Disciplinary Council Unless Passing The Heavenly Gate Is Withdrawn From Publication

[rpn]

 

rpn, on 06 Sept 2013 - 8:11 PM, said:

 

 

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?

 

When we excommunicate people because they criticize leaders and because they have opinions that differ from the mainstream of church thought, when they challenge us to research and to thought, we discourage people from challenging things that need to be challenged.   Good people who followed their leader killed innocents at the Mormon Meadows Massacre.  They should have refused to participate.   But they were so indoctrinated to follow and to accept that they couldn't/didn't.   

 

Yes it is messy in any organization to encourage and allow dissident ideas, even wrongheaded ones.   But acceptance of that is required in order to assure that people know they must stand on the revelation they personally receive, even when it is outside the norm, or against what every one else is doing.  

 

Smart leaders do not quell personal thought and opinions (other than to corral where it is allowed)   The church has no business deciding what a church member can say and think outside the church.   The church can speak the truth, can eliminate all opportunity to speak in church or represent the church, can point out the flaws, can even publicly call the person to repentance, but it just hurts itself when it attempts to punish for evaluating doctrine and practice in ways that are outside mainstream LDS thought.

 

As for the Thomas More and other references ---- the analogy is the person in power taking out dissidents because they don't like what the dissidents say about them.   Substantially similar (at least facially) to the instant case (though of course not death).

[Calm]

  Good people who followed their leader killed innocents at the Mormon Meadows Massacre.  They should have refused to participate.   But they were so indoctrinated to follow and to accept that they couldn't/didn't.  

 

Wow, that is a really simplistic description of an extremely complicated situation.

[rpn]

How is it simplistic.  Brigham Young himself said several months later that his greatest fear wasn't that people wouldn't be obedient enough, but that they wouldn't do their due diligence.

 

(BTW, I'm no talking about following Brigham Young.  I'm talking about having followed the SP who was also in charge on a civil basis.)

Edited September 7, 2013 by rpn

[Calm]

On Sunday, September 6, Haight presented the plan to a council of local leaders who held Church, civic, and military positions. The plan was met with stunned resistance by those hearing it for the first time, sparking heated debate. Finally, council members asked Haight if he had consulted with President Young about the matter. Saying he hadn’t, Haight agreed to send an express rider to Salt Lake City with a letter explaining the situation and asking what should be done.....

The conspirators were now caught in their web of deception. Their attack on the emigrants had faltered. Their military commander would soon know they had blatantly disobeyed his orders. A less-than-forthcoming dispatch to Brigham Young was on its way to Salt Lake City. A witness of white involvement had now shared the news within the emigrant corral. If the surviving emigrants were freed and continued on to California, word would quickly spread that Mormons had been involved in the attack. An army was already approaching the territory, and if news of their role in the attack got out, the conspirators believed, it would result in retaliatory military action that would threaten their lives and the lives of their people. In addition, other California-bound emigrant trains were expected to arrive at Cedar City and then the Mountain Meadows any day.

Ignoring the Council’s Decision

On September 9 Haight traveled to Parowan with Elias Morris, who was one of Haight’s two militia captains as well as his counselor in the stake presidency. Again they sought Dame’s permission to call out the militia, and again Dame held a Parowan council, which decided that men should be sent to help the beleaguered emigrants continue on their way in peace. Haight later lamented, “I would give a world if I had it, if we had abided by the deciion of the council.”

Start with this and I would suggest reading Massacre at Mountain Meadows if you can stomach it, very disturbing and not because they were just so indoctrinated they didn't question their leader:

 

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/09/the-mountain-meadows-massacre?lang=eng

[Calm]

Also:

 

 

 

SESSIONS: In my view there’s one word that tells you why and the word is fear; these guys were scared. All the settlements had been pulled back, Cedar City was ordered to stand. It was the last major settlement between here and California going on the southern route. There were a couple of little, you know, Harmony and there were a few people living down in Washington down that way–but Cedar was it. There were six hundred people in all of Iron County between Parowan and Cedar City. These people were absolutely scared to death. They had been hearing for years the wind over the passes that the Californians were going to come and wipe them out.

