Denver Snuffer, Rock Waterman, And Nauvoo Era Excomunications

[Investigating]

I know some who say that the modern LDS Church is wrong to excommunicate people for their beliefs, and that Joseph Smith Jr. would only have approved of excommunicating people for sins (like adultery, stealing, etc.--and please let's not get into any questions about polygamy here.)

 

What I'd like to know is if that's true?

 

Would Joseph have been against excommunicating anyone for believing some false doctrine?

 

Is it true that during the Nauvoo era people were only excommunicated for what they did, not for what they thought?

 

The people I'm thinking of would say that the recent excommunications of Denver Snuffer, Rock Waterman, and others for holding heterodox views is a departure from the restored Gospel (as it was practised during Joseph Smith's lifetime.)

 

Do the facts support that point of view?

Edited May 8, 2015 by Investigating

[Kenngo1969]

Those folks have done just a teeeeeeensy bit more than simply "hold" unorthodox views.  There are plenty of Latter-day Saints on this very board who "hold" such views, but I would not support their excommunication. People in Joseph Smith's day also believed that he was heavy-handed in applying Church discipline.  That accusation is hardly anything new.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[JulieM]

I heard about Dennis Snuffer's excommunication, but had only heard that Rock Waterman may be disciplined. Was Rock ex'd?

[rockpond]

I know some who say that the modern LDS Church is wrong to excommunicate people for their beliefs, and that Joseph Smith Jr. would only have approved of excommunicating people for sins (like adultery, stealing, etc.--and please let's not get into any questions about polygamy here.)

 

What I'd like to know is if that's true?

 

Would Joseph have been against excommunicating anyone for believing some false doctrine?

 

Is it true that during the Nauvoo era people were only excommunicated for what they did, not for what they thought?

 

The people I'm thinking of would say that the recent excommunications of Denver Snuffer, Rock Waterman, and others for holding heterodox views is a departure from the restored Gospel (as it was practised during Joseph Smith's lifetime.)

 

Do the facts support that point of view?

 

I don't think that Rock Waterman has been excommunicated.

 

As Kenngo said, Denver did more than hold unorthodox views.  Same with John Dehlin.  And Kate Kelly.

 

I see two things happening right now...

 

1)  The church struggling to figure out where to draw the line in this age of social media between holding unorthodox views and preaching those views (e.g.  Carson & Marisa Calderwood; Lindsey & Kirk Van Allen).

 

2)  The church wrestling with how to respond to some of the ideas that are being brought up by these individuals.  (e.g. Rock Waterman teaching from LDS scripture & teachings, or, finding a scriptural basis for why women can't have the priesthood in response to OW)  The essays are a start but don't seem to be keeping up.

Edited May 8, 2015 by rockpond

[rodheadlee]

I know some who say that the modern LDS Church is wrong to excommunicate people for their beliefs, and that Joseph Smith Jr. would only have approved of excommunicating people for sins (like adultery, stealing, etc.--and please let's not get into any questions about polygamy here.)

 

What I'd like to know is if that's true?

 

Would Joseph have been against excommunicating anyone for believing some false doctrine?

 

Is it true that during the Nauvoo era people were only excommunicated for what they did, not for what they thought?

 

The people I'm thinking of would say that the recent excommunications of Denver Snuffer, Rock Waterman, and others for holding heterodox views is a departure from the restored Gospel (as it was practised during Joseph Smith's lifetime.)

 

Do the facts support that point of view?

Have you stopped beating your wife?

[Investigating]

 

The church struggling to figure out where to draw the line in this age of social media between holding unorthodox views and preaching those views

 

The people I'm thinking of have the highest regard for Denver Snuffer, and I think they would say that it's wrong for the Church to excommunicate anyone for holding or preaching heterodox views.

 

In fact, I think they believe the leadership of the LDS church lost their priesthood keys when they excommunicated Denver Snuffer.

 

They keep quoting this passage.

 

No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by longsuffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven. (D&C 121:41-45.)

 

 

People in Joseph Smith's day also believed that he was heavy-handed in applying Church discipline.

 

So is there any evidence that he himself would have approved of excommunicating people simply for teaching heterodox views?

