorrect?  "Mill Creek Press" is referenced in the book, but I has assumed it was a vanity imprint.  So with whom does he have these "contracts?"  What is this "publishing agreement" which compels him to continue publishing the book?

 

> The second demand is that I tell blog readers that the book "contains content that needs to be withdrawn." I will say this: The church believes very much the content of the book needs to be withdrawn. They think this because the book brings to light the babylonian methods church leadership uses to make rapid and dramatic changes. 

 

==Well, there it is (again).  He's accusing the Church - not just his SP - of acting like "Babylon."  The antithesis of Christ's Church.

 

==If it acts like a duck, walks like a duck ...

 

> We are not now the same church restored by Joseph Smith. 

 

==Yes, we are.  It is interesting, though, to see Mr. Snuffer publicly deny this.

 

> Passing the Heavenly Gift shows how that happened. There are social, political and legal forces pulling on the church which the leadership intends to accommodate.

 

==As long as such accommodation is pursuant to God's will, I'm fine with it.  "Render unto Caesar" and the Twelfth Article of Faith teach us that.  Surely there are limits to this concept (the proverbial "Jews in the attic" scenario), but is that what Mr. Snuffer is talking about?  I'm curious as to what "accommodations" he finds objectionable.  

 

> They've already made a step in that direction with the renewed support for the Boy Scouts of America.

 

==Huh.  If anything, the current "social, political and legal forces pulling on the church" would result in the Church abandoning the BSA, not renewing its support for it.  But that doesn't fit Mr. Snuffer's narrative.

 

==Social forces have been against the Church proclaiming The Book of Mormon to be scripture, its leaders to be prophets, etc. since day one.  I don't see the Church buckling to such pressure.  To the contrary, I think the Church has increased the visibility of its singular attributes (the Book of Mormon, missionaries, temples, etc.).  But again, none of this fits Mr. Snuffer's narrative.

 

==This line of thought usually devolves to the Two Biggies: abandonment of polygamy and removal of the priesthood ban in 1978.  As to the first, I am satisfied that this course of action was ordered by God, notwithstanding the "social, political and legal forces pulling on the church" at the time.  Mr. Snuffer and his ilk could dispute this, I suppose, but then he'd have to reject even more scripture which doesn't fit his narrative (the Official Declaration).

 

==Regarding the priesthood ban, I am not persuaded it was implemented by God.  I am however, persuaded that it was removed by God.  Again, I believe this notwithstanding the "social, political and legal forces pulling on the church" at the time.

 

> The church introduced a web page on same sex attraction. Two of the twelve contributed to the page. One of them asserted that same sex attraction is not a sin, but only acting on the impulse would be. This is an interesting accommodation which contradicts the Lord's statement that "whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery in his heart." Or, adds to it: "but if you burn in lust for the same sex that isn't adultery in your heart."

 

==First, note that Mr. Snuffer's accusation here is against the LDS Church proper, not just his local leadership.

 

==Second, it is absurd to equate same-sex attraction with "lust."  Does Mr. Snuffer likewise accuse everyone who has opposite-sex attraction of indulging in "lust" just by having that attraction?  I doubt it.  

 

> The church advocated, and obtained from the Salt Lake City Council, an ordinance prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals in housing and employment. This ordinance was considered a great breakthrough by the gay community in Utah. The Utah Legislature has been influenced by the church to consider a statewide ban on discrimination against homosexuals in housing and employment.

 

==Does the Church encourage housing/employment discrimination against heterosexual fornicators?  Does fornication, regardless of the plumbing of those involved, justify housing/employment discrimination?

 

==I respect divergent viewpoints on this issue, including politically unpopular ones.  However, I would voice my concerns about the LDS Church's position in some venue other than a public one, and in a way other than and adversarial and accusatory one.

 

More in the next post.

 

-Smac

After reading the blog post you cited my first thought was that we are going to see a lot more stuff like this as we reap the whirlwind of having kicked the hornets nest with our political activism. It is a lot more difficult to stop a crusade than start one.

[smac97]

Personally I don't think that the letter gives notice of the things that violate church laws.   And I think it is supposed to.  

I don't think the letter was supposed to be for public consumption. I also don't think it was intended to be a compendium of Mr. Snuffer's behavior. It is a small part of a much larger private conversation, which Mr. Snuffer has unfortunately chosen to crassly publicize.

 

SMAC, it just seems so unseemly to attack people because they see things differently than you do.

This is a bit silly. I am criticizing Mr. Snuffer because I disagree with what he says, just like you are now criticizing me. So are you "attacking" me?

Moreover, I have criticized Mr. Snuffer because he is publicly criticizing his stake president and the general authorities of the Church because they - as you put it - "see things differently than" he does. How is it that he escapes your opprobrium?

 

I get that you think you are defending the faith.  

Well, I guess so. I have been criticizing Mr. Snuffer.

 

I just don't  happen to agree that either the church or the person benefits from excommunication for matters that are not clearly delineated (which they were not in the the letter, where they should have been)

Again, I don't think ambiguity in the charges against Mr. Snuffer are a substantial issue here. And to the extent there is ambiguity in this issue, it has been injected by Mr. Snuffer himself, who mouths platitudes about the Church and its leaders in some places, then vilifies them in others.

 

and involve opinions (which have no  inherent capacity to damage anyone).

May I respectfully suggest that you think that position through a bit more. Korihor, after all, merely shared his "opinions," and as a result, he was found to be an antichrist. I am, of course, not comparing Mr. Snuffer to Korihor in any meaningful sense. I am instead using Korihor to reject the notion that opinions cannot be damaging. Of course[ they can. If a person teaches false doctrine, he cannot avoid the consequences of that by labeling it as his "opinion."

 

(And I have been excommunicated and rebaptized so I know about benefits/or no thereof.)

Nobody likes excommunication, RPN. It's an unpleasant thing, but it can be a necessary thing. And yes, it can be a beneficial thing.

 

We don't defend the church by the response I've read from you. We make the church seem close minded and revengeful and unwilling to examine its own faults --- none of which is supposed to be the case and most of which I'd suggest is otherwise out of character usually for the participants.  

First, you are criticizing me for criticizing others. Does that make you a hypocrite?  (Note: I have no particular problem with you criticizing my views.  Have at 'em!  Just don't be a hypocrite about it.)

Second, you are criticizing me without examining the merits of my criticisms. Does that make you "seem close minded?"

Third, I am criticizing the substance of what Mr. Snuffer is saying. That is, I am examining it and responding to it. That is the very antithesis of being "close minded."

 

Its kind of like the death of sir thomas more for opposing Henry the eighth's behavior,

So criticizing Mr. Snuffer on an Internet message board is "like" the state-sponsored execution of Thomas More?

Sorry, but you lost me there. I will respond to serious comments about this issue, but not ... what you said.

See ya!

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 7, 2013 by smac97

[smac97]

After reading the blog post you cited my first thought was that we are going to see a lot more stuff like this as we reap the whirlwind of having kicked the hornets nest with our political activism. It is a lot more difficult to stop a crusade than start one.

I do not understand your point. What "political activism?" And how does that relate to Mr. Snuffer's accusation of the Church being in a state of apostasy since ... what, 1845?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

 

 

Kicking them out to punish them for having different ideas and for speaking ill of church leaders ends up  in things like the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

 

I don't follow your train of thought here. Can you elaborate?

[iamse7en]

SLT article on this... http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/56835902-180/snuffer-church-mormon-book.html.csp