You want to have a great (inaudible) if you’re interested in this. You want to see how blessed you are to just get the anti-Mormon stuff that’s out there now. Pick up the Sacramento Bee for the 1850s–hardly a week goes by that in that paper, there isn’t an editorial saying, ‘We need to raise an army and go wipe the Mormons off the face of the earth.’ And the folks in Cedar were scared, in my view, out of their minds that that was exactly what was going to happen.

On Wednesday, some militiamen who were coming out–the massacre happened on Friday–on Wednesday night some militiamen were coming out to- they were told when they were rounded up they were going to go out and bury some people that got killed by the Indians and some of them were coming out and near Pinto Junction they came upon three people from the party making their way back to Cedar City for help.

And not knowing what’s going on, they killed them. They fired on these people. They killed young William Aiden who was, had been a Mormon and was leaving with the party to come to California. Two of these guys, there are various accounts, some say two got away there- or one got away, anyway at least one got away. They killed all three of them eventually. But on Wednesday when only one got away they were just convinced that he made it back to the wagon circle and were telling them, ‘This is not Indians, this is Mormons.’

And I don’t doubt at all that that was the final straw that broke the camel’s back. The decision was made the next day to kill them and it was made out at the Meadows; and Major Higby reported in various accounts, ‘Kill everyone who is old enough to tell the tale.’ And Mormons interpreted that as people at the age of accountability so they tried to pick the kids who looked like they were under eight to save, and killed the rest.

So in my view it was naked fear–they were just scared to death that these guys were going to go on to California and report that Mormons had attacked them and this would bring them in a mob out of California. That’s my view and the view of many other historians as well.

 

 

 

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2003-fair-conference/2003-shining-new-light-on-the-mountain-meadows-massacre

 

Similar preparations continued in Cedar City over the weekend but came to a halt in mid-afternoon on Sunday, 6 September. During the usual council meeting of community leaders from Cedar City and outlying settlements, Laban Morrill lead a faction which heatedly opposed Isaac Haight’s plan. Morrill extracted a promise from Haight that no aggressive action would be taken against any emigrants until they had sought the advice of President Brigham Young. Thus, as things stood in Cedar City, the plan was off.

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre/Summary

Edited September 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[rpn]

Well they didn't refuse to participate, did they?   They did it.  A council decision is not the same thing as a priesthood leader saying, you better not do this because it is wrong to kill innocents just because we are scared of them and what they have said.  

 

And it is not the same as each of the individuals feeling like they could say, I'm just not going to participate.  This is wrong, and all the fear in the world won't make it right.  I'd rather be in trouble for challenging this action than for carrying it out.   (As I recall there were a couple who left the group.)

Edited September 7, 2013 by rpn

[Calm]

Well they didn't refuse to participate, did they?   They did it.  A council decision is not the same thing as a priesthood leader saying, you better not do this because it is wrong to kill innocents just because we are scared of them and what they have said.

Those involved in the council who led the council to decide not to attack were also many of their priesthood leaders though they were acting in the hierarchy of the local militia, not through the priesthood authority.

Edited September 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[ERayR]

When we excommunicate people because they criticize leaders and because they have opinions that differ from the mainstream of church thought, when they challenge us to research and to thought, we discourage people from challenging things that need to be challenged.   Good people who followed their leader killed innocents at the Mormon Meadows Massacre.  They should have refused to participate.   But they were so indoctrinated to follow and to accept that they couldn't/didn't.   

 

Yes it is messy in any organization to encourage and allow dissident ideas, even wrongheaded ones.   But acceptance of that is required in order to assure that people know they must stand on the revelation they personally receive, even when it is outside the norm, or against what every one else is doing.  

 

Smart leaders do not quell personal thought and opinions (other than to corral where it is allowed)   The church has no business deciding what a church member can say and think outside the church.   The church can speak the truth, can eliminate all opportunity to speak in church or represent the church, can point out the flaws, can even publicly call the person to repentance, but it just hurts itself when it attempts to punish for evaluating doctrine and practice in ways that are outside mainstream LDS thought.

