Disciplinary Council Unless Passing The Heavenly Gate Is Withdrawn From Publication

[smac97]

Mr. Snuffer has a new blog post up: http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013/09/contentment.html

I've been reflecting on Mormonism. That joyful, confident, speculative religion given to mankind between 1820 to 1829, with all the potential vitality of a new movement. Unafraid, uncaptured by an institution, filled with the possibility of changing the world. A time before the adversary saw that inasmuch as you can buy anything in this world with money, you could also buy Mormonism with money.

So Mormonism has been sold. Thanks, Mr. Snuffer.

But remember, he claims to be promoting "fidelity" to the Church.

That's the trick. Turn the religion into a "thing." Because "things" can be bought and sold. They are merchandise. Mormonism wasn't to be a thing. It was to be intangible, a spiritual revival, otherworldly.

But those sorts of incohate notions cannot long survive without a sponsoring entity; an organized host to carry it onward. And so what was an idea at first, took second-place behind an emerging organization with a hierarchy, controls and assignments. That "thing" was subject to control, could be sued, threatened, and captured by the monetary needs of the thing itself.

When I joined Mormonism it was essentially confined to a single, triumphant "thing."

He joined the Church what, 30 or 40 years ago? What has changed in the intervening years to make it not "a single, triumphant 'thing'" to a commodity which has been devilishly sold?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owned it, brought it to me, packaged it for presentation through missionaries, and delivered it with flannel-board discussions and film strip displays. It was homely and crude. But that didn't matter. It was the substance, the doctrine, the answers it offered that captured my heart.

You can see where he's going with this. "I didn't leave the Church. The Church left me."

I've loved every minute of Mormonism. From the initial conversion to the latest constrictions, it has been a wonderful journey for which I have nothing but gratitude.

Oh, he has a lot more than that. He has all sorts of slurs and denigrations for the Church and its general and local leadership. His calumnies undermine his airs to martyrdom.

I've kept that sense of wonder, of excitement, of endless possibilities for this restored faith. As the correlated church has advanced its stranglehold on the minds of my fellow Latter-day Saints, I've grown progressively quiet in meetings and lessons, allowing my own explorations to proceed outside the bounds of the organized meetings. What I've found continues to keep me in awe. I love this faith as much today as I did when I joined.

"Stranglehold on the minds." Everyone has been blinded but him. Only he sees the truth. What melodramatic twaddle.

There's more in the post. Read it if you like. I see little value in it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Mr. Snuffer has a new blog post this morning: http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013/09/last-nights-family-home-evening-dont.html

 

To sum up: He exploited his wife and children by bringing them to his own disciplinary council to pit them against their stake president. Then he publicized this to to the world.

Yuck.

-Smac

Edited September 9, 2013 by smac97

[bluebell]

I don't really have an opinion about bringing his family to the council.

I thought it was weird that only bro Duffer teaches the lessons at family home evening. Does he believe that even in his family he is the only enlightened one?

Maybe it just came out weird though.

[smac97]

I don't really have an opinion about bringing his family to the council.

I thought it was weird that only bro Duffer teaches the lessons at family home evening. Does he believe that even in his family he is the only enlightened one?

Maybe it just came out weird though.

I cannot see any legitimate purpose in having his children attend except to vex the stake president and to pit his children against his stake president. I cannot see any good faith basis for publicizing the dispute he had with his SP about whether his children could attend. Given Mr. Snuffer's track record of publicly maligning his stake president, I do not impute an assumption of good faith or sincerity onto his motives.

-Smac

[bluebell]

I cannot see any legitimate purpose in having his children attend except to vex the stake president and to pit his children against his stake president. I cannot see any good faith basis for publicizing the dispute he had with his SP about whether his children could attend. Given Mr. Snuffer's track record of publicly maligning his stake president, I do not impute an assumption of good faith or sincerity onto his motives.

-Smac

It seems like it was his wife's idea, and since I don't know her, I have a hard time suggesting that I know better than she does about where her children needed to be.

 

I don't agree with the decision, but I simply don't have the ability to say, 'I know I'm right and she was wrong'.  That's why I don't really have an opinion on it.  I don't see that I need to have one so I'm not going to try. 

 

I'm fine if you feel you do though Smac.

[Bart Burk]

So do we think the trial was called because his local stake president decided to do it or because someone at Church Headquarters told his stake president to hold it?

Edited September 9, 2013 by Bart Burk

[Duncan]

does anyone know if he was excommunicated or not?