 

I've seen people speak of the ten commandments as "requests," who seem to deny that any scripture or prophet has any authority unless they themselves have received some personal witness, and who portray Joseph himself as claiming and exercising very little authority (except perhaps to encourage all of the early latter day saints to become prophets.)

 

To hear them tell it the LDS Church was suppose to be a society of equals, and any hierarchy of authority is evidence of some kind of a fall.

 

So does anyone know anything about the way church discipline was viewed and exercised while Joseph was alive?

 

And did he himself ever approve of disciplining anyone for "speaking their mind" (or would that have been inconceivable)?

 

 

I don't think that Rock Waterman has been excommunicated

 

You may be right, and he may not really be part of the group I'm thinking of.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Investigating

[The Nehor]

Joseph Smith was quick to discipline those who preached against him. He was slower to discipline those with odd views who did not espouse them or seek to convince others to join them.

 

Just like today! Go figure.

[Investigating]

Joseph Smith was quick to discipline those who preached against him. He was slower to discipline those with odd views who did not espouse them or seek to convince others to join them.

 

Just like today! Go figure.

 

What do you mean by "against him"?

 

Would someone have had to have publicly denounced him as a prophet before any disciplinary action was taken?

 

If that's true that would seem to support some of what these people are saying (because I don't think Denver Snuffer ever spoke against the LDS leadership, or said anyone had lost any priesthood keys, until after he was exed.)

Edited May 8, 2015 by Investigating

[The Nehor]

What do you mean by "against him"?

 

Would someone have had to have publicly denounced him as a prophet before any disciplinary action was taken?

 

If that's true that would seem to support some of what these people are saying (because I don't think Denver Snuffer ever spoke against the LDS leadership, or said anyone had lost any priesthood keys, until after he was exed.)

 

No, they did not have to publicly denounce him though, of course, many did.

[Bobbieaware]

The people I'm thinking of have the highest regard for Denver Snuffer, and I think they would say that it's wrong for the Church to excommunicate anyone for holding or preaching heterodox views.

 

In fact, I think they believe the leadership of the LDS church lost their priesthood keys when they excommunicated Denver Snuffer.

 

They keep quoting this passage.

 

No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by longsuffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven. (D&C 121:41-45.)

 

 

So is there any evidence that he himself would have approved of excommunicating people simply for teaching heterodox views?

 

I've seen people speak of the ten commandments as "requests," who seem to deny that any scripture or prophet has any authority unless they themselves have received some personal witness, and who portray Joseph himself as claiming and exercising very little authority (except perhaps to encourage all of the early latter day saints to become prophets.)

 

To hear them tell it the LDS Church was suppose to be a society of equals, and any hierarchy of authority is evidence of some kind of a fall.

 

So does anyone know anything about the way church discipline was viewed and exercised while Joseph was alive?

 

And did he himself ever approve of disciplining anyone for "speaking their mind" (or would that have been inconceivable)?

If the leaders of the LDS Church lost the priesthood keys when Snuffer was excommunicated, then none of the prophecies of scripture concerning the ultimate victory of the Restored Church will ever come to pass. I wonder if the Lord has a "plan b" waiting in the wings. This Snuffer must be one very important fellow.

[Investigating]

If the leaders of the LDS Church lost the priesthood keys when Snuffer was excommunicated, then none of the prophecies of scripture concerning the ultimate victory of the Restored Church will ever come to pass. I wonder if the Lord has a "plan b" waiting in the wings. This Snuffer must be one very important fellow.

 

Actually, I think they kinda think of themselves as the restored Church.

[Investigating]

No, they did not have to publicly denounce him though, of course, many did.

 Thank you.

 

If Joseph ever approved of excommunicating anyone who didn't come out and attack him, or the Book of Mormon, and who wasn't stealing or committing adultery--I mean someone who was just teaching things they weren't authorised to teach (like Snuffer?), it would have a direct bearing on what these people are saying, and I would be much better able to answer them.

 

Can you give me some details?

Edited May 8, 2015 by Investigating

[strappinglad]

With reference to Eph 4:14 , there sure is a lot of tossing to and fro going on.

Edited May 8, 2015 by strappinglad

[Duncan]

I know some who say that the modern LDS Church is wrong to excommunicate people for their beliefs, and that Joseph Smith Jr. would only have approved of excommunicating people for sins (like adultery, stealing, etc.--and please let's not get into any questions about polygamy here.)