 

As for the Thomas More and other references ---- the analogy is the person in power taking out dissidents because they don't like what the dissidents say about them.   Substantially similar (at least facially) to the instant case (though of course not death).

 

First of all I don't agree with your simplistic assessment of the Mountain Meadows massacre. 

 

Second - if some boundaries are not set then organizational fracturing will result with everybody teaching their own doctrine. 

 

Third - Church leaders are not trying to "quell" personal thought.  They are however refusing to let personal thought be taught as Church doctrine.  The Church can and should regulate what is said and done and still be a member of the Church.  A person can still do and say what they want just not as a member of the Church.  It leaves room for personal choice.

 

Fourth - a person still remains free to do and say what they want but they do not have the right to advocate mutiny and anarchy from within the ranks.

 

All too often members of an organization think they have the right to sow the seeds of dissension from within the ranks.  No such right exists.  An organization has the right to maintain whatever standards and narrative they wish and in this case whatever God dictates.  A member has the right to leave if they do not agree with them.

 

Why is it that some wish to hold membership in an organization but then want to change it into something else?

[rpn]

How can you teach any thought as doctrine if you are not having the conversation in the context of an official church class or event?  

How can the church take action against your membership if the opinions you share are not in any approved or official event, or even unofficial conversation in a church building.   

How can any such opinion be considered as "teaching" false doctrine?

 

It is the Lord's church.  One of His prophets (David O McKay) told GA's who were encouraging excommunication of someone in similar circumstances (though admittedly less virulent descriptions of the brethern and less doctrinally related) that the Gospel tent is large enough for people who think differently (I don't recall what his main things were). 

Edited September 7, 2013 by rpn

[Calm]

 

 

And it is not the same as each of the individuals feeling like they could say, I'm just not going to participate.  

 

The question that you seem to feel is completely settled as to why they felt they couldn't say no by pointing to "indoctrination" is much more complicated than that....which is why I called your description simplistic and would add absurdly simplistic now that I have refreshed my memory of events.

 

As to the individuals not feeling like they could say "no"...

 

That is exactly what many said to begin with, a couple of times even and it wasn't until they were out at the site, were they told they had come there to finish the killing that they had to once more make the decision....under dramatically different situations than before with some already dead and both sides convinced the others wanted them that way as well. They were confronted with a decision that had to be made quickly...and unfortunately under time pressures with heightened fear and evidence of a crime they were already a part of by association....with dead already around them and the to them certain threat of retaliation...they made their decision.  

 

It was hardly blind obedience or indoctrination when they had refused to participate before.  It was the same leaders in both cases, at one time they said "no", at the later time they said "yes"....why the difference occurred was not anything to do with priesthood leadership.  (For one thing they were operating under the command of the militia at the time though there was much overlap so perhaps it is hard to determine how they view what authority they were acting under even though it is clear that it was a militia action, not the local Elder's Quorum activity night.)

[ERayR]

How can you teach any thought as doctrine if you are not having the conversation in the context of an official church class or event?   How can the church take action against your membership if the opinions you share are not in any approved or official event, or even unofficial conversation in a church building.    How can any such opinion be considered as "teaching" false doctrine?

 

You seem to misunderstand what doctrine is.  It is not just an thought taught. 

 

Private conversations are fine.  It is when one publicly expounds these thought and conversations as doctrine and refuses correction that the problem arises. 

 

Again it is not simple classroom discussions that we are talking about here.  You seem to be conflating the two.

[Calm]

  I'd rather be in trouble for challenging this action than for carrying it out.  

 

I wonder if you would feel so certain that you would have stood back if you had buried family members in multiple instances, had built home after home only to be driven out of them losing your material possessions, livestocks and sometimes friends and family left behind in graves and here again you are surrounded by rumours of wars (one coming from the east, one coming from the west with nowhere to safely retreat in time with one's belongings so if they managed to escape it would be starting over from scratch) and there are the angry travellers who were worried about having enough food for their livestock....livestock that was currently eating up the potential food source of your own animals....and being told in rumours that these were threatening to come back and destroy you and yours once and for all, that maybe some of them had already killed a beloved man of the community, PPP, and they were bragging about....so many stories, so many tensions...how to choose which were accurate and which if ignored would get you and you loved ones killed.