[Senator]

Mr. Snuffer has a new blog post this morning: http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013/09/last-nights-family-home-evening-dont.html

 

To sum up: He exploited his wife and children by bringing them to his own disciplinary council to pit them against their stake president. Then he publicized this to to the world.

Yuck.

-Smac

 

Actually, he said it was his wife that insisted that the whole family be present, after making it a matter of prayer.

 

 

[Edit]  Ooops, is see bluebell already mentioned this..

Edited September 9, 2013 by Senator

[smac97]

It seems like it was his wife's idea, and since I don't know her, I have a hard time suggesting that I know better than she does about where her children needed to be.

It's not a matter of what Mrs. Snuffer thinks about where her children need to be. It's not a matter for Mr. Snuffer, either. It's a matter for the stake president to decide. And the narrative indicates that they refused to cooperate with the stake president. The council was slated to start at 7:00 (see the SP letter Mr. Snuffer so crassly published on his blog). Mr. Snuffer's most recent post states that he argued with his Stake President for an hour in the hallway - all the while apparently in he presence of his children. They then left a little after 8:00 and went home (again, according to the most recent blog post).

So he refuses to cooperate with the stake president, but tells his kids he "sustains" the stake president. He accuses his stake president of being like "Pharaoh in Egypt." But he sustains him. He accuses his stake president of having no actual authority in the matter, that unnamed general authorities are calling the shots, and that the stake president is merely a "middleman." But he sustains him. He accuses his stake president of being motivated by a desire to "get ahead" in the Church. But he sustains him.

Talk about mixed messages...

I don't agree with the decision, but I simply don't have the ability to say, 'I know I'm right and she was wrong'.  That's why I don't really have an opinion on it.  I don't see that I need to have one so I'm not going to try.

I have no particular opinion about Mrs. Snuffer's thoughts on the matter. The issue is that the stake president convened the council, and he's the one who determines who attends.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

So do we think the trial was called because his local stake president decided to do it or because someone at Church Headquarters told his stake president to hold it?

The Trib article states that "LDS officials have said that church discipline is left to local leaders." However, Mr. Snuffer has made numerous public, and unsubstantiated, accusations to the effect that his stake president has no actual control over the disciplinary process, and that unnamed general authorities are running the process. In the Trib article, for example, he is quoted by the journalist that "I think [my stake president] has received instructions to do so from downtown [LDS Church headquarters]," and that "I believe the decision has already been made to excommunicate me."

According to Mr. Snuffer, the disciplinary council, you see, is just a farce, a facade. A formality needed to justify the decision which "has already been made." This claim is disturbing in a number of ways. It requires the stake president to be acting in bad faith (imagine if a civil court judge was accused of putting on a farce bench trial to justify a pre-determined decision to find the defendant liable, with that decision having been made by someone other than the appointed judge). But since Mr. Snuffer has ample experience in maligning his stake president, I suppose this one should come as no surprise.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

does anyone know if he was excommunicated or not?

Nope. Mr. Snuffer is being coy. His post this morning doesn't mention it. He apparently went to the stake center, argued with the stake president for an hour in front of his wife and children, then left with them.

We don't know whether the council proceeded without him, or the results if it did proceed. I assume Mr. Snuffer will make a public announcement at some point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

I cannot see any legitimate purpose in having his children attend except to vex the stake president and to pit his children against his stake president. I cannot see any good faith basis for publicizing the dispute he had with his SP about whether his children could attend. Given Mr. Snuffer's track record of publicly maligning his stake president, I do not impute an assumption of good faith or sincerity onto his motives.

-Smac

 

He explained his purpose in his blog post... Feeling that he would be excommunicated, he didn't want his children always wondering and possibly making assumptions about what went on behind closed doors.

[smac97]

Actually, he said it was his wife that insisted that the whole family be present, after making it a matter of prayer.

 

 

[Edit]  Ooops, is see bluebell already mentioned this..

The disciplinary council pertained to him, not his wife. The decision to involve his children was his (along with his wife's).

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

It's not a matter of what Mrs. Snuffer thinks about where her children need to be. It's not a matter for Mr. Snuffer, either. It's a matter for the stake president to decide. And the narrative indicates that they refused to cooperate with the stake president. The council was slated to start at 7:00 (see the SP letter Mr. Snuffer so crassly published on his blog). Mr. Snuffer's most recent post states that he argued with his Stake President for an hour in the hallway - all the while apparently in he presence of his children. They then left a little after 8:00 and went home (again, according to the most recent blog post).