 

What I'd like to know is if that's true?

 

Would Joseph have been against excommunicating anyone for believing some false doctrine?

 

Is it true that during the Nauvoo era people were only excommunicated for what they did, not for what they thought?

 

The people I'm thinking of would say that the recent excommunications of Denver Snuffer, Rock Waterman, and others for holding heterodox views is a departure from the restored Gospel (as it was practised during Joseph Smith's lifetime.)

 

Do the facts support that point of view?

 

 

there were lots of excommunications in the early days, Orson Pratt and others of the Twelve

[strappinglad]

It is possible that Orson Pratt was exed for his facial hair alone. He was scaring the children.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=orson+pratt&rlz=1T4ACGW_en___CA437&tbm=isch&imgil=DAl7L6RM9wMlaM%253A%253BaqKdqQgVIZHfjM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Ftemployeternidad.blogspot.com%25252F2011%25252F08%25252Forson-pratt-sobre-el-ser-reyes-y.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=DAl7L6RM9wMlaM%253A%252CaqKdqQgVIZHfjM%252C_&usg=__rqOeQnEIRQmWRhvLGUi0p8deIQY%3D&biw=1244&bih=553&ved=0CIUBEMo3&ei=N0FMVablCfCwsATL1YCQCg#imgrc=DAl7L6RM9wMlaM%253A%3BaqKdqQgVIZHfjM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252F2.bp.blogspot.com%252F-Y6cir5M5aAM%252FTkQbLeyP4pI%252FAAAAAAAAAfA%252F8Dsf2gun0Vc%252Fs1600%252Forson%252Bpratt.png%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Ftemployeternidad.blogspot.com%252F2011%252F08%252Forson-pratt-sobre-el-ser-reyes-y.html%3B561%3B649

Edited May 8, 2015 by strappinglad

[Bobbieaware]

Actually, I think they kinda think of themselves as the restored Church.

Maybe Snuffer can succeed where James J Strang failed? He and his followers could set up the new kingdom on Beaver Island, Michigan and call themselves the Snufferites rather than the Strangites. Like they say, "with a name like Snuffer, it has to be good!"

[Investigating]

O'k.

 

Just to clarify the kind of teaching I've seen (that I've seen highly praised by the way), the basic idea is that doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is the one and only celestial law that even God has to obey.

 

And this law (it is said) implies that all requests should be granted (i.e. you want your requests granted, so you should grant all requests made of you.)

 

And paternalism and coercion (from this point of view) are of the devil.

 

If your child wants to put his hand on a hot stove, you let him (because you wouldn't want someone imposing their will on you, and the child will learn from his mistake.)

 

And didn't Jesus grant even the requests that demons made of Him, when they asked Him to cast them into the heard of swine?

 

Why (it is asked) would He do that unless the golden rule requires all requests (even the requests of demons) be granted?

 

The only exception this teaching recognizes is when conflicting requests are made, and then you get to decide whose requests you will heed.

 

(Why the swine didn't get a vote when the demons wanted to enter them I don't know, but maybe they had already submitted their wills to the demons in some way, or maybe they got to exercise their wills when they rushed off the cliff and drowned in the sea.)

 

God, btw, is viewed as an equal you're to love as yourself, and the ten commandments are some of the requests He makes, and though He may allow the wicked to punish the wicked, He doesn't really use coercion, or impose His will on others, and no one should be exed, or disciplined for what they believe (or, if I understand them correctly, even what they teach.)

 

These same people accept Joseph as a prophet, and I'd like to know whether what he said and did as president of the Church, mayor of Nauvoo, and the commander of the Nauvoo legion supports this teaching?

 

Or could they actually be right?

Edited May 8, 2015 by Investigating

[Investigating]

This is a sample of the kind of teaching I'm talking about.

 

 

Paternalism was the original error.

And if you have eyes to see it, paternalism may be found in surprising places. Like this, which I just read recently.

Learn to Be More Wise than We Have Been

Mosiah 4:14

And ye will not suffer your children that they go hungry, or naked; neither will ye suffer that they transgress the laws of God, and fight and quarrel one with another, and serve the devil, who is the master of sin, or who is the evil spirit which hath been spoken of by our fathers, he being an enemy to all righteousness.