 

The vast majority of those involved apparently said no, of those that stayed around, they continued to say no and it was the actions of only two men really, Haight and Lee who then persuaded Dame he was wrong that set things on the path of no return.  Lee gets the attacks started by the Paiutes mostly, there may have been some whites that later joined them, Lee never gets the direction to turn the volume down and instead it gets cranked up and people start dying....and now the question is not "do we obey our leaders?"...it never was, there was never a command given yet at that point save to wait and see what Brigham had to say....no, now the question is  "these men are killed, is there any way to get out of this without having the Californians following through on their constant cries of death and destruction now?"

 

Would you have been willing to say, let these strangers go and if they wipe up the Californians with tales of violence and the atrocity that has occurred so be, we will stand our ground before superior forces and watch our loved one perish even with our last breath drawn knowing the nobility of our choice to allow our people to be massacred rather than to be the mass murderers.

[Calm]

 (As I recall there were a couple who left the group.)

And they probably survived due to those who did carry out the action once the violence had been triggered.

 

The choice they thought they had was not just being in trouble, by the end of it, when the choice to kill was made...they believed they had two choices ...one to let the emigrants go and then sit back and wait for an army to come from California to destroy them and their loved ones...and two, coverup the few killings that had occurred by killing all that who might have told others what happened there.  

 

So knowing that your family was depending on you for their safety and well being, would you have put your gun down and walked away and attempted to get others to do so.  Have you ever faced anything similar in your life to judge by.  However about not even being force to choose to take a life or get one taken, but something easier, have you even given up your home to another who felt they need it?  If someone injured you or stole something from you, would you simply let them go out of concern that you weren't going to listen to any authority telling you want to do, but would make up your own mind and of course say "no" to violence....thus allowing for more violence to be perpetuated on others.

[smac97]

The Trib is weighing in (Peggy Fletcher Stack): http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/56835902-180/church-snuffer-mormon-book.html.csp

 

Denver C. Snuffer Jr., a Utah lawyer and Mormon convert of 40 years, faces possible excommunication from the LDS Church on Sunday for writings that assert the Utah-based faith has fallen away from its founder’s vision.

Unlike most earlier high-profile cases of church discipline against Mormon intellectuals, though, Snuffer is no liberal.

 

Fletcher-Stack is a little sloppy with her terminology here.  I think by "liberal" she means social/political liberalism, rather than religious liberalism.  American Mormons are, as I see it, generally religiously "liberal" in their doctrinal views, but are often socially and politically "conservative."

 

In his book, "Passing the Heavenly Gift," Snuffer used the faith’s signature scripture, the Book of Mormon, and founder Joseph Smith’s "divine revelations" to analyze LDS history from Smith’s death in 1844 to the present. He concludes that every Mormon prophet, starting with Brigham Young, caved to social, political and legal pressures to accommodate mainstream American society — starting with giving up polygamy, then becoming more corporate and eventually yielding to "social progressives" by softening language on same-sex attraction.

 

"Today, marketing the institution has become more important to Mormon success," Snuffer writes on the book’s back cover, "than preserving the original religious content."

 

Snuffer insists his understanding of this sweep of history also comes from personal experiences with deity.

 

"The Lord does still personally appear to mankind. I am a witness to that fact. He first appeared to me February 13, 2003," he writes. "I know He lives. I have seen and spoken with Him."

 

I have no particular opinion about whether this event happened or not.  I believe such events can occur.  I also believe that people can lie about such events, or be deceived or deluded.  I will therefore not pronounce an opinion on the veracity of Mr. Snuffer's claim.  However, in the main, I don't think that such experiences are intended for public airing, and I therefore criticize him on that point.

 

In a letter dated Aug. 21, Sandy LDS Stake President Truman Hunt summoned the writer to a church disciplinary hearing, saying "the continued publication of ‘Passing the Heavenly Gift’ constitutes an act of apostasy."