So he refuses to cooperate with the stake president, but tells his kids he "sustains" the stake president. He accuses his stake president of being like "Pharaoh in Egypt." But he sustains him. He accuses his stake president of having no actual authority in the matter, that unnamed general authorities are calling the shots, and that the stake president is merely a "middleman." But he sustains him. He accuses his stake president of being motivated by a desire to "get ahead" in the Church. But he sustains him.

Talk about mixed messages...

Be that as it may, I still don't see any reason why I have to decide one way or the other on the matter of his wife feeling that the Lord wanted children to be present. Since there's no reason for me to have to judge that, i'm going to refrain from doing so.

Now, as to judging bro. snuffer's teachings concerning his book and blog, there IS a reason for me to judge those, so i'm fine being all over that.

I have no particular opinion about Mrs. Snuffer's thoughts on the matter. The issue is that the stake president convened the council, and he's the one who determines who attends.

Thanks,

-Smac

No doubt, but he, like any human leader, can be wrong. We can sustain our leaders without having to substitute their opinions for our own. Personally, I would be probably fine with telling my kids I sustained a leader while also telling them that I disagreed with their opinion on something. Especially as it came to a logistical matter.

(and I have no idea if he was wrong or not-again, not something I need to judge so I really don't care one way or the other.)

[smac97]

He explained his purpose in his blog post... Feeling that he would be excommunicated, he didn't want his children always wondering and possibly making assumptions about what went on behind closed doors.

Well, he could have participated in the process and then told them "what went on behind closed doors," thus eliminating the possibility for "assumptions." But he didn't do that. He instead created a dispute (whether his children should attend), refused to cooperate with the stake president, who is the person who decides that dispute (who attends and who does not), and then apparently used that unresolved dispute as an excuse to not attend his own disciplinary council.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

Well, he could have participated in the process and then told them "what went on behind closed doors," thus eliminating the possibility for "assumptions." But he didn't do that. He instead created a dispute (whether his children should attend), refused to cooperate with the stake president, who is the person who decides that dispute (who attends and who does not), and then apparently used that unresolved dispute as an excuse to not attend his own disciplinary council.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I don't know but I get the feeling that he was concerned that his kids might someday question why their father got excommunicated.  And having them witness what actually happened makes its more clear in their memory (though I have no idea what ages the kids are).

 

I don't really see it as that big of a deal.  I certainly don't blame the stake president.  I look at it as Snuffer (or whatever his real name is) deciding not to attend the council.  He already felt like the decision had been made and apparently didn't feel strongly about defending himself.

[smac97]

Be that as it may, I still don't see any reason why I have to decide one way or the other on the matter of his wife feeling that the Lord wanted children to be present. Since there's no reason for me to have to judge that, i'm going to refrain from doing so.

I don't think you have to decide anything about Mrs. Snuffer. I haven't.

No doubt, but he, like any human leader, can be wrong.

Well, yes. But he still presides. There is a process for contesting a stake president's decision, and Mr. Snuffer isn't following it. He is instead publicizing his disagreement with his stake president. Again. And now he's directly involved his wife and children in that dispute.

Mr. Snuffer is an attorney, so he must know how wrong this is. If he goes to court and has some disagreement with how the judge conducts a hearing, Mr. Snuffer can file an appeal. What he can't do, however, is badmouth the judge in public. He also cannot refuse to participate in a legal proceeding just because he disagrees with the judge. He also cannot badmouth the judge, refuse to participate in the proceedings before the judge, and then go out and publicly proclaim that he "sustains" the judge. That doesn't pass muster.

A church disciplinary proceeding is not perfectly comparable to a civil legal proceeding, but it has some similarities.

We can sustain our leaders without having to substitute their opinions for our own.

That's not what this is about. You cannot say you sustain a bishop or stake president or other leader if you refuse to abide by a decision he makes in that capacity, particularly where that decision is clearly within his discretion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

I don't know but I get the feeling that he was concerned that his kids might someday question why their father got excommunicated.

I'm not buying this explanation from Mr. Snuffer. If he is concerned about what his kids might someday think, they could have asked him and he could have told them as much as he felt is appropriate. Instead, he apparently used this speculative "what if" scenario involving his children as a pretext for refusing to participate in his own disciplinary council.

If he was concerned about what he will tell his children in the future about what happened at the council last night, he should have attended the council last night. He chose not to. So his explanation doesn't hold up very well.

And having them witness what actually happened makes its more clear in their memory (though I have no idea what ages the kids are).