“Neither will ye suffer that they transgress the laws of God.” In modern English, “You won’t allow your children to transgress the laws of God.”

That completely contradicts the point of my recent essay on Hedging the Law, and I was rather startled until it occurred to me: “what was the result?” After all, paternalism predictably generates rebellion and disunity.

That’s there, too.

Mosiah 26:1–4

1 Now it came to pass that there were many of the rising generation that could not understand the words of king Benjamin, being little children at the time he spake unto his people; and they did not believe the tradition of their fathers.

2 They did not believe what had been said concerning the resurrection of the dead, neither did they believe concerning the coming of Christ.

3 And now because of their unbelief they could not understand the word of God; and their hearts were hardened.

4 And they would not be baptized; neither would they join the church. And they were a separate people as to their faith, and remained so ever after, even in their carnal and sinful state; for they would not call upon the Lord their God.

 

Because their parents followed the instructions of King Benjamin, and sought to circumscribe their choices or even compel or coerce obedience to God’s commandments, many of the children rebelled and would not believe. I’ve been there, myself, for that very reason.

King Benjamin meant well, and it speaks volumes for his integrity and righteousness that he not only tolerated, but cooperated with the prophets in establishing peace in the land (

Words of Mormon 1:16–18

); indeed, his integrity and righteousness were why he was sent an angel, which marks the priesthood he was a member of (

D&C 107:20

). So often the prophets have been persecuted and rejected by those in authority as challenging said authority.

But from the vantage of the golden rule – for “this is the law

and the prophets

” – we see the hidden lesson: paternalism doesn’t work, even while it drives for results.

Hence, this.

Mormon 9:31

31 Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.

[Coreyb]

How self centered you must have to be to declare that the LDS hierarchy finally lost it's priesthood when they excommunicated you! Of all the abuse, unrighteous dominion and D&C 121 breaking activities that have gone on (of which Denver is fully aware), they lose it for exing Denver. How convenient for him! And people actually believe him! It boggles the mind!

[Boanerges]

This has already been stated but apparently you're not hearing (so to speak). No one is excommunicated for what they believe or think. Kelly, Dehlin and Snuffer did more than believe - they taught and advocated beliefs. Referring to LGBT issues, Elder Christofferson said in January: “We have individual members in the church with a variety of different opinions, beliefs and positions on these issues and other issues,  … In our view, it doesn’t really become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders — if that’s a deliberate and persistent effort and trying to get others to follow them, trying to draw others away, trying to pull people, if you will, out of the church or away from its teachings and doctrines.” Snuffer very clearly does this, Kelly and Dehlin to a lesser extent but they still have done it. IMO Waterman does it as well, I'm not sure why he hasn't been disciplined (leadership roulette?).

 

At any rate, you seem to be trying to equate beliefs with actions. We're free to believe whatever we want - acting on and/or teaching those beliefs persistently is where the trouble comes in. I don't have time at the moment to do an in depth study of Kirtland and Navuoo era excommunications, but it is my understanding that those who openly disagreed with Joseph were excommunicated - Oliver Cowdery  and the Whitmers being prime examples.

[Derl Sanderson]

It's not like we have no information on Snuffer:

 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/passing-up-the-heavenly-gift-part-one-of-two/

 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/passing-up-the-heavenly-gift-part-two-of-two/#more-4183

[Darren10]

O'k.

 

Just to clarify the kind of teaching I've seen (that I've seen highly praised by the way), the basic idea is that doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is the one and only celestial law that even God has to obey.

 

And this law (it is said) implies that all requests should be granted (i.e. you want your requests granted, so you should grant all requests made of you.)

 

And paternalism and coercion (from this point of view) are of the devil.

 

If your child wants to put his hand on a hot stove, you let him (because you wouldn't want someone imposing their will on you, and the child will learn from his mistake.)

 

And didn't Jesus grant even the requests that demons made of Him, when they asked Him to cast them into the heard of swine?

 

Why (it is asked) would He do that unless the golden rule requires all requests (even the requests of demons) be granted?

 

The only exception this teaching recognizes is when conflicting requests are made, and then you get to decide whose requests you will heed.