 

The book "is not constructive to [the] work of salvation or the promotion of faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ," Hunt writes. "The book’s thesis is in direct conflict with church doctrine. In your effort to defend the restoration, you have mischaracterized doctrine, denigrated virtually every prophet since Joseph Smith, and placed the church in a negative light."

 

The only way to avoid discipline, Hunt writes, is to discontinue the book’s publication, to tell readers of Snuffer’s blog that it "contains content that needs to be withdrawn," and to abort plans to discuss his views of Zion at a Boise lecture series next week.

 

Snuffer says on his blog, denversnuffer.blogspot.com, that he cannot do those things without breaking his commitments to booksellers and attendees who have already signed up for his lectures.

 

Snuffer intends to defend himself at Sunday’s hearing, he tells The Salt Lake Tribune, but fully expects to be excommunicated.

 

"I think [my stake president] has received instructions to do so from downtown [LDS Church headquarters]," Snuffer says. "I believe the decision has already been made to excommunicate me."

 

LDS officials have said that church discipline is left to local leaders.

 

Huh.  This sounds like sheer speculation on his part.  Innuendo.  However, his blog posts about it seem much more confident.

 

"I am not anxious to chase people out of the church," Hunt writes to Snuffer. "My goal is the opposite — to enable all to enjoy the blessings of the gospel."

Whatever the decision, Snuffer says it won’t change his religious behavior.

 

Well, yes it will.  He won't attend the temple.  He won't give talks or lessons.  He won't have a calling.  He won't have the priesthood and will therefore not be able to give blessings to his family or perform other ordinances.

 

Yes, it will change his religious behavior, and that is unfortunate.  His rebelliousness is unfortunate.

 

If excommunicated, Snuffer would no longer be allowed to partake of the Mormon sacrament (like communion), have a position or speak at church, but he plans to continue attending church, living by the faith’s precepts and prohibitions, including its health code forbidding alcohol, tobacco, coffee and tea.

"I have loved every minute of being a Mormon since I joined the church in September 1973 in New Hampshire," he says. "I am actually advocating activity and fidelity to the Mormon church. "

 

"Fidelity?"  No, he's not.

 

All the father of nine wants, he says, is to alert Latter-day Saints about Smith’s prophecies on the end times that they are unwittingly fulfilling.

"If the book ["Passing"] is true (and I am persuaded it is the most correct account of our dispensation written so far)," he writes on his blog, "then we need to awaken to our present peril and repent."

 

Usurpation.  I am quite willing to consider a situation where the Church, as a body, needs to repent.  However, I do not think such a call to repentance would come from the likes of Mr. Snuffer, but through the Lord's anointed.

 

Also, I reject Mr. Snuffer's central these of the Church being in a state of apostasy since 1845.  I have my own study and experience, both empirical and spiritual, which persuades me that this thesis is incorrect.

 

And Snuffer believes he has an obligation, given from God, to get that message out.

 

Usurpation.  Plain and simple.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Chaos]

 

 

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.

Unless you have proof that a church's excommunication of members results in mass murder do not make such accusations.  It will result in removal from the thread or the board.  Do not use broad brush labels like apologist or anti-Mormon as an easy strawman to beat up.   Use names or examples.  Continued disrespect does have consequences on this board.   

[EllenMaksoud]

Um, so I have not followed this topic. Did he unpub his book?

[sprite]

This is my first post on this (or any) board.  Having read Bro. Snuffer's blog from time to time and read one of his books, I was really shocked and saddened when I saw his posting of his invitation to a church court.  I've been following the comments here and I appreciate what has been written because I'm really trying to figure this out.  Is he truthful when he says he's been visited by the Savior?  I don't know.  If he did, in fact, have this heavenly manifestation how can  he be so off track now? 

I teach GD in my ward and so I have spent a ton of time studying the early church, it's founders and the scriptures.  Oliver Cowdery saw the Savior,  Moroni, Peter, James, John, Elijah, Elisha.  He saw the plates.  He saw visions. John and David Whitmer, Martin Harris, just name a few, all had magnificent manifestations.  At some point, however, they all left for the same reason. They could see faults in the church.   They thought they could run things better than Joseph. They wanted to put the train back on the 'right' track.  I wonder if Bro Snuffer had been around then would he have plenty to find fault with in Joseph?   I have no doubt that this brother will find the same success these early brethren found. 

