Disciplinary Council Unless Passing The Heavenly Gate Is Withdrawn From Publication

[rpn]

I do not recall whether the letter mentioned the impact on his family (his most recent post has a reference in quotes).   But if it did, then his family members could very well have been legitimate witnesses.  Members are allowed to have witnesses at disciplinary councils.  

 

Without knowing the age of the children it is hard to know whether they had a real interest in being present.   If the council did have the spirit of the Lord present, it might be in a significant position to affect any teen children who otherwise might have had hard feelings about the event, for instance.)    I am wondering how we strangers can decide that the mother's inspiration about taking them there was wrong?  (If it had been me, it would have taken being hit over the head with an anvil with direct instructions to take the children, but I do get why kids would want to actually see it upfront because of the gossip that no doubts surrounds them in their communities (yes I get, at least partly brought on by his father's disclosures of that which would otherwise have remained less public).

[smac97]

I do not recall whether the letter mentioned the impact on his family (his most recent post has a reference in quotes).   But if it did, then his family members could very well have been legitimate witnesses.

Witnesses about whether his book, which is apparently the sole point at issue, constitutes "apostasy?" What relevant evidence could they provide about their father's book?

 

Members are allowed to have witnesses at disciplinary councils.

If they have relevant testimony or evidence to offer, yes. Otherwise, no.

In any event, the stake president gets to make that call, but Mr. Snuffer refused to abide by the stake president's decision.

If the SP was wrong to exclude the children as witnesses, then there is an appeal process Mr. Snuffer can use to pursue that point. But he didn't. Instead, he refused to participate in the process at all.

 

Without knowing the age of the children it is hard to know whether they had a real interest in being present.   If the council did have the spirit of the Lord present, it might be in a significant position to affect any teen children who otherwise might have had hard feelings about the event, for instance.)    I am wondering how we strangers can decide that the mother's inspiration about taking them there was wrong?

Nobody has made any such decision about Mrs. Snuffer.

However, I am also wondering how we as Latter-day Saints can conclude that a stake president must cede the authority of his office to the wife of a person under disciplinary review? Since when do interested non-parties to a disciplinary action get to override how a stake president conducts the action?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 9, 2013 by smac97

[daz2]

 I am also wondering how we as Latter-day Saints can conclude that a stake president must cede the authority of his office to the wife of a person under disciplinary review? Since when do interested non-parties to a disciplinary action get to override how a stake president conducts the action?

 

 

By and large stake presidents are given free reign.  Although I have heard of a very few instances where appeals have been successful.  But not very many.

[smac97]

By and large stake presidents are given free reign.  Although I have heard of a very few instances where appeals have been successful.  But not very many.

I think this is generally attributable to stake presidents being cautious and prudent in disciplinary proceedings, rather than laxity in oversight by the higher ups in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[escott3564]

So....is it more than likely that he WAS excommunicated?  I suppose that until he gets the official letter, we won't know.  I just wondered what thoughts were on it here.  Since he did not stay to participate, I would say that chances are not good.

[smac97]

So....is it more than likely that he WAS excommunicated?  I suppose that until he gets the official letter, we won't know.  I just wondered what thoughts were on it here.  Since he did not stay to participate, I would say that chances are not good.

Here's a Trib article that was published at 5:30: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/56848308-180/church-snuffer-hearing-hunt.html.csp

The short answer: The Church isn't saying and Mr. Snuffer doesn't know (yet).

-Smac

[iamse7en]

And the drama continues...

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013/09/dont-know.html

I know a decision was made. They must deliver a letter. I have not yet received it.

During our hour long discussion, the stake president admitted to my children he got a call during one of his meetings with me from one of the Seven Presidents of the Seventy. He was instructed to "stand down" while the Seventy and one of the Twelve read Passing the Heavenly Gift. Then he (the stake president) did nothing further until he was told to proceed. I asserted that if he believed I was really "apostate" he would never have stood down. For that reason it was him merely following commands from higher up, and not a local matter.

Before last night's meeting I told the stake president I was bringing my children. He knew that and said nothing beforehand to suggest they would be excluded. We were very surprised he refused to allow them to enter. I was excluded from the High Council room unless the children stayed behind. I asked to be allowed to just make a statement to the council while my children listened, he refused to permit that.

My wife reviewed the Church Handbook of Instructions. She explained to President Hunt that the book is silent, and does not bar children from attending. He admitted that was true but it was his decision to forbid them. My wife said it was my court and I ought to be allowed to have them with me. He replied it wasn't my court, but the church's.

Roy: Yes I lived down the street and remember you and your brothers. But you didn't leave an email address.

Boise tomorrow, 6:30.

Based on Internet rumors, I have read it was Christofferson and Rasband.

Edited September 10, 2013 by iamse7en

[smac97]

And the drama continues...

http://denversnuffer.blogspot.com/2013/09/dont-know.html

Based on Internet rumors, I have read it was Christofferson and Rasband.