 

(Why the swine didn't get a vote when the demons wanted to enter them I don't know, but maybe they had already submitted their wills to the demons in some way, or maybe they got to exercise their wills when they rushed off the cliff and drowned in the sea.)

 

God, btw, is viewed as an equal you're to love as yourself, and the ten commandments are some of the requests He makes, and though He may allow the wicked to punish the wicked, He doesn't really use coercion, or impose His will on others, and no one should be exed, or disciplined for what they believe (or, if I understand them correctly, even what they teach.)

 

These same people accept Joseph as a prophet, and I'd like to know whether what he said and did as president of the Church, mayor of Nauvoo, and the commander of the Nauvoo legion supports this teaching?

 

Or could they actually be right?

I Don't think this is an excommunicatiable but it does lack substance.

First, paternalism is not bad nor inherently evil, even for adults. It is evil when it is used, as per its own definition, to restrict free will. Giving consequences for bad behavior is not the same as restricting free will. If someone breaks the law and he or she is sent to jail, free will is not hindered. If an 18 year old child swears in his parents' home and he or she has his or her phone taken away, that does not take free will. Being over burdening can hinder, impede, take away free will. Punching said 18 year old for swearing I'd say stands contrary to free will. Bloddying one's back with a whip for stealing I'd say stands against free will. But, as you can see, my initial consequences are not tortuous, over burdening, or cruel. They stand as a known consequence for certain behaviors. No free will is taken and therefore paternalism is not evil in this sense. But paternalism is usually used in situations where free will is taken and thus is evil under such circumstances.

As for God has to obey the law of the Golden Rule, while discussing this is purely speculative, I'd say, no He does not have to obey this law or any other law. God has a physical body either already existing "from the beginning" (the Father) or a resurrected body (the Son) and is exalted. And God is full of charity. The laws has no body and is not exalted, nor is it capable of charity or to even think for itself. No free will for the law. How does an exalted being "have to" obey anything not exalted?

As for the swine, the way I see it, of all God's infinite creation, only one has free will. That is man. Of all of God's infinite creations, only man and woman were created in God's image. The two are intricately connected. Man, being children of God the Father, are gods themselves and the way I see it only gods can say no to God or submit to God's will and receive blessings and potential without end. King Benjamin noted that those who rebel against God by not obeying His will are lower than the dust of the earth. Dust will always obey God's command. If God wants dust to move, it'll move. If God wants dust to settle, it'll settle. If God wants dust to irritate somebody's eyes, it'll irritate somebody's eyes. It'll do anything God wants it to without question but it'll do so only because it cannot decide for itself to obey or not. So, while dust exerts perfect obedience, it cannot be blessed for doing so for it does not choose to do so. Without free will exaltation is impossible. Therefore, when one becomes "lower" than an entity without the possibility for exaltation, then exaltation for that person is also impossible and therefore will "be destroyed". Taking away free will is precisely what Satan wanted to do to us all from the beginning and he will do so by our own choice. On the flip side, when we use our choice to follow God, that leads to eternal blessings.

All this applies to pigs or any other animal. Like dust, animals do not have a choice to obey God or not. If god wills an animal to do something specific, that animal will do it, period. Pigs were seen as filthy creatures in Jesus' time and culture. The way I read the story, demons could not stay in a human body Jesus was cleansing but are allowed to inhabit filthy or dirty bodies to that body's destruction (a type of losing one's exaltation).

[Darren10]

It's not like we have no information on Snuffer:

 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/passing-up-the-heavenly-gift-part-one-of-two/

 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/passing-up-the-heavenly-gift-part-two-of-two/#more-4183

Snuffer's a bit deceptive, no?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Joseph Smith was quick to discipline those who preached against him. He was slower to discipline those with odd views who did not espouse them or seek to convince others to join them.

 

Just like today! Go figure.

 

So one might say it is a greater sin to challenge authority within the church than it is to do just about anything else. JS certainly exed many leaders who challenged him. After they apologized he would allow them to come back. There was definitely a power component in early church discipline like there is sometimes in current discipline.

[Avatar4321]

Who is this rock weatherman guy?

The Spirit still testifies that the first presidency and twelve hold the keys. Sniffer still preaches incorrect doctrine. He needs to repent.