[SamIam]

This is my first post on this (or any) board.  Having read Bro. Snuffer's blog from time to time and read one of his books, I was really shocked and saddened when I saw his posting of his invitation to a church court.  I've been following the comments here and I appreciate what has been written because I'm really trying to figure this out.  Is he truthful when he says he's been visited by the Savior?  I don't know.  If he did, in fact, have this heavenly manifestation how can  he be so off track now? 

I teach GD in my ward and so I have spent a ton of time studying the early church, it's founders and the scriptures.  Oliver Cowdery saw the Savior,  Moroni, Peter, James, John, Elijah, Elisha.  He saw the plates.  He saw visions. John and David Whitmer, Martin Harris, just name a few, all had magnificent manifestations.  At some point, however, they all left for the same reason. They could see faults in the church.   They thought they could run things better than Joseph. They wanted to put the train back on the 'right' track.  I wonder if Bro Snuffer had been around then would he have plenty to find fault with in Joseph?   I have no doubt that this brother will find the same success these early brethren found. 

 

I have to agree somewhat with your experience.  I am very much interested in the message that Denver addresses in his first book the Second Comforter.  I do remember that as I read it through I could feel a thread of something that I could not put my finger on that caused a sense of unease.  I liked the material but something seemed ever so subtly distracting. I have read other of his material and again it was generally appealing.  My first concern came from interacting with several of his acolytes.  To a fault all of them outwardly appeared to hone in on his message of calling and election but expressed it by chastising the church for not teaching the methods to achieve such and extolling Denver as somewhat of a Messiah figure for his enabling their spiritual growth.

 

Having observed these things, I was required to examine a sense of unrest that came up in my soul.  For a couple of days I was disheartened because in my way and to a much lesser degree than Denver's apostles I found that realizing that his message was destroying some people caused me to conflate the message of having one's calling and election made sure was somehow impacted.  Finally when I realized they are two separate issues the one not reflecting on the other, I could separate Denver and his followers from the message of calling and election and proceed in my life.

 

Part of what put it together was this quote by Brigham that I have always appreciated:

 

 

Brigham Young (Feb. 17, 1856)

    I ask, is there a reason for men and women being exposed more constantly and more powerfully, to the power of the enemy, by having visions than by not having them?" There is and it is simply this--God never bestows upon His people, or upon an individual, superior blessings without a severe trial to prove them, to prove that individual, or that people, to see whether they will keep their covenants with Him, and keep in remembrance what He has shown them. Then the greater the vision, the greater the display of the power of the enemy. And when such individuals are off their guard they are left to themselves, as Jesus was. For this express purpose the Father withdrew His spirit from His son, at the time he was to be crucified. Jesus had been with his Father, talked with Him, dwelt in His bosom, and knew all about heaven, about making the earth, about the transgression of man, and what would redeem the people, and that he was the character who was to redeem the sons of earth, and the earth itself from all sin that had come upon it. The light, knowledge, power, and glory with which he was clothed were far above, or exceeded that of all others who had been upon the earth after the fall, consequently at the very moment, at the hour when the crisis came for him to offer up his life, the Father withdrew Himself, withdrew His Spirit, and cast a vail over him. That is what made him sweat blood. If he had had the power of God upon him, he would not have sweat blood; but all was withdrawn from him, and a veil was cast over him, and he then plead with the Father not to forsake him. "No," says the Father, "you must have your trials, as well as others."

 

I do not know if this is the issue with Denver and such but I do know they have turned against the Church of Jesus Christ and his leaders and must presume that when they were left alone for a bit they lost sight of their blessings and fell to the temptation to perceive themselves somewhat more enlightened than everyone else including the brethren.  It serves as both a witness and a warning.  I still pursue the goals of calling and election but I am warned it is a Brigham states superior blessings = severe trials to prove them.

[Calm]

Um, so I have not followed this topic. Did he unpub his book?

No, he states that he's made commitments with it to others and cannot/will not back out of them.