I seriously question the value of having his children witness such a thing.

I don't really see it as that big of a deal.  I certainly don't blame the stake president.

Mr. Snuffer does.

I look at it as Snuffer (or whatever his real name is) deciding not to attend the council.  He already felt like the decision had been made and apparently didn't feel strongly about defending himself.

Then the whole song and dance about not attending because the stake president wouldn't allow his children to attend is just a fabrication, then.

Thanks,

-Smac

[WmLaw]

I'm not buying this explanation from Mr. Snuffer. If he is concerned about what his kids might someday think, they could have asked him and he could have told them as much as he felt is appropriate. Instead, he apparently used this speculative "what if" scenario involving his children as a pretext for refusing to participate in his own disciplinary council.

If he was concerned about what he will tell his children in the future about what happened at the council last night, he should have attended the council last night. He chose not to. So his explanation doesn't hold up very well.

I seriously question the value of having his children witness such a thing.

Mr. Snuffer does.

Then the whole song and dance about not attending because the stake president wouldn't allow his children to attend is just a fabrication, then.

Thanks,

-Smac

Mr. Snuffer explained his reasoning.  Why do you need to read so much more into it?

[smac97]

Mr. Snuffer explained his reasoning.  Why do you need to read so much more into it?

His explanation is facially implausible. Mr. Snuffer is setting himself up as an adversary to the Church. He has maligned the Church and its leaders again and again. He has publicized a private matter, and how now brought his wife and children into it, pitting them against his stake president.

Mr. Snuffer has put himself in the public square for discussion, so you can hardly fault someone for discussing him. And when he offers up a facially implausible explanation for what may be inappropriate behavior (publishing the SP letter previously, getting his children involved in his disciplinary council more recently), we are free to analyze the merits of that explanation. I have done so and found it wanting.

I readily admit I could be wrong in my conclusions. I'm always open to new data. But I think my overall assessment of Mr. Snuffer is, unfortunately, proving to be accurate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ERayR]

I cannot see any legitimate purpose in having his children attend except to vex the stake president and to pit his children against his stake president. I cannot see any good faith basis for publicizing the dispute he had with his SP about whether his children could attend. Given Mr. Snuffer's track record of publicly maligning his stake president, I do not impute an assumption of good faith or sincerity onto his motives.

-Smac

 

To speculate, it sounds as if Mr. Snuffer has long standing ill feelings abour or between the man that became his current stake president.

[bluebell]

I don't think you have to decide anything about Mrs. Snuffer. I haven't.

Well, yes. But he still presides. There is a process for contesting a stake president's decision, and Mr. Snuffer isn't following it. He is instead publicizing his disagreement with his stake president. Again. And now he's directly involved his wife and children in that dispute.

Mr. Snuffer is an attorney, so he must know how wrong this is. If he goes to court and has some disagreement with how the judge conducts a hearing, Mr. Snuffer can file an appeal. What he can't do, however, is badmouth the judge in public. He also cannot refuse to participate in a legal proceeding just because he disagrees with the judge. He also cannot badmouth the judge, refuse to participate in the proceedings before the judge, and then go out and publicly proclaim that he "sustains" the judge. That doesn't pass muster.

A church disciplinary proceeding is not perfectly comparable to a civil legal proceeding, but it has some similarities.

That's not what this is about. You cannot say you sustain a bishop or stake president or other leader if you refuse to abide by a decision he makes in that capacity, particularly where that decision is clearly within his discretion.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

We'll just have to agree to disagree. 

[ERayR]

Well, he could have participated in the process and then told them "what went on behind closed doors," thus eliminating the possibility for "assumptions." But he didn't do that. He instead created a dispute (whether his children should attend), refused to cooperate with the stake president, who is the person who decides that dispute (who attends and who does not), and then apparently used that unresolved dispute as an excuse to not attend his own disciplinary council.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Yup.  He is managing to tell the world the confidential details of the affair.

[smac97]

To speculate, it sounds as if Mr. Snuffer has long standing ill feelings abour or between the man that became his current stake president.

Well, Mr. Snuffer has made numerous disparaging remarks about his current stake president. That much is clear. I'm hard pressed to find an explanation for such inappropriate behavior from a supposedly observant Latter-day Saint who, somehow, claims that he "sustains" the stake president he so frequently and publicly maligns. "Ill feelings" are clearly there, but whether they are "long standing" or not is not clear to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. 

Okey doke!

Thanks,

-Smac