Wow. The hostility toward his stake president is really ... unseemly.

-Smac

[Vance]

Something sounds fishy.   "During our hour long discussion, the stake president admitted to my children he got a call during one of his meetings with me from one of the Seven Presidents of the Seventy."

 

The stake president was meeting with him, but admitted to the children (who weren't allowed in the meeting)?????????????

 

I think he just fabricated something there.

[WmLaw]

Something sounds fishy.   "During our hour long discussion, the stake president admitted to my children he got a call during one of his meetings with me from one of the Seven Presidents of the Seventy."

 

The stake president was meeting with him, but admitted to the children (who weren't allowed in the meeting)?????????????

 

I think he just fabricated something there.

IIRC, the meeting was in the hallway, outside of the room where the court would be held - and the children were there at the time.

[Calm]

From his blog:

 

We talked for an hour in the hallway 

 

[WmLaw]

Wow. The hostility toward his stake president is really ... unseemly.

-Smac

Which part of that blog entry do you deem as hostile?

[daz2]

The hostility towards Denver by some here is also unseemly.   

[Vance]

IIRC, the meeting was in the hallway, outside of the room where the court would be held - and the children were there at the time.

Well, then, WHY didn't he say so?

[Buzzard]

The hostility towards Denver by some here is also unseemly.   

At every turn he plays the oppressed, a victim of the church he says he wants to belong to. He has all the hallmarks of an apostate. I see little to recommend anything other than a mix of pity and disdain. Men like him have the ability to do real harm to the testimony of others, and must be dealt with.  

[sethpayne]

Which part of that blog entry do you deem as hostile?

 

I'd like to know what smac finds hostile as well.  

 

What I find troubling, if true, is that Church HQ had anything to do with this.  Aren't these things supposed to be purely local matters?  I thought GA involvement in excommunications was a big no-no.  

 

Have the guidelines changed?

[MormonMason]

I'd like to know what smac finds hostile as well.  

 

What I find troubling, if true, is that Church HQ had anything to do with this.  Aren't these things supposed to be purely local matters?  I thought GA involvement in excommunications was a big no-no.  

 

Have the guidelines changed?

They are purely local matters unless General Authorities felt that the Stake President wasn't fully doing his duty to protect the Church adequately.  Then, it becomes a general Church matter.

[smac97]

Which part of that blog entry do you deem as hostile?

First, the fact that Mr. Snuffer is publishing such communications at all is untoward.

Second, Mr. Snuffer has publicly denigrated his stake president many times and in many ways.

Third, he said this: "During our hour long discussion, the stake president admitted to my children he got a call during one of his meetings with me from one of the Seven Presidents of the Seventy. He was instructed to 'stand down' while the Seventy and one of the Twelve read Passing the Heavenly Gift. Then he (the stake president) did nothing further until he was told to proceed. I asserted that if he believed I was really 'apostate' he would never have stood down. For that reason it was him merely following commands from higher up, and not a local matter."

This sounds like he got in his SP's face. During an argument. In a hallway. In front of Mr. Snuffer's wife and children. His comments to his stake president, in addition to being adversarial and defiant, are absurd on their face. If a stake president gets a call from a general authority telling him to "stand down," then the stake president will probably, you know, actually follow that instruction. Mr. Snuffer faulted his stake president for not defying his higher priesthood authority, which is a failing only Mr. Snuffer is currently generating.

He also said this: "Before last night's meeting I told the stake president I was bringing my children. He knew that and said nothing beforehand to suggest they would be excluded. We were very surprised he refused to allow them to enter."

Uh ... no, I'm not buying this. The SP didn't respond, for whatever reason. And what, exactly, was the communication? Was it a request to have his children attend? A demand?

In any event, having children - particularly minor children - attend the disciplinary hearing of their father is very unusual. I've never heard of such a thing. So it's hard to believe that Mr. Snuffer was "very surprised."

He also said this: "I was excluded from the High Council room unless the children stayed behind. I asked to be allowed to just make a statement to the council while my children listened, he refused to permit that."

Mr. Snuffer is just playing to an audience here, and he trying to make his stake president look bad in the eyes of that audience. That's unseemly.

He also said this: "My wife reviewed the Church Handbook of Instructions. She explained to President Hunt that the book is silent, and does not bar children from attending. He admitted that was true but it was his decision to forbid them. My wife said it was my court and I ought to be allowed to have them with me. He replied it wasn't my court, but the church's."

Again, he's playing to an audience here. He's trying to make his stake president look bad. He pitted his wife and children against his stake president. That's unseemly.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ERayR]

I'd like to know what smac finds hostile as well.  

 

What I find troubling, if true, is that Church HQ had anything to do with this.  Aren't these things supposed to be purely local matters?  I thought GA involvement in excommunications was a big no-no.  

 

Have the guidelines changed?