 

He is, however, the publisher of his latest book, so unless there is something unusual going on, it is likely he may owe people for printing up the latest edition of his book if it is not a print on demand and it is possible that there would be a cost to asking any bookstore owners to return the book for a full refund of their purchase and shipping and handling (a book's cost to the bookstore owner is usually 40-60% of the book's retail price so around $13 per book, I'm guessing), self publishers often distribute the book themselves.  I suspect when he refers to the Church offering him money, if they did so, it was to cover his costs in pulling the book from off the shelves and possibly any rental fee for the latest venue for his series of talks.  It would make sense for the Church to do so if he really had put all previous profits into the missionary fund and thus had no savings or such to use from profits to pay the costs.  Since he doesn't come out and say he can't afford to do so and he doesn't identify what those commitments are and why he can't back out of them (IiCR), I don't see him being between a rock and a hard place but rather a painful but doable choice to pull the book and stop preaching and a choice to continue as is.  

Publisher: Denver C. Snuffer Jr.; 1St Edition edition (August 30, 2011)

 

http://www.amazon.com/Passing-Heavenly-Gift-Denver-Snuffer/dp/0615528961

 

http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2013/05/the-real-costs-of-self-publishing-book/

 

There is a specific company that has been formed to record and publish his talks which apparently he takes no profit from:

 

http://www.publishinghope.info/

 

(they sell their cds at $8 for first, $5 for additional ones; FairMormon sells our conference talks at $2 per cd)

 

It is possibly he feels responsible to them for the money they've invested, but if it has been a for profit venture for them (and at that price I would be shocked if it was a nonprofit)...well, if they really cared about the purpose of the work, then taking the loss out of any previous profits would make sense, but it seems to me the bottomline is that Snuffer does not believe he is in error at all and therefore there is no reason to shut down and many reasons to continue.

 

Previous books look to be published by Mill Creek Press, which may be out of business because I can't find anything after 2009 and their website is gone, books they published in the past and held the copyright on are now published by Snuffer:

 

http://www.ldswm.com/Publishers?id=0000530/mill+creek+press

 

The Amazon book distributor seems to be Barnes and Noble, it is also available on their website.  The only other bookstore I can find online offering it is Confetti Books.

Edited September 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[EllenMaksoud]

No, he states that he's made commitments with it to others and cannot/will not back out of them.

 

He is, however, the publisher of his latest book, so unless there is something unusual going on, it is likely he may owe people for printing up the latest edition of his book if it is not a print on demand and it is possible that there would be a cost to asking any bookstore owners to return the book for a full refund of their purchase and shipping and handling (a book's cost to the bookstore owner is usually 40-60% of the book's retail price so around $13 per book, I'm guessing), self publishers often distribute the book themselves.  I suspect when he refers to the Church offering him money, if they did so, it was to cover his costs in pulling the book from off the shelves and possibly any rental fee for the latest venue for his series of talks.  It would make sense for the Church to do so if he really had put all previous profits into the missionary fund and thus had no savings or such to use from profits to pay the costs.  Since he doesn't come out and say he can't afford to do so and he doesn't identify what those commitments are and why he can't back out of them (IiCR), I don't see him being between a rock and a hard place but rather a painful but doable choice to pull the book and stop preaching and a choice to continue as is.  

http://www.amazon.com/Passing-Heavenly-Gift-Denver-Snuffer/dp/0615528961

 

http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2013/05/the-real-costs-of-self-publishing-book/

 

There is a specific company that has been formed to record and publish his talks which apparently he takes no profit from:

 

http://www.publishinghope.info/

 

(they sell their cds at $8 for first, $5 for additional ones; FairMormon sells our conference talks at $2 per cd)

 

It is possibly he feels responsible to them for the money they've invested, but if it has been a for profit venture for them (and at that price I would be shocked if it was a nonprofit)...well, if they really cared about the purpose of the work, then taking the loss out of any previous profits would make sense, but it seems to me the bottomline is that Snuffer does not believe he is in error at all and therefore there is no reason to shut down and many reasons to continue.

 

Previous books look to be published by Mill Creek Press:

 

http://www.ldswm.com/Publishers?id=0000530/mill+creek+press

He must have know the consequences when he started this, right? It makes me very thankful that I am not going to knowingly do anything to get in trouble.

[Calm]

He must have know the consequences when he started this, right? It makes me very thankful that I am not going to knowingly do anything to get in trouble.

He's been talking to his SP for at least 18 months...he definitely could have prepared for the likelihood, told the recorders not to invest in new equipment and stop selling the stuff after they made their expenses, etc.

[smac97]

This is my first post on this (or any) board.  Having read Bro. Snuffer's blog from time to time and read one of his books, I was really shocked and saddened when I saw his posting of his invitation to a church court.  I've been following the comments here and I appreciate what has been written because I'm really trying to figure this out.  Is he truthful when he says he's been visited by the Savior?  I don't know.

==Nor do I. But in my opinion, that is a separate question from his current course of conduct.

If he did, in fact, have this heavenly manifestation how can  he be so off track now?

==I think you answer your own question (see below) quite well.

==I think those of us (and I count myself here) who have never had a "visionary" experience must necessarily reject the presumption that such events must have an overriding influence on the participants. Clearly a person can experience a miracle and yet still fall away.

I teach GD in my ward and so I have spent a ton of time studying the early church, it's founders and the scriptures.  Oliver Cowdery saw the Savior,  Moroni, Peter, James, John, Elijah, Elisha.  He saw the plates.  He saw visions. John and David Whitmer, Martin Harris, just name a few, all had magnificent manifestations.  At some point, however, they all left for the same reason. They could see faults in the church.   They thought they could run things better than Joseph. They wanted to put the train back on the 'right' track.  I wonder if Bro Snuffer had been around then would he have plenty to find fault with in Joseph?   I have no doubt that this brother will find the same success these early brethren found.

==I sadly must agree with you there. However, we can always hope that he finds his way back, and that he does not do too much harm to others while out of fellowship. I hope that his claim that he promoted "fidelity" to the Church has some sort of good faith sincerity behind it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stone holm]

I fail to see the relevance of economic or contractual obligations where and if they are involved with profiting from helping induce apostasy. On the other hand, we have members who profit from the sale of liquor and promoting gambling.

[ERayR]

The Trib is weighing in (Peggy Fletcher Stack): http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/56835902-180/church-snuffer-mormon-book.html.csp

 

 

 

Fletcher-Stack is a little sloppy with her terminology here.  I think by "liberal" she means social/political liberalism, rather than religious liberalism.  American Mormons are, as I see it, generally religiously "liberal" in their doctrinal views, but are often socially and politically "conservative."

 

 

 

I have no particular opinion about whether this event happened or not.  I believe such events can occur.  I also believe that people can lie about such events, or be deceived or deluded.  I will therefore not pronounce an opinion on the veracity of Mr. Snuffer's claim.  However, in the main, I don't think that such experiences are intended for public airing, and I therefore criticize him on that point.

 

 

 

Huh.  This sounds like sheer speculation on his part.  Innuendo.  However, his blog posts about it seem much more confident.

 

 

 

Well, yes it will.  He won't attend the temple.  He won't give talks or lessons.  He won't have a calling.  He won't have the priesthood and will therefore not be able to give blessings to his family or perform other ordinances.

 

Yes, it will change his religious behavior, and that is unfortunate.  His rebelliousness is unfortunate.

 

 

 

"Fidelity?"  No, he's not.

 

 

 

Usurpation.  I am quite willing to consider a situation where the Church, as a body, needs to repent.  However, I do not think such a call to repentance would come from the likes of Mr. Snuffer, but through the Lord's anointed.

 

Also, I reject Mr. Snuffer's central these of the Church being in a state of apostasy since 1845.  I have my own study and experience, both empirical and spiritual, which persuades me that this thesis is incorrect.

 

 

 

Usurpation.  Plain and simple.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

 

I don't know that his stake president is contending that he didn't have such an experience. 

[smac97]

I don't know that his stake president is contending that he didn't have such an experience.

Nor am I.

Thanks,

-Smac