 

It seemed to me they ask the Stake President to hold off while they did a review of the charges then gave the SP the go ahead to hold his disciplinary council.  More like they were making sure the SP was on solid ground.

[smac97]

I'd like to know what smac finds hostile as well.  

 

What I find troubling, if true, is that Church HQ had anything to do with this.

Why? The general policy of the church is to leave disciplinary proceedings in the hands of local leaders. This seems to be what happens most of the time.

However, I am not aware of any doctrine which prohibits general authorities from becoming involved in disciplinary proceedings. See, for example the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on disciplinary procedures (http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Disciplinary_Procedures):

 

To aid the spiritual development of its members, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has developed a system of counseling, rehabilitation, and, where needed, disciplinary action.

Members are accountable to the Lord for the way they conduct their lives, and personal worthiness is requisite for enjoying the full blessings of Church membership. The judge of such worthiness is in most cases the bishop of the ward, who is appointed "to be a judge in Israel" (D&C 107:72) and is "to judge his people by the testimony of the just, and by the assistance of his counselors, according to the laws of the kingdom which are given by the prophets of God" (D&C 58:18). General Authorities and stake, mission, district, and branch presidents may, in some circumstances, also exercise judicial responsibilities. The term "bishop" in this article usually refers to any Church officer acting in such a judicial role.

Aren't these things supposed to be purely local matters?  I thought GA involvement in excommunications was a big no-no.

I'm not sure GA involvement is a "no no." The general policy of the church usually leaves discipline to the local leadership. That is as it should be, I think. But the policy does not appear to be sacrosanct.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

It seemed to me they ask the Stake President to hold off while they did a review of the charges then gave the SP the go ahead to hold his disciplinary council.  More like they were making sure the SP was on solid ground.

That was my surmise as well.

Also, Mr. Snuffer has previously accused the general authorities of having previously decided to excommunicate him. What he claims played out, however, was a few general authorities reading telling the SP to "stand down" while they reviewed the book or parts of it. And they communicated this to the SP while the disciplinary council was already under way. That does not sound like GAs had had a predetermined conclusion. So is Mr. Snuffer going to walk back his various accusations on this point? I doubt it. It doesn't fit the narrative he's trying to create.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Sleeper Cell]

That was my surmise as well.

Also, Mr. Snuffer has previously accused the general authorities of having previously decided to excommunicate him. What he claims played out, however, was a few general authorities reading telling the SP to "stand down" while they reviewed the book or parts of it. And they communicated this to the SP while the disciplinary council was already under way. That does not sound like GAs had had a predetermined conclusion. So is Mr. Snuffer going to walk back his various accusations on this point? I doubt it. It doesn't fit the narrative he's trying to create.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

If anything, it is evidence that the GAs were considering whether to intervene on behalf of Mr. Snuffer. As you point out, his version hardly fits the narrative that the GAs were out to get him.

[smac97]

If anything, it is evidence that the GAs were considering whether to intervene on behalf of Mr. Snuffer. As you point out, his version hardly fits the narrative that the GAs were out to get him.

Ha! I hadn't thought of it that way, but I think you are right.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

If a stake president gets a call from a general authority telling him to "stand down," then the stake president will probably, you know, actually follow that instruction.

 

Perhaps it is because I don't have the priesthood, have never been a bishop or something else, but when I've read Brother Snuffer's comments in regards to apostasy in the Church, I felt they were more of an attack on credibility and morality of the General Authorities than the local ones.  (His attacks on his stake president seem much more personal than due to his interpretation about doctrine and history.)  Perhaps his stake president felt the same way and felt that given they were the ones who were Brother Snuffer's primary target, they should be able to have more input into deciding if he had gone too far than they would have if the SP had insisted that he had enough information to go ahead with the proceedings.

[rpn]

 

General Authorities and stake, mission, district, and branch presidents may, in some circumstances, also exercise judicial responsibilities. The term "bishop" in this article usually refers to any Church officer acting in such a judicial role.

Quote

Aren't these things supposed to be purely local matters?  I thought GA involvement in excommunications was a big no-no.

I'm not sure GA involvement is a "no no." The general policy of the church usually leaves discipline to the local leadership. That is as it should be, I think. But the policy does not appear to be sacrosanct.

It has to do with priesthood keys.   GA's have general church administrative keys, but they don't have individual stewardship ones.   When the Ency of Mormonism refers to GAs and MP as sometimes having judicial authority, it means that in specific cases they may step into the roles given to bishops/SP and thus have such authority.  There is an explanation of this in either the biography of David O McKay or Spencer W. Kimball when the issue came up earlier in the church, and the President told the GA's to back off.  Unfortunately, I do not recall now which of the books, nor the exact citation.

 

Now this is not to say that a Stake President might not ask a GA --- particular one with legal skills like Christopherson or even perhaps some personal knowledge to look at something and give an opinion.   Yes, SP absolutely